The Timaeus of Plato

WI

31

8

I

ΠΠΠ]

02

in 2007 with funding
Microsoft Corpot

TT

γε
ΤΕ

RT
ee

Ae
ἘΔ

π
ΜῚ

ϑΞΕν ΕἸθωυ τα aia θαι δοονει α
ΗΝ iced ee
pS SS at ae a

ι

r *

/details/timaeusofplato00platiala. ἢ)

bs τῶν

TMAATQNO2 TIMAIOS&

275? 2C
MAATQNOS TIMAIOS

THE TIMAEUS OF PLAEO

EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

R. D. ARCHER-HIND, M.A.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

London
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK
1888

[Zhe Right of Translation ts reserved |

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE.

HE 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 Timée de Platon,’
is far and away the ablest and completest edition of the 7zmaeus
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. Béckh’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 Zimaeus 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,
θείᾳ τινὶ μοίρᾳ, only perhaps one third, a fragment of some
850 octavo pages, is extant, breaking off at 44D. 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 77maeus, 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 Z7zmaeus 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 7zmaeus 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 Fanuary, 1888.

“ERRATUM.

P. 204, 1st col. of notes, line 21, cancel as erroneous the words ‘ And if...as the first.’

—_

INTRODUCTION.

§ x. Or all the more important Platonic writings probably
none has less engaged the attention of modern scholars than
the Zimaeus. Nor is the reason of this comparative neglect far
to seek. The exceeding abstruseness of its metaphysical content,
rendered yet more recondite by the constantly allegorical mode
of exposition; the abundance of ὦ friori speculation in a domain
which experimental science has now claimed for its own; the vast

Vindica-
tion of the
import-
ance
attached
to the
Timaeus
by ancient
anthori-
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 sora-
cular fragments of mystical metaphysic and the crude imaginings
of scarcely yet infant science.

But this was not the position assigned to the Zimaeus 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 Zimaeus, 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 Zimaeus, despite the incongruous and almost

P. T. I

Pre-
latonic
sis of

Platonism:

Heraklei-
tos, Par-
menides,
Anax-
agoras.

2 INTRODUCTION.

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 Zimaeus, 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 Zimaeus, and the Zimaeus
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 Zimaeus; there is no single dialogue
of which that could be said. The Zimaeus 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 Zémaeus 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 ἢ

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
their way to the conception of Becoming. They did not know
this, because they knew not that matter, with which alone they
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 zs air for a time; then it is

1 Of course the antithesis of matter and spirit had not yet presented itself to
Greek thought. é

IZ

The
Tonians
and Hera-
kleitos.

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 ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω 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 ὃν and μὴ 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 7s, 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
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
acquisition of knowledge? Surely of all men most hopeless. Let
us set aside for the present the question of the relation between
subject and object as elaborated in the Zheaetetus, and confine
ourselves simply to the following considerations. The object of
knowledge must exist: of that which is not there can be no
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: εἰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἡ γνῶσις, τοῦ γνῶσις εἶναι μὴ pe-
ταπίπτει, μένοι τε ἂν ἀεὶ ἡ γνῶσις καὶ εἴη γνῶσις" εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ
εἶδος μεταπίπτει τῆς γνώσεως, ἅμα τ᾽ ἂν μεταπίπτοι εἰς ἄλλο εἶδος
γνώσεως καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη γνῶσις" εἰ δὲ ἀεὶ μεταπίπτει, ἀεὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη

Result of
Heraklei-
teanism.

Impossi-
bility of
knowledge
the neces-
sary infer-
ence from
Heraklei-
tean teach-
ing.

Parmeni-
des,

6. INTRODUCTION.

γνῶσις" καὶ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ λόγου οὔτε τὸ γνωσόμενον οὔτε τὸ γνωσθησό-
μενον ἂν εἴη. Cratylus 440A.

Thus the teaching of Herakleitos tends to one inevitable end—
none can know, for nothing can be known.

§ 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’. The Ionians 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 Beingis. 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.

INTRODUCTION. 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’.

§ 7. Such is the answer returned by Parmenides and his school
to the question asked at the beginning of our previous section.
Material nature is in continual flux, you say, and cannot be
known: good—then material nature does not exist. But Being
or the One does exist and can be known, and it is all there is to
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 bne-
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-
istent unity to thenon-existent plurality

little value he might attach to opinion,
was bound to take account of it’.

led Parmenides to divide his treatise
on Nature into two distinct portions,
dealing with Truth and Opinion. I
am not disposed to contest Dr Jack-
son’s affirmation that ‘ Parmenides,
while he denied the real existence
of plurality, recognised its apparent
existence, and consequently, however

That Parmenides was perfectly con-
sistent in embracing the objects of
Opinion in his account, I admit. But
none the less does his language justify
the statements in the text: he em-
phatically affirms the non-existence of
phenomena, and has no care to ex-
plain why they appear to exist.

The Elea-
tic theory,
taken by
itself, is as
inadequate
as that of
Heraklei-
tos.

2 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
ἐν ὃν πᾶν 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

and ἘΠ... leads to an equally hopeless deadlock? - It is because each of

λυ For opposite as the doctrines of Herakleitos and Parmenides
ie may appear, they are in fact mutually complementary, and neither
tally com- iS actually true except in conjunction with its rival. Herakleitos
plementary did well in affirming Motion ; but he forgot that, if Motion is to

eter the the be, there must likewise be Rest: for opposite requires opposite.

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 isnot? ‘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 oné-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
mainly concerned himself with physics. But such was the
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

Anaxago-
ras.

Anaxago-
ras and
causation.

10 INTRODUCTION.

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 νοῦς 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 τύχη or avay«n, 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

INTRODUCTION. II

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.

§ το. The shortcomings of the Anaxagorean theory have been
dwelt upon both by Plato and by Aristotle. Plato found indeed
much in Anaxagoras with° which he could sympathise. His
conception that Intelligence, as opposed to the atomistic
ἀνάγκη, 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 ἀρχὴ of the 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 νοῦς 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

Deficien-
cies of An-
axagoras.

Results.

12 INTRODUCTION.

himself contributed to metaphysics, the conception of a
causative mind. And so his philosophy ends in a dualism of
the crudest type.

§ 11. 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’. 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 of 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
here make no mention of the Pytha-
goreans. But the Pythagorean in-
fluence on Platonism has been grossly
overrated. Far too much importance
has often been attached to the state-
ments of late and untrustworthy au-
thorities, or to fragments attributed
on most unsubstantial grounds to
Pythagorean writers. All that we
can safely believe about Pythagorean
philosophising is to be found, apart
from what Plato tells us, in Aristotle:
and from his statements we may
pretty fairly infer that they had no
real metaphysical system at all. There
is indeed some superficial resemblance

between the Pythagorean theory of
numbers and the Platonic theory of
ideas—a resemblance sufficient to in-
duce Aristotle to draw a comparison
between them in the first book of the
metaphysics. But that the similarity
was merely external is plain from
Aristotle’s own account, and also that
the significance to be attached to the
Pythagorean numbers had been left
in an obscurity which probably could
not have been cleared up by the
authors of the theory. We may doubt-
less accept the verdict of Aristotle in
a somewhat wider sense than he
meant by the words—Nav ἁπλῶς
ἐπραγματεύθησαν.

INTRODUCTION. 13

ledge. The natural result was that men despaired of attaining
philosophic truth.

δ 12. Before we proceed further, perhaps a few words are
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—yitis τε διάλλαξίς τε μιγέντων : 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-
cerning the nature of things found an expression in the sophistic
movement. This phase of Greek thought need not detain us
long, since it did nothing directly for the advancement of meta-
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—zavrwv χρημάτων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος. 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.

Empedo-
kles.

The
sophists,
especially
Protago-
Po: Ah

Sokrates.

Plato: two
stages to
be distin-
uished in
is treat-
ment of
the meta-
physical
problem.

14 INTRODUCTION.

§ 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.

§ 15. We are now in a position to appreciate the nature
of the work which lay before Plato and of the materials which
he found ready to his hand. We have seen that philosophy,
properly speaking, did not yet exist, though the incomposite
elements of it were there ready for combination. Now it would
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’. 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- defined 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.

INTRODUCTION. 15

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 Phaedrus, Symposium,
Meno, and apparently the Craty/us—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.

§ 16. Plato had thoroughly assimilated the physical teaching
of Herakleitos. He held no less strongly than the Ionian philo-
sopher the utter instability and fluidity of material nature. We
are not perhaps at liberty to allege the very emphatic language
of the Zheaetetus 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 4798, 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 πάντα ῥεῖ, 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
manner of immaterial essence is it which we are to seek as the
object of knowledge? Plato cordially adopted the Sokratic
principle that universals alone can be known. But the Sokratic
universal, being no substantial existence but merely a con-
ception in our own mind, will not meet Plato’s demand for a

Plato
starts from
a Heraklei-
tean stand-
point.

Thecontri-
bution οἵ.
Sokrates, .
andthe ~
ideal
theory as

resented
in the

Republic.

Predica-
tion.

16 INTRODUCTION.

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. This
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 596 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 100D 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: (1) the idea of the good ;
(2) ideas of qualities akin to the good, καλόν, δίκαιον and the like ;
(3) ideas of natural objects, as man, horse ; (4) ideas of σκευαστά,
such as beds or tables; (5) ideas of relations, as equal, like ;
(6) ideas of qualities antagonistic to good, ἄδικον, αἰσχρόν, 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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν, 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
scepticism. But he also offers us in the theory of ideas his solution
of a pressing 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 8.
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
him by his: predecessors. Let us try to estimate the merits and
deficiencies of his solution.

The bold originality of Plato’s theory is conspicuous at a
glance. In the first place, by proclaiming the Absolute Good as
the sole source of existence, he identifies the ontological with the
ethical first principle, the formal with the final cause. Thus he
makes good the defect whereof he complained in the philosophy
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
conception, and a very distinct conception, of immaterial existence.
Perhaps we are a little liable to be backward in realising what a
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. Ts 2

The
advance
made in
Plato’s
earlier
theory.

The source
of Being
and of
Good the
same,

Concep-
tion of im-
material
existence,

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.

18 INTRODUCTION.

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.

§ 18. 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
the material world altogether: he sees that some explanation of it
is necessary, and endeavours to explain it as deriving a kind of
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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν.

Plato is also too Sokratic. He allows the Sokratic element
in his system to carry weight which oversets the balance of the
whole. We have seen that, owing to his admission of a hypostasis
corresponding to every Sokratic concept, we have among the
denizens of the ideal world ideas of oxevacrd, 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 of νοῦς. Plato had indeed supplied the teleological
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
theory (1) 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

Pheno-
mena in-
adequately
explained.

Necessity
of revising
the list

of ideas.

Principle
of νοῦς un-
developed.

Summary.

The Par-
menides,

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.

§ 19. The severe and searching criticism to which Plato sub-
jects 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 may be summed up as follows: (1) 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 τρίτος av-
Opwros—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 εἰς ἄπειρον : (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 τὸ ἕν, conceived in several different

INTRODUCTION. 21

senses with the view of ascertaining what are the consequences
both of the affirmation and of the negation of its existence to
τὸ ἕν itself and to τἄλλα τοῦ ἑνός. The result is that in some
cases both, in other cases neither, of two strings of contradictory
epithets can be predicated of τὸ ἐν or of τἄλλα. If both series of
epithets can be predicated, τὸ ἕν can be thought and known, if
neither, it cannot be thought nor known’. Now in the latter
category we find a conception of ἕν 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 Zheaefetus next’.
This dialogue, starting from the question what is knowledge,
presents us with Plato’s theory of perception—a theory which
entirely harmonises with the teaching of the Z7maeus and in part
supplements it. This theory Plato evolves by grafting the μέτρον
ἄνθρωπος of Protagoras upon the πάντα fet of Herakleitos and
developing both in his own way. As finally stated, it is as com-
plete a doctrine of relativity as can well be conceived. What is
given in our experience is no objective existence external to us ;
between the percipient and the object are generated perception
on the side of the percipient and a percept on the side of the
object: e.g. on the part of the object the quality of whiteness, on
the part of the subject the perception of white. And subject and
object are inseparably correlated and exist only in mutual con-
nexion—subject cannot be percipient without object, nor object

1 For a detailed investigation of
the intricate reasoning contained in
this part of the dialogue see Dr Jack-
son’s excellent paper in the Journal
of Philology, vol. X1 p. 287.

2 Dr Jackson’s arguments for in-
cluding the Zheaetetus in its present

form among the later dialogues ap-
pear to me irresistible, although parts
of the dialogue have such decided lite-
rary affinity to some of the earlier
series that I am disposed to entertain
the supposition that what we possess

is a second and revised edition.

The 7he-
aetetus.

The
Sophist.

22 INTRODUCTION.

generate a percept without subject. And subject as well as object
is undergoing perpetual mutation: thus, since a change either of
object or of subject singly involves a change in the perception,
every perception is continually suffering a twofold alteration.
Perception is therefore an ever-flowing stream, incessantly changing
its character in correspondence with the changes in subject and
in object. Nothing therefore can be more complete than the
absolute instability of our sensuous perceptions. The importance
of this theory will be better realised when we view it in the light
of the Zimaeus. ;

§ 21. More important than even the /armenides is the
Sophist, one of the most profound and far-reaching of Plato’s
works. Plato starts with an endeavour to define the sophist, who,
when accused of teaching what seems to be but is not knowledge,
turns upon us, protesting the impossibility of predicating not-
being: it is nonsense to say he teaches what is not, for τὸ μὴ ὃν
can neither be thought nor uttered. Hereupon follows a truly
masterly examination into the logic of being and not-being. The
result is to show that either of the two, viewed in the abstract
and apart from the other, is self-contradictory and. unthinkable.
And as being cannot exist without not-being, so unity also, if
it is to have any intelligible existence, must contain in itself the
element of plurality; one is at the same time one and not-one,
else it has no meaning. The failure to grasp this truth is the
fundamental flaw in Eleatic metaphysics and consequently in the
earlier ideal theory. It seems to me hardly open to doubt that
the εἰδῶν φίλοι of 248 A represent Plato’s own earlier views. The
strictures he passes upon these εἴδη are just those to which we
have seen that the incomplete ideal theory is liable. He shows
that the absolute immobility of the εἴδη, to which all action and
passion are denied, renders them nugatory as ontological prin-
ciples—they are empty and lifeless abstractions : yet, says Plato,
a principle of Being must surely have life and thought—249 a.
Next he takes five of the μέγιστα γένη, as he calls them, Rest,
Motion, Same, Other, Being; and he demonstrates their inter-
communicability, total or partial. The deduction from this is that
such relations are not αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὐτὰ εἴδη, or self-existing essences,
but forms of predication, or, as we might say, categories. Thus
the ideas of relations which gave us so much trouble are swept
away ; for were these γένη substantial ideas, they could not thus
be intercommunicable. Finally, the sophistic puzzle about μὴ ὃν

INTRODUCTION. 23

is disposed of by resolving the notion of negation into that of
difference : μὴ ὃν is simply ἕτερον.

The foregoing statement, brief and general as it is, will suffice,
I think, for enabling us to estimate the extent of the contribution
made by this dialogue towards building up the revised system.
We have (1) the overthrow of the Eleatic conception of being
and unity, which warns us that the ideal theory, if it would stand,
must abandon its Eleatic character, (2) the most important
declaration that Being must have life and thought—this of course
implies that the only Being is soul, and points to the universal
soul of the Zimaeus, (3) the deposition of relations from the rank
of ideas, (4) the dissipation of all the fogs that had gathered
about the notion of μὴ ov, and the affirmation that there is a sense
in which not-being exists. The Sopfist, it may be observed,
does for the logical side of Being and Not-being very much
what the Zimaeus does for the metaphysical side. There is much
besides which is important and instructive in this dialogue, but
I believe I have summed up its main contributions to the later
metaphysic. Ἴ

822. The Sophist then has expunged relations from the
list of ideas. But there is another class of ideas included in the
earlier system which is not expressly dealt with in any one of
the later, dialogues, and which it may be as well to mention here.
We have seen reason to desire the abolition of ideas of oxevaora.
Now so far as Plato’s own statements are concerned, the abandon-
ment of these ideas is only inferential. There is continual
reference to such ideas in the earlier dialogues, but absolutely
none in the later. This would perhaps sufficiently justify us in
᾿ deducing the absence of oxevacra in the revised list of ideas.
But we have in addition the distinct testimony of Aristotle on this
point. See metaphysics A ili 10707 18 διὸ δὴ ov κακῶς ὁ Πλάτων
ἔφη ὅτι εἴδη ἐστὶν ὁπόσα φύσει, with which compare A ix 991} 6
οἷον οἰκία καὶ δακτύλιος, ὧν οὔ φαμεν εἴδη εἶναι. We know that in
the earlier period Plato did recognise ideas of οἰκία and δακτύλιος :
therefore Aristotle, in denying such ideas, must have the later
period in his mind. In just the same way we read in metaphysics
A ix 990> 16 οἱ μὲν τῶν πρός τι ποιοῦσιν ἰδέας, dv ov φαμεν εἶναι
καθ᾽ αὐτὸ yévos. 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.

Ideas of
σκευαστὰ

abolished.

The
Philebus.

24 INTRODUCTION.

Thus then, sweeping away all ideas of σκευαστά, 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.

8. 23. In the Philebus we come for the first time to construc-
tive ontology. We have the entire universe classed under four
heads—Limit, répas—the Unlimited, dzreypov—the Limited, μικτόν
—the Cause of limitation, αἰτία τῆς μίξεως. In this classification
πέρας is form, as such; ἄπειρον is matter, as such; μικτὸν is
matter defined by form; αἰτία τῆς μίξεως is the efficient cause
which brings this information to pass: and this efficient cause
is declared to be the universal Intelligence or νοῦς. 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 ἄπειρον
of the Philebus is altogether formless: it is indeterminately qualified,
and the πέρας does but define the quantity. For example,
ἄπειρον is ‘hotter and colder,’ that is, indeterminate in respect
of temperature: the effect of the πέρας is to determine the tem-
perature. The result of this determination is μικτόν, ie. a
substance possessing a definite degree of heat. The analysis
of the material element given in the PAzlebus therefore falls far
short, as we shall see, of the analysis in the Zzmaeus.

It is not however the πέρας itself which informs the ἄπειρον :
Plato speaks of the informing element as πέρας ἔχον, or πέρατος
yéwa. This it is which enters into combination with matter, not
the πέρας itself. What then is the πέρας éxov? I think we cannot
err in identifying it with the εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα of the Zimaeus ; i.e,
the forms which enter into the formless substrate, generating μιμή-
ματα of the ideas, and which vanish from thence again. The πέρας
ἔχον will then be the Aristotelian ¢«iSos—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
πέρας itself, which does not enter into communion with matter :
but every πέρας ἔχον possesses the principle of limitation, which
it imposes upon the ἄπειρον wherewith it is combined.

INTRODUCTION. 25

But what is the πέρας itself? I think we are not in a position
to. answer this question until we have considered the Zimacus.
But the nature of the reply has been indicated by a hint given
us in the Parmenides, viz. that the ideas are παραδείγματα ἑστῶτα
ἐν τῇ φύσει. For the πέρας ἔχον, by imposing limit, so far assimi-
lates the ἄπειρον to the πέρας ; consequently the μικτὸν is the
μίμημα of the πέρας as παράδειγμα. We may therefore regard the
πέρας as the ideal type to which the particulars approximate. Thus
we derive from the P%z/ebus a hint of the paradeigmatic character
of the idea, which assumes its full prominence in the Zzmaeus.
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 Phzlebus may
thus, I conceive, be enumerated: (1) 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 ἄπειρον.

§ 24. Besides this, the Philebus enables us to make another
very important deduction from the number of ideas. We now
regard the particular as resembling the idea in virtue of its in-
formation by the πέρας ἔχον. 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 μικτὰ 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 classname not derived from the idea, but de-
noting a similar divergence from the idea. A word denoting

Ideas of
evil no
longer ad-
mitted.

Advance
made in
the four
dialogues
on the
metaphy-
sic of the
earlier
period.

26 INTRODUCTION.

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 αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος 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. Letus 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 Sofhist frees us from ideas of relations, the Philebus
from those of evil; while σκευαστὰ 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 Zheaefetus concerning the relation between
particular souls and material nature. And finally we have the
analysis of ὄντα 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.

INTRODUCTION. 27

Moreover, putting the Zheaetetus 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 Zimaeus; 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
more remains to be achieved; and it is to the Z7maeus that we
must look for fulfilment.

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 Zimaeus supplies in any reasonable degree a solution

Deficien-
cies still to
be sup-
plied.

The cen-
tral meta-
physical
doctrine
of the
Timaeus.

28 INTRODUCTION.

of the aforesaid problems, it seems to me that no more need be
said about the importance of the dialogue.

8. 27. In the Zimaeus 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’. 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 Zimaeus 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, itis 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*.

cussed in the commentary. At pre-
sent I am aiming at making my story as

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-

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 Tt_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 itsown. 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
plurality as well as in the form of unity. How does this come
to pass? The hint for our guidance is to be found in the PAi-
Jebus, where we learn that, as the elements which compose our
bodies are fragments of the elements which compose the universe,
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;

νόησις νοήσεως is directly derived from ceeded on Plato’s lines in conceiving
the Zimaeus: though his very frag- of material nature as one mode of the
mentary utterances on this subject eternal thought.

leave us in doubt how far he had pro-

Pluralisa-
tion of the
universal
mind in
the form
of finite
existences.

The
nature of
matter and
its place
in the
Platonic
ontology.

30 INTRODUCTION.

but all living things are manifestations of the one intelligence ex-
panding in ever remoter circles through the breadth and depth
of the universe: each one is a finite mode of the infinite—a
mould, so to speak, in which the omnipresent vital essence is
for ever shaping itself.

δ 29. So far as the theory has yet taken us, we have on the
one hand the universal soul, on the other finite existences into
which the universal evolves itself. Matter has not yet made
its appearance in our system. But Plato is not wanting in an
account of matter; and here the theory of perception in the
Theaetetus will come to our aid. ,

In the pluralisation of universal soul finite souls attain to a
separate and independent consciousness. But for this indepen-
dent consciousness every soul has to pay a fixed price. The
price is limitation, and the condition of limitation is subjection to
the laws of what we know as time and space. But the degree
of subjection varies in different orders of existence; and in
the higher forms is tempered with no mean heritage of free-
dom. The object of cognition for finite souls is truth as it is
in the universal soul. Now intelligences of the higher orders have
two modes of apprehending this universal truth—one direct, by
means of the reason, one symbolical, by means of the senses.
And when we speak of soul acting by the reason and through
the senses, we mean by these phrases that in the one case the
soul is exercising the proper activity of her own nature, gua
soul; in the other that she is acting under the conditions of
her limitation, gua finite soul: which conditions we saw were
time and space. Now the direct apprehension, which we call
reasoning, exists to any considerable degree only in gods and
in the human race. In the inferior forms of animation the direct
mode grows ever feebler, until, so far as we can tell, it disappears
altogether, leaving the symbolical mode of sensuous perception
alone remaining. ‘Time and space then are the peculiar adjuncts
of particular existence, and material objects, i.e. sensuous percep-
tions, are phenomena of time and space—in other words sym-
bolical apprehensions of universal truth under the form of time
and space. Thus the material universe is, as it were, a luminous
symbol-embroidered veil which hangs for ever between finite exist-
ences and the Infinite, as a consequence of the evolution of one out
of the other. And none but the highest of finite intelligences
may lift a corner of this veil and behold aught that is behind it.

INTRODUCTION. 31

But we must beware of fancying that this material nature has
any independent existence of its own, apart from the percipient
—it has none’. All our perceptions exist in our own minds and
nowhere else; the only existence outside particular souls is the
universal soul. Material nature is but the refraction of the single
existent unity through the medium of finite intelligences: each
separate soul is, as it were, a prism by which the white light of
pure being is broken up into a many-coloured spectacle of ever-
changing hues. Matter is mind viewed indirectly. Yet this does
not mean the negation of matter: matter has a true reality in our
perceptions; for these perceptions are real, though indirect,
apprehensions of the universal. And since universal Nature
evolves herself according to some fixed law and order, there is a
certain stability about our perceptions, and a general agreement
between the perceptions of beings belonging to the same rank.
But none the less are we bound to affirm that matter has no
separate existence outside the percipient soul. Such objectivity
as it possesses amounts to this: it is the same eternal essence
which is thus symbolically apprehended by all finite intelligences.
Mind is the universe, and beside Mind is there nothing.

§ 30. But all this time what has become of the ideas? So
far they have not even been mentioned in our exposition. Yet
their existence is most strenuously upheld in this dialogue, and
therefore their place in the theory must be determined. Our duty
then plainly is to search the ontology of the Zzmaeus for the ideas.

It is notable that in the Zimaeus we hear less than usual of
the plurality of ideas ; nor is that surprising, when so much stress
is laid upon a comparatively neglected principle, the unity of the
Idea. But the plurality of ideas is not only reaffirmed in the
most explicit language, it is a metaphysical principle especially
characteristic of the dialogue. The paradeigmatic aspect of the
ideas now comes into marked prominence: they are the eternal

to it.

1 The teaching of the 7heaetetus,
viewed in relation with the space-
theory of the Ztmaeus, seems to me
perfectly conclusive on this point. It
may indeed be argued that only the
αἴσθησις is purely subjective, accord-
ing to the theory of the Zheaetetus ;
the object generating the αἰσθητόν,
although existing in correlation with
the subject, has an existence external

But this is no real objection.
For if Soul is the sum-total of exist-
ence, all that exists independently of
finite soul is the universal soul. There-
fore, so far as the object exists outside
the subject, that object is the uni-
versal soul itself: that is, as said above,
our sense-perceptions are perceptions
of the universal under the condition of
space.

The ideal
theory in
the 77-
maeus.

32 INTRODUCTION.

and immaterial types on which all that is material 15. modelled.
‘Alles Vergiingliche ist nur ein Gleichniss’ might be adopted as
the motto of the Zimaeus.

In order to make clear the position of the ideas in Plato’s
maturest ontology, I fear I must to some extent repeat what has
been said in the preceding section. The supreme idea, αὐτὸ
ἀγαθόν, we have identified with universal νοῦς, for which τὸ ov,
τὸ ἕν, and τὸ πᾶν are synonyms. This universal thought then
realises itself by pluralisation in the form of finite intelligences.
These intelligences possess a certain mode of apprehending the
universal, which we term sensuous perception. By means of such
perception true Being cannot be apprehended as it is in itself;
what is apprehended is a multitude of symbols which shadow
forth the reality of existence, and which constitute the only mode
in which such existence can present itself to the senses. These
symbols or likenesses we call material objects, which come to be
in space, and processes, which take place in time. They have no
substantial existence, but are subjective affections of particular
intelligences: what is true in them is not the representation in
space and time, but the reality of existence which they symbolise.
But these symbols do not arise at random nor assume arbitrary
forms. Since the evolution of absolute thought is not arbitrary,
but follows the necessary and immutable law of its own nature, it
may be inferred that all finite intelligences of the same rank have,
within a certain margin, similar perceptions. Now the unity of
Being presents itself to diverse kinds of sense and to each sense
in manifold wise. Each of these presentations is the εἰκών, or
image, of which that unity is the παράδειγμα, or original; and the
accuracy of the image varies according to the clearness of the
presentation. A perfectly clear presentation is a perfect symbol
of the truth, the εἰκὼν exactly reflects the παράδειγμα : a dimmer
presentation is a more imperfect image. The παράδειγμα then is
the perfect type, to which every particular more or less approxi-
mates. Now were this approximation quite successfully accom-
plished, in every class the particulars, since they all exactly reflected
the type, would be all exactly alike. Deviations from the type
and consequent dissimilarities among the particulars are due to
the imperfect degree in which our senses are capable of appre-
hending, even in this indirect way, the eternal type.

Since then we see that different classes of material phenomena
are so many different forms in which the eternal unity presents

INTRODUCTION. 33

itself to the senses, it follows that the types or ideas corresponding
to such classes are simply determinations of the universal essence
or αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν itself: that is to say, each idea is the idea of the
good specialised in some particular mode or form—blueness is
the mode in which the good reveals itself to the faculty which
perceives blue. So then everything in nature which we hear or
see or perceive by any perception means the idea of the good.
There is thus nothing partial or fractional in Nature: she reveals
herself to us one and entire in each of her manifestations, Di-
versity is of us. We are all beholding the same truth with a
variety of organs: it is as though we looked at a flame through a
many-faceted crystal, which repeats it on every surface. And
since the unity is eternal and inexhaustible, inexhaustible is the
number of forms in which it may present itself to every
sense.

§ 31. Furthermore, if it were in the nature of finite intelligences
to receive through the senses accurate symbols of the good, all
things must be perfectly fair; foulness is due to defect of pre-
sentation. Hence there can be no ideas of ugliness and dirt, of
injustice and evil: all these things arise from failure in representing
the idea and consequent failure in existence. For in all things
that exist there must be a certain degree of good, else they could
not exist at all: even in visible objects that are most hideous
there is some fairness; the likeness to the type is there, however
marred and scarce discernible. Evil is nothing positive, it is but
defect of existence; and this defect is due to the limitations of
finite intelligence and of finite modes of being.

To sum up: the one universal Thought evolves itself into a
multitude of finite intelligences, which are so constituted as to
apprehend not only by pure reason, but also by what we call the
senses, with all their attendant subjective phenomena of time and
space. These sensible phenomena group themselves into a multi-
tude of kinds, each kind representing or symbolising the universal
Thought in some determinate aspect. It is the Universal itself
which in each of these aspects constitutes an idea or type, im-
material and eternal, whereof phenomena are the material and
temporal representations : the phenomena do in fact more or less
faithfully express the timeless and spaceless in terms of space and
time. Thus the αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν is the ideas, and the ideas are the
phenomena, which are merely a mode of their manifestation to
finite intelligence. The whole universe, then, ideal and material,

fy 3 3

Evil is
defective
presenta-
tion of the

type.

Summary.

The plu-
rality of
ideas a
necessary
corollary
of the plu-
ralisation
of univer-
sal
thought.

Question
raised: are
there ideas
of {Ga
only?

34 INTRODUCTION.

is seen to be a single Unity manifesting itself in diversity. Such/I
conceive to be the theory of ideas in its final form.

§ 32. One thing more should be added. It is plain from
what has been said, that the plurality of ideas is the inevitable
consequence of the pluralisation of absolute thought into finite
minds, For the various classes of phenomena, to which we need
corresponding ideas, are part of our consciousness as limited
beings, and arise from our limitation. It is because universal
Being is presented to us in this sensuous manner, in groups of
material phenomena, that universal Being must determine itself
into types of such phenomena. If we were not constituted so as
to see roses, there would be no idea of roses. We should then
be contemplating the eternal unity directly, as it is in itself:
differentiation would neither be necessary nor possible. But
this may not be, for pluralisation without limitation is incon-
ceivable: and limitation to us involves space and time. There-
fore—paradoxical, nay profane as the statement would have
appeared in the days of the Repudblic—ideas can no more
exist without particulars than particulars can exist without the
ideas.

§ 33. Before we leave this subject, a question suggests itself
to which it is perhaps impossible to return a decisive answer.
We have seen that in the mature Platonism ideas are restricted
to classes which are naturally determined. Ought we to go a step
further and confine the ideas to classes of living things? It
appears to me that there are good grounds for an affirmative
answer; but Plato has left his intention uncertain.

All the ideas mentioned in the Zimaeus, with the exception
of one passage, are ideas of ga—a term which includes plants
as well as animals. ‘The exceptional passage is 51 B, where we
hear of πῦρ αὐτὸ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ and, by implication, of ideas of the
other three elements also. Now that ideas should be confined

to ζῷα seems reasonable on the following grounds. The supreme

idea is expressed in the Zimaeus as αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστι ζῷον, and this
includes all other ideas that exist. If then the supreme universal
idea is ζῷον, it would seem that the more special ideas, which
are subordinate to it, ought to be ζῷα likewise. Or let us put
it in another way. We have been led to identify the supreme
intelligence with the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. 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 ζῷα. Aristotle’
indeed seems to account zip, σάρξ, κεφαλή, as natural classes
whereof there are ideas: but I very much doubt whether Plato
would have admitted ideas of these. The idea of Star involves
in its material representation πῦρ, even as the idea of Man
involves in its material representation σὰρξ and κεφαλή: but
it in no way requires the existence of any ideas of these things.

There is however the passage 51 B, 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 ζῷα.

§ 34. The foregoing account of the metaphysical teaching
contained in the Zimaeus suffices, I think, to show that in this
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 (1) 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 Δ iii 1070" το.

3—2

Summary
of results.

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 év
and μὴ ὃν 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
from the dialogue has greatly multiplied labour to his interpreters. For all
allegorical his clearness of thought and lucidity of style Plato is always
> ataoliigd the most difficult of authors: and in the Zimaeus 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

INTRODUCTION. 37

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-
mological epic is the δημιουργός, or Artificer of the universe. It
is evidently of the first importance to determine whether Plato
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 δημιουργὸς is a personal God,
external to the universe and actually prior to the ideas: to
this appertains one form of the opinion that the ideas are ‘the
thoughts of God.’

There is but one passage in all Plato’s works which can give
the slightest apparent colour to the theory that the ideas are
in any sense created or caused by God. This is in Republic
597 B—D, where God is described as the φυτουργὸς of the ideal
bed. But a little examination will show that no stress can really
be laid upon this. For to the three beds, the ideal, the particular,
and the painted, Plato has to assign three makers. For the two
latter we have the carpenter and the artist: then, if the series
is to be completed, who could possibly be named as the creator

How is the
δημιουργὸς
to be un-
derstood?

(1) ishea
personal
God, ex-
ternal to
the uni-
verse and
prior to
the ideas?

(2) ishea
personal
creator,
external to
the uni-
verse and
to the
ideas?

38 INTRODUCTION.

of the ideal bed save God? And the series must needs be com-
pleted to attain Plato’s immediate purpose, in order that the
carpenter and the artist may be placed in their proper order
of merit. The postulation of God as the creator of the ideal bed
is merely an expedient designed to serve a temporary end, not
a principle of the Platonic philosophy. If we take any other
view we bring the passage into direct conflict with the statement
beginning 508 Ἑ, where it is declared in the plainest language that
the Idea of the Good is the cause of all existence whatsoever.
Moreover to maintain that the ideas are the thoughts of a personal
God is utterly to ignore Plato’s emphatic and constantly iterated
affirmation of the self-existent substantiality of the ideas. Even
could these declarations be explained away, we should have
to face Aristotle’s criticism of the ideal theory—nay, Plato’s own
criticism in the Parmenides; neither of which would have any
meaning were not the ideas independent essences: the argument
of the τρίτος ἄνθρωπος, for instance, would be irrelevant. The
hypothesis then that a personal God is in any sense the cause
of the ideas must be dismissed as incompatible with Platonic
principles.

§ 37. Secondly, it is held that the δημιουργὸς is a personal
creator, external to the universe and to the ideas, on the model of
which he fashioned material nature. This view demands the
most careful consideration, since it is the literal statement of the
Timaeus. But it will prove, I think, to be totally untenable. In
the first place it makes Plato offer us, instead of an ontological
theory, a theological dogma: it is an evasion, not a solution of the
problem. For we are asked to suppose that after constructing an
elaborate ontology which is to unfold the secret of nature, Plato
suddenly cuts the knot with a hypothesis which has absolutely no
connexion with his ontology. Again, however much opinions
may differ as to the extent of Plato's success in eliminating
dualism, it will hardly be disputed that to do this was his aim.
But here we have not merely dualism, but a triad: the ideas, the

‘creator, and matter. All these are distinct and independent, nor is

there any evolution of one from another. Can we seriously
believe that Plato’s speculations ended in this? And there remain
yet more cogent considerations. In this story we find the δημιουρ-
yes represented as creating ψυχή. But ψυχή, we know, is eternal.
Her creation must then be purely mythical: and if the creation,
surely the creator also. Or if not, since ψυχὴ and the δημιουργὸς

INTRODUCTION. 39

are alike eternal, are we to suppose that there are two separate
and distinct Intelligences—that is, inasmuch as νοῦς exists in ψυχὴ
alone, two ψυχαὶ to all eternity existing? What could be gained
by such a reduplication? Moreover, if two such ψυχαὶ 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 δημιουργός, this is practi-
cally abandoning the present hypothesis in favour of that which is
next to be considered. Finally, if the δημιουργὸς is a personal
creator, he is certainly ζῷον, and νοητὸν ζῷον. What then is his
relation to the αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστι Gov? Either he is identical with it
or contained in it: in either case the hypothesis falls to the
ground. The literal interpretation of Plato’s words must there-
fore be abandoned for the reason that its acceptance would
reduce Plato’s philosophy to a chaos of wild disorder.

§ 38. Lastly, the δημιουργὸς is identical with the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν.
This view, properly understood, I conceive to be in a sense correct:
but it needs the most careful defining, and, in the form in which it
is sometimes propounded, is unsatisfactory. We can only accept
it by realising that the αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν is the infinite intelligence, which
is manifested in the visible universe: and we shall approach the
question better if we identify the δημιουργός, not in the first place
with the ἀγαθόν, but with ψυχή, which comes to the same in the
end.

Now the position of the δημιουργὸς in the Zimacus is precisely
that of νοῦς βασιλεὺς in the Philebus: see Philebus 26 E—28 E.
Therefore the δημιουργὸς is the universal intelligence from which all
finite intelligences are derived. But intelligence or νοῦς is nothing
else than ψυχὴ pure and simple, apart from any conjunction with
matter. What then is the relation of pure intelligence to the
cosmic soul which informs the universe? Let us turn once more
to the Philebus. In 29 E—30A vois is definitely identified with
the cosmic soul ; it is the universal ψυχὴ whereof all visible nature
is σῶμα. So then the δημιουργὸς of the Z7maeus must be identical
with the world-soul. - This is so: but the statement is not yet
complete. For the δημιουργὸς is pure reason, while the world-soul,
being in conjunction with matter, is ψυχὴ in all her aspects, con-

1 Compare Zimaeus 31 A τὸ yap ζῷον, οὗ μέρος ἂν εἴτην ἐκείνω, The
περιέχον πάντα, ὁπόσα νοητὰ ζῷα, μεθ᾽ argument is the same as in Repudlic
ἑτέρου δεύτερον οὐκ ἄν mor’ εἴη" πάλν 597 C.
γὰρ ἂν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ περὶ ἐκείνω δέοι

(3) is he

identical

with the

αὐτὸ ἀγα-
Gov?

Applica-
tion to
the αὐτὸ
ἀγαθόν.

40 INTRODUCTION.

taining the element not only of the Same, but of the Other also.
In other words the δημιουργὸς 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 δημιουργὸς 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 δημιουργὸς 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’, These
two notions, thought in unity and thought in plurality, are myth-
ically represented in the Z?maeus, 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 κόσμος is the reality of both.

ὃ 39. Now we may apply what has been said to the αὐτὸ
ἀγαθόν. In ὃ 27 we identified the αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν with absolute
thought or universal spirit, The identity of rots with the ἀγαθὸν

~ is plainly affirmed in PAzzebus 226 : compare too the language

Creation
not an
arbitrary
exercise of
will, but
the fulfil-
ment of
eternal
law.

used of νοῦς in Philebus 26 with that used of the ἀγαθόν in
Republic 5088. We are justified then in identifying the δημιουργὸς
with the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν, so long as the ἀγαθὸν 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- unity: only that the existence of both
posed to mean that the pluralised _ is essential to the reality of either,
thought is more real than the primal

INTRODUCTION. 41

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 process represented in the Zimaeus is not to be conceived
as occupying time or as having anything whatsoever to do with
time. Yet so potent is the spell of Plato’s ποτανὰ paxava, that it
may not be amiss to insist upon this once more. The whole story
is but a symbolisation of thé eternal process of thought, which
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 ini 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 δημιουργὸς
which I have been defending can we understand Plato’s statement
in 926 that the universe is ‘the image of its maker’—for the
reading ποιητοῦ is better authenticated than νοητοῦ. If the κόσμος
is the image of its maker, the maker must be identical with the
αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστι ζῷον. Now since the κόσμος is πᾶν, the ζῷον 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 κόσμος 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 Gov. But this is
exactly the position we have seen reason for assigning to the
δημιουργός, 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.

The pro-
cess sym-
bolised
in the
Timaeus
indepen-
dent of
time and
space.

The uni-
verse as
the like-
ness of its
creator.

The κόσμος
and the

ψυχὴ τοῦ
κόσμου.

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 134.C, 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.

§ 42. Having thus investigated the relation of the δημιουργὸς
to the cosmic soul and to the material universe, it behoves us to
make a similar inquiry concerning the relation of the κόσμος and
the ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου. The ψυχογονία of the Zimaeus 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 ταὐτὸν, θάτερον, and οὐσία : that is to say, the principle of Same,
i.e. of unity and rest, of Other, 1.6. of variety and motion, of
Essence, which signifies the identification of these two in one
conscious intelligence. The terms ταὐτὸν θάτερον and οὐσία 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 (1) 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 κόσμος 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,
or is such perception confined to limited intelligences? I think
the true answer is that the cosmic soul is percipient of matter
through the finite souls into which she evolves herself. We may
regard her elements, ταὐτὸν, θάτερον, οὐσία, either as modes of her
existence or as modes of her activity. As amode of her existence,
θάτερον signifies the multitude of finite souls in which she is plu-
ralised. As a mode of her activity, θάτερον 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 θάτερον rela-
tively to the ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου, ταὐτὸν and οὐσία reappear relatively
to the finite souls which constitute that region. Each separate
soul must have ταὐτὸν also, else it would not have οὐσία, it would
not substantially exist: and hence the element of θάτερον 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.

ἃ 44. There is yet another question, the answer to which
is indeed to be inferred from what has been already said, but
which ought perhaps to receive explicit treatment : how are the
ideas related to the cosmic soul ?

Since we have seen our way to identifying the δημιουργὸς both
with the αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν and with one element of the ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου,
the simple unity of thought, conceived as still undifferentiated,
it follows that whatever relation we have established between the
αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν and the other ideas will hold good as between the

Thecosmic
soul and
material
perception.

Relation
between
the cosmic
soul and
the ideas,

Odrepov
as space.

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 παραδείγματα of the
same εἰκόνες, the ideas and the cosmic soulcoincide. 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 δενδρότης 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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν, 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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν 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.

§ 45. We have seen that the universal soul is constituted
of ταὐτὸν θάτερον and οὐσία, and the general significance of these
terms has been discussed. But there is one special application
of θάτερον which has not yet occupied our attention. This is
Plato’s conception of χώρα, 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

INTRODUCTION. 45

in the notes; but it is too important to be entirely passed over
in this place.

It has been seen that in the PA/ebus the analysis of the material
element in things was manifestly incomplete. The ἄπειρον was
not altogether ἀπαθές, but possessed ἐναντιότητες, such as hotter
and colder, quicker and slower, which were quantified and defined
by the πέρας ἔχον. But only the quantity or limit is imposed
upon the ἄπειρον from without; the quality, though in an un-
defined form, is still resident in it. Now however, in the Zzmaeus,
all quality and attribute is withdrawn: we have an absolutely
formless. ὑποδοχή, or substrate, potentially receptive of all quality,
but possessing none. So far, this may be identified with Aris-
totle’s πρώτη ὕλη. But Plato takes a further step, which was
not taken by Aristotle: the ὑποδοχὴ is expressly identified with
Space. How is this done?

The ὑποδοχὴ is absolutely without form and void: no sense
can apprehend it. The sensible objects of perception are the
εἴδη εἰσιόντα καὶ é€idvra—the images thrown off in some mysterious
way by the ideas and localised in the ὑποδοχή. All attributes
which belong to our perceptions are due to these εἴδη, save one
alone, which is extension. ‘The ὑποδοχή, 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 εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα,
we have remaining just a necessity that the objects composing
material nature shall be extended. ‘Thus we see θάτερον 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, οὐσίας ἁμωσγέπως ἀντεχομένη. Hereupon θάτερον 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.

Plato’s
motive for
devoting
so much
space to
physical
specula-
tion.

46 INTRODUCTION.

The significance of θάτερον 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 θάτερον. And so are all
the aspects in which we view the element of θάτερον 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 fromthe 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 ἀναγκαῖον for the sake of the

INTRODUCTION. 47

θεῖον: 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 τὸ βέλτιστον in his physiéal
theories as the final cause. In the physical part of the Zimaeus
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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. 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

Plato’s
final
opinions
concerning
know-
ledge.

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 Zimaeus 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.

§ 47. From the question that has just been raised, con-
cerning the bearing of physical inquiry upon metaphysical know-
ledge, naturally arises another question which should not be left
altogether unnoticed. What did the Plato of the Zzmaeus 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 Zheaetetus
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 αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. 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 Zimaeus, 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
ipso 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

Bevis. 4

Con-
cluding
remarks.

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.

§ 48. The account I have thought it necessary to give of
the philosophical doctrines contained in the Zimaeus 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 Z7maeus 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,

INTRODUCTION. 51

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 Zimaeus, 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, ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἐχθρὸς ὧν ἀλλὰ φίλος κρατεῖ.

§ 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-

4—2

52 INTRODUCTION.

ker’s testimony), of C. F. Hermann, of Stallbaum, and of the
Ziirich 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 Zimaeus 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.

ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ

[ἢ περὶ φύσεως" φυσικός.]

TA TOY ΔΙΑΛΟΓΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ

ΣΩΚΡΑΤΗΣ, ΚΡΙΤΙΑΣ, ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ, EPMOKPATHS.
St.
III. p.

I. 30. Els, δύο, τρεῖς" ὁ δὲ δὴ τέταρτος ἡμῖν, ὦ φίλε Τίμαιε, 17 a

Lal “Ὁ \ \ / 4 nr A. -& ‘
ποῦ τῶν χθὲς μὲν δαιτυμόνων, Ta viv δὲ ἑστιατόρων ;

TI.

3 , , =, , 3 ΄ . ᾿ \ a
Ασθένειά τις αὐτῷ συνέπεσεν, ὦ Σώκρατες" οὐ γὰρ ἂν

e \ fal > / A /
ἑκὼν τῆσδε ἀπελείπετο τῆς συνουσίας.
OQ. Οὐκοῦν σὸν τῶνδέ τε ἔργον καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀπόντος

ἀναπληροῦν μέρος ;

ΤΙ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, καὶ κατὰ δύναμίν γε οὐδὲν ἐλλείψομεν᾽" Β
5 baw! ‘ » a , \ ς \ a / ? 9 4
οὐδὲ yap εἴη ἂν δίκαιον, χθὲς ὑπὸ σοῦ ξενισθέντας, οἷς ἦν πρέπον
ξενίοις μὴ οὐ προθύμως σε τοὺς λοιποὺς ἡμῶν ἀνταφεστιᾶν.

8 εἴη dy: εἶναι A. ἂν εἴη SZ.

17 A—I9Q Β, 2. i. Sokrates meets by
appointment three of the friends to whom
he has on the previous day narrated the
conversation recorded in the Republic.
After the absence of the fourth member
of the party has been explained, he pro-
ceeds to summarise the social and poli-
tical theories propounded in that dia-
logue.

It will be observed that the unusually
long introductory passage, extending to
27 C, has its application not to the 7?-
maeus only, but to the whole trilogy,
Republic, Timaeus, Critias. The recapitu-
lation of the Republic indicates the precise

9 ἀνταφεστιᾶν : ἀντεφεστιᾶν AZ.

position of that work in the series; while
the myth of Atlantis marks the intimate
connexion which Plato intended to exist’
between the Zimaeus 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, TIMAEUS, 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.
lies in our power.

Unquestionably ; and we will omit nothing that
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
seem to have identified with their own
Artemis. The festival took place on the
19th or 20th Thargelion (=about 22nd
or 23rd May). On the following day
Sokrates reports to the four friends what
passed at the house of Kephalos; and on
the next the present dialogue takes place.

1, εἷς δύο τρεῖς] This very simple
opening has given rise to a strange
amount of animadversion, as may be seen
by any one who struggles through the
weary waste of words which Proklos has
devoted to its discussion. Quintilian (1x
iv 78) attacks it for beginning with part

of a hexameter. It is quoted in Athenaeus
1X 382 A, where there is a story of a man
who made his cooks learn the dialogue by
heart and recite it as they brought in the
dishes.

ὁ δὲ δὴ τέταρτος] Some curiosity has
been displayed as to the name of the
absentee; and Plato himself has been
suggested. But seeing that the conversa-
tion is purely fictitious, the question would
seem to be one of those ἀναπόδεικτα
which are hardly matter of profitable
discussion.

2. Satrupdvev] i.e. guests at the feast
of reason provided by Sokrates.

5

το

as

20

56 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [17 B—

ΣΩ, *Ap’ οὖν μέμνησθε, ὅσα ὑμῖν καὶ περὶ ὧν ἐπέταξα εἰπεῖν ;
“TI. Τὰ μὲν μεμνήμεθα, ὅσα δὲ μή, σὺ παρὼν ὑπομνήσεις"
μᾶλλον δέ, εἰ μή τί σοι χαλεπόν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς διὰ βραχέων πάλιν
ἐπάνελθε αὐτά, ἵνα βεβαιωθῇ μᾶλλον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν. ;
ΣΩ. Ταῦτ᾽ ἔσται. χθές που τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ῥηθέντων λόγων

a >
περὶ πολιτείας ἦν TO κεφάλαιον, οἵα τε Kai ἐξ οἵων ἀνδρῶν ἀρίστη C

‘ :
κατεφαίνετ᾽ (ay μοι γενέσθαι.
ὧι
‘ / ee. ΠῚ , € lal n \ fal
TI. Καὶ μάλα γε ἡμῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ῥηθεῖσα πᾶσι κατὰ νοῦν.
3 ᾽ 9 > \ a a a Μ' , aA
XQ. ἦΓΔρ᾽ οὖν οὐ τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν ὅσαι Te ἄλλαι τέχναι πρῶτον
ἐν αὐτῇ χωρὶς διειλόμεθα ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ τῶν προπολεμη-
σόντων ;
ΤΙ. Ναί.

ΣΏΩ. Καὶ κατὰ φύσιν δὴ δόντες τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ἑκάστῳ πρόσ-

ἃ / > "ὃ Ν , ε ) 7 , ἃ
φορον ἕν μόνον ἐπιτηδευμα καὶ μίαν ἑκάστῳ τέχνην τούτους, OVS Ἢ.

\ 4 » tal ΝΜ « ” 3 A / ,
πρὸ πάντων ἔδει πολεμεῖν, εἴπομεν ὡς ἄρα αὐτοὺς δέοι φύλακας
4 , a , ᾿ ΄ » pee. \ a 9 "
εἶναι μόνον τῆς πόλεως, εἴ τέ τις ἔξωθεν ἢ καὶ τῶν ἔνδοθεν ἴοι
κακουργήσων, δικάξοντας μὲν πράως τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν
\ / Ἂν \ oe a , a 5
καὶ φύσει φίλοις οὖσι, χαλεποὺς δὲ ἐν ταῖς μάχαις τοῖς ἐντυγχά-

νουσι τῶν ἐχθρῶν γιγνομένους.

Th,

Παντάπασι μὲν οὖν.

=. Φύσιν γὰρ οἶμαί τινα τῶν φυλάκων τῆς ψυχῆς ἐλέ-
γομεν ἅμα μὲν θυμοειδῆ, ἅμα δὲ φιλόσοφον δεῖν εἶναι διαφε-

13 δόντες: διδόντες A.

1. ὅσα ὑμῖν] This is doubtless the
right reading. Sokrates had bargained
with his friends, as we may learn from
20 B, that they should supply the sequel
to his discourse: and this they had con-
sented todo. Thus in recapitulating his
own contribution Sokrates recalls to their
minds what is expected of them.

6. περὶ πολιτείας] Sokrates in his
summary of the Republic deals with it
solely as a political treatise, totally ig-
noring its metaphysical bearings. This,
while very significant of the change in
Plato’s views, is due to the fact that it is
only on its political side that the Republic
is connected with the rest of the trilogy.
Its metaphysical teaching is superseded

14 μίαν ἑκάστῳ τέχνην : sic SZ e Bekkeri coniectura.
ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῇ τέχνῃ A, quae uncis inclusa retinuit H.

16 ἔνδοθεν : ἔνδον SZ.

by the more advanced ontology of the
Timaeus ; and were the dialogue actually
incorporated in a trilogy, it would stand
in need of sundry important modifica-
tions. But the ideal commonwealth is
maintained intact: the laws of the καλλί-
mods are agreeable to the ontological
and physical principles set forth in the
Zimaeus and find their counterpart in
the institutions of ancient Athens as they
are to be depicted in the Critias. Nowit
seems to me highly important to notice
that the political theories of the Repudlic
are thus stamped with Plato’s deliberate
approval in a work belonging to the
ripest maturity of his thought—ydAa γε
ἡμῖν ῥηθεῖσα πᾶσι κατὰ νοῦν. We ought

184

18 A] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 57

Sokrates. Do you remember the extent and scope of the
subjects I appointed for your discussion ?

Timaeus. In part we remember; and whatever we have
forgotten, you are here to aid our memory. But I should
prefer, if it is not troublesome, that you should briefly recapitu-
late them from beginning to end, that they may be more firmly
fixed in our minds.

Sokrates. 1 will, The main subject of my discourse
yesterday was a political constitution, and the kind of prin-
ciples and citizens which seemed to me likely to render it most
perfect.

Timaeus. Yes, and what you said, Sokrates, was very much
to the satisfaction of us all. .

Sokrates. Was not our first step to separate the agricultural
class and tradesmen in general from those who were to be the
defenders of our state?

Timacus. It was. -

Sokrates. And in assigning on natural principles but one
single pursuit or craft which was suited to each citizen severally,
we declared that those whose duty it was to fight on behalf of
the community must be guardians only of the city, in case any
one whether without or within her walls should seek to injure
her, and that they should give judgment mercifully to their
subjects and natural friends, but show themselves stern to the
enemies they met in battle.

Timaeus. Quite true.

Sokrates. For we described, I think, a certain temperament
which the souls of our guardians must possess, combining in a
peculiar degree high spirit and thoughtfulness, that they might

not then to regard the Zavus as indicating
any abandonment by Plato of his political

15. φύλακας] The distinction between
φύλακες and ἐπίκουροι is here neglected,

ideal, but simply as offering a working
substitute so long as the attainment of
that ideal was impracticable. Plato re-
mains all his life long a true citizen of
that city ‘whereof the pattern is pre-
served in heaven’.

7. κατεφαίνετ᾽ dv] ἂν belongs to ye-
νέσθαι. :

9. τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν] Republic 370 E
foll.

cf. Republic 414 A Gp’ οὖν ὡς ἀληθῶς ὀρθό-
τατον καλεῖν τούτους μὲν φύλακας παντελεῖς
τῶν τε ἔξωθεν πολεμίων τῶν τε ἐντὸς φι-
λίων, ὅπως οἱ μὲν μὴ βουλήσονται, οἱ δὲ μὴ
δυνήσονται κακουργεῖν, τοὺς δὲ νέους, ods νῦν
δὴ φύλακας ἐκαλοῦμεν, ἐπικούρους τε καὶ
βοηθοὺς τοῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων δόγμασιν ;

22. ἅμα μὲν θυμοειδῆ] Repudlic 3758
[0]].

58 IAATQNO® [18 A—

ρόντως, iva πρὸς ἑκατέρους δύναιντο ὀρθῶς πρᾶοι καὶ χαλεποὶ
γίγνεσθαι.

ΤΙ. Ναί

ΣΩ. Τί δὲ τροφήν; ap’ οὐ γυμναστικῇ καὶ μουσικῇ μαθήμασί

5 τε, ὅσα προσήκει τούτοις, ἐν ἅπασι τεθράφθαι;

ΤΙ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν. ι

XQ. Τοὺς δέ γε οὕτω τραφέντας ἐλέχθη που μήτε χρυσὸν B
μήτε ἄργυρον μήτε ἄλλο ποτὲ μηδὲν κτῆμα ἑαυτῶν ἴδιον νομίζειν —
δεῖν, GAN ὡς ἐπικούρους μισθὸν λαμβάνοντας τῆς φυλακῆς παρὰ

10 TOY σῳζομένων ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ὅσος σώφροσι μέτριος, ἀναλίσκειν
τε δὴ κοινῇ καὶ ξυνδιαιτωμένους μετὰ ἀλλήλων ζῆν, ἐπιμέλειαν
ἔχοντας ἀρετῆς διὰ παντός, τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἄγοντας
σχολήν.

ΤΙ. ᾿Ἐλέχθη καὶ ταῦτα ταύτῃ.

1 ΣΩ. Καὶ μὲν 8) καὶ περὶ γυναικῶν ἐπεμνήσθημεν, ὡς τὰς C
φύσεις τοῖς ἀνδράσι παραπλησίας εἴη ξυναρμοστέον, καὶ τὰ ἐπιτη-
δεύματα πάντα κοινὰ κατά τε πόλεμον καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην δίαιταν
δοτέον πάσαις.

ΤΙ. Ταύτῃ καὶ ταῦτα ἐλέγετο.

20 ΣΩ. Ti δὲ δὴ τὸ περὶ τῆς παιδοποιίας ; ἢ τοῦτο μὲν διὰ τὴν
ἀήθειαν τῶν λεχθέντων εὐμνημόνευτον, ὅτι κοινὰ τὰ τῶν γάμων
καὶ τὰ τῶν παίδων πᾶσιν ἁπάντων ἐτίθεμεν, μηχανώμενοι, ὅπως
μηδείς ποτε τὸ γεγενημένον αὐτῷ ἰδίᾳ γνώσοιτο, νομιοῦσι δὲ πάντες Ὁ
πάντας αὐτοὺς ὁμογενεῖς, ἀδελφὰς μὲν καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ὅσοιπερ ἂν

as τῆς πρεπούσης ἐντὸς ἡλικίας γίγνωνται, τοὺς δ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν καὶ
ἄνωθεν γονέας τε καὶ γονέων προγόνους, τοὺς δ᾽ εἰς τὸ κάτωθεν
ἐκγόνους παῖδάς τε ἐκγόνων ;

ΤΙ. Ναί, καὶ ταῦτα εὐμνημόνευτα, ἣ λέγεις.
ΣΩ. Ὅπως δὲ δὴ κατὰ δύναμιν εὐθὺς γίγνοιντο ὡς ἄριστοι

30 Τὰς φύσεις, dp οὐ μεμνήμεθα, ὡς τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἔφαμεν καὶ τὰς
ἀρχούσας δεῖν εἰς τὴν τῶν γάμων σύνερξιν λάθρᾳ μηχανᾶσθαι E

20 τί δέ: τί δαί ΑΗ. 22 μηχανώμενοι : μηχανωμένους AH. correxit Stephanus.
23 αὐτῷ: αὐτῶν Α.

5. ἐν ἅπασι] Stallbaum would have 15. περὶ γυναικῶν] Plato’s regulations
τούτοισιν ἅπασι. Plato frequently uses for the training of women will be found
the old form of the dative plural: but in Republic 451 C—457 B: he treats of
there seems no real objection to the pre- πσαιδοποιία in the immediate sequel.
position. 22. μηχανώμενοι] Hermann’s defence

7. μήτε χρυσόν] Republic 416 D, Ε. of μηχανωμένους is vain; nor is Butt-

Ε] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 59

be able to show a due measure of mildness or sternness to friend
or foe.

Timaeus. Yes.

Sokrates. And what of their training? were they not to
have been trained in gymnastic and music and all studies which
are connected with these?

Timaeus, Just so.

Sokrates. And those who had undergone this discipline, we
said, must not consider that they have any private property in
gold or silver or anything else whatsoever, but as auxiliaries
drawing from those whom they preserved so much pay in return
for their protection as was sufficient for temperate men, they
were to spend it in common and pass their lives in company
with one another, devoting themselves perpetually to the pursuit
of virtue and relieved from all other occupations.

Timaeus. That also is the way it was put.

Sokrates. Moreover with regard to women we observed that
their natures must be brought into harmonious similarity with
those of men, and that the same employments must be assigned
to them all both in war and in their general mode of life.

Timaeus. Yes, that was what we said.

Sokrates. And what were our rules concerning the pro-
creation of children? This, I think, is easy of recollection
because of the novelty of our scheme. We ordained that the
rights of marriage and of children should be common to all, to
the end that no one should ever know his own offspring, but
that each should look upon all as his kindred, regarding as
sisters and brethren all such as were between suitable limits of
age, and those of the former and previous generations as parents
and grandparents, and those after them as children and children’s
children.

Timaeus. Yes, it is very easy to remember this too as you
describe it.

Sokrates. Next with a view to securing immediately the
utmost possible perfection in their natures, do we not remember
that it was incumbent on the rulers of both sexes to make
mann’s μηχανωμένοις very satisfactory. 31. εἰς τὴν τῶν γάμων σύνερξιν] e-

I agree with Stallbaum in receiving the public 459 Ὁ, E.
nominative.

“»“
?

60 . ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

κλήροις τισίν, ὅπως οἱ κακοὶ χωρὶς οἵ 7 ἀγαθοὶ ταῖς ὁμοίαις
ἑκάτεροι ξυλλήξονται, καὶ μή τις αὐτοῖς ἔχθρα διὰ ταῦτα γίγνηται,
τύχην ἡγουμένοις αἰτίαν τῆς ξυλλήξεως ;
ΤΙ. Μεμνήμεθα.
5 ΣΩ. Kal μὴν ὅτι γε τὰ μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν θρεπτέον ἔφαμεν
εἶναι, τὰ δὲ τῶν κακῶν εἰς τὴν ἄλλην λάθρᾳ διαδοτέον πόλιν'

‘8 ἐπαυξανομένων δὲ σκοποῦντας ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀξίους πάλιν ἀνάγειν δεῖν,

τοὺς δὲ παρὰ σφίσιν ἀναξίους εἰς τὴν τῶν ἐπανιόντων χώραν
μεταλλάττειν ;

ἴο ΤΙ. Οὕτως.
SQ. ἾΑρ᾽ οὖν δὴ διεληλύθαμεν ἤδη καθάπερ χθές, ὡς ἐν

κεφαλαίοις πάλιν ἐπανελθεῖν, ἢ ποθοῦμεν ἔτι τι τῶν ῥηθέντων, ὦ
φίλε Τίμαιε, ὡς ἀπολειπόμενον ;
ΤΙ. Οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ ταὐτὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἦν τὰ λεχθέντα, ὦ Σώκρατες.
15 11, ΣΩ. ᾿Ακούοιτ᾽ ἂν ἤδη τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ τῆς πολιτείας,
ἣν διήλθομεν, οἷόν τι πρὸς αὐτὴν πεπονθὼς τυγχάνω. προσέοικε
δὲ δή τινί μοι τοιῷδε τὸ πάθος, οἷον. εἴ τις ζῷα καλά που θεασά-
βένος, εἴτε ὑπὸ γραφῆς εἰργασμένα εἴτε καὶ ζῶντα ἀληθινῶς, ἦσυ-
χίαν δὲ ἄγοντα, εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν ἀφίκοιτο θεάσασθαι κινούμενά τε
20 αὐτὰ καί τι τῶν τοῖς σώμασι δοκούντων προσήκειν κατὰ τὴν ἀγω-
νίαν ἀθλοῦντα' ταὐτὸν καὶ ἐγὼ πέπονθα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἣν
διήλθομεν. ἡδέως γὰρ ἄν του λόγῳ διεξιόντος ἀκούσαιμ᾽ ἂν
ἄθλους, ods πόλις ἀθλεῖ, τούτους αὐτὴν ἀγωνιζομένην πρὸς πόλεις
ἄλλας πρεπόντως, εἴς τε πόλεμον ἀφικομένην καὶ ἐν τῷ πολεμεῖν
45 τὰ προσήκοντα ἀποδιδοῦσαν τῇ παιδείᾳ καὶ τροφῇ κατά τε τὰς
διαλλάττειν Α.
γε A.

6. λάθρᾳ διαδοτέον] Plato has here
somewhat mitigated the rigour of his
ordinance in the Republic : see 459 Ὁ τοὺς
ἀρίστους ταῖς ἀρίσταις συγγίγνεσθαι ws
πλειστάκις, τοὺς δὲ φαυλοτάτους ταῖς φαυ-
λοτάταις τοὐναντίον,

9 μεταλλάττενν : 14 ταὐτὰ: αὐτά 8.

24 τε: omittit 5.

enjoined: ἐάν τε σφέτερος ἔκγονος ὑπόχαλ-
κος ἢ ὑποσίδηρος γένηται, μηδενὶ τρόπῳ
κατελεήσουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῇ φύσει προσή-
κουσαν τιμὴν ἀποδόντες ὥσουσιν εἰς δημιουρ-
yous ἢ εἰς γεωργούς. Probably then, when

καὶ τῶν μὲν τὰ ἔκγονα
τρέφειν, τῶν δὲμή. Compare too φδο τὰ δὲ
τῶν χειρόνων, καὶ ἐάν τι τῶν ἄλλων ἀνάπηρον
γίγνηται, ἐν ἀπορρήτῳ τε καὶ ἀδήλῳ κατα-
κρύψουσιν ὡς πρέπει: and again, 461 C
μάλιστα μὲν μηδ᾽ els φῶς ἐκφέρειν κύημα
μηδέ γ᾽ ἕν, ἐὰν γένηται, ἐὰν δέ τι βιάσηται,
οὕτω τιθέναι ὡς οὐκ οὔσης τροφῆς τῷ τοι-
οὕτῳ. But in 415 B the milder course is

Plato speaks of not rearing the inferior
children, he merely means that they are
not to be reared by the state as infant
φύλακες.

7. ἐπαυξανομένων δὲ σκοποῦντας]
Plato clearly recognises that the laws of
heredity are only imperfectly understood
by us, and that therefore the results may
often baffle our expectation.

[18 E— -

19 A

B

τό 6] TIMAIOS. 61

provision for the contraction of marriages by some secret mode
of allotment, that to the good and bad separately might be
allotted mates of their own kind, and so no ill-feeling should
arise among them, supposing as they would that chance governed
the allotment ?

Timaeus. We remember that.

Sokrates. And the offspring of the good we said must be
reared, while that of the bad was to be secretly dispersed among
the other classes of the state; and continually observing them
as they grew up, the rulers were to restore to their rank such as
were worthy, and in the places of those so promoted substitute
the unworthy in their own rank.

Timaeus. Quite so.

Sokrates. Wave we now said enough for a summary re-
capitulation of yesterday’s discourse? or do we feel that any-
thing is lacking, my dear Timaeus, to our account ?

Timaeus. Not at all» you have exactly described what was
said, Sokrates.

II. Sokrates. Listen then and I will tell you in the next
place what I feel about the constitution which we described.
My feeling is something like this: suppose a man, on beholding
beautiful creatures, whether the work of the painter or really
alive but at rest, should conceive a desire to see them in motion
and putting into active exercise the qualities which seemed to
belong to their form—this is just what I feel about our city
which we described: I would fain listen to one who depicted
her engaged in a becoming manner with other countries in those
struggles which cities must undergo, and going to war, and
when at war showing a result worthy of her training and educa-

I9 B—21 A, ὦ. ii. Sokrates now ex-
presses his desire to see his pictured city
called as it were into life and action; he

on them to gratify his wish. Hermos
krates readily assents, but first begs
Kritias to narrate a forgotten legend of

would have a representation of her actual
doings and dealings with other cities.
He distrusts his own power to do this
worthily, nor has he any greater confi-
dence in poets or sophists. But he de-
clares that his three companions are of all
men the best fitted by genius and training
to accomplish it; and he therefore calls

ancient Athens, which he thinks is appo-
site to the matter in hand : to this Kritias
consents.

17. οἷον εἴ tis] This passage is re-
ferred to by Athenaeus XI 507 D in sup-
port of the truly remarkable charge of
φιλοδοξία which he brings against Plato.

62

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[19 C—

> Lal Μ U \ \ a 4 ,
ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις πράξεις καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις διερμηνεύσεις

\ e , a ,
πρὸς ἑκαστᾶας τῶν πόλεων.

ταῦτ᾽ οὖν, ὦ Κριτία καὶ ᾿Ἑρμόκρατες,

> la \ ¢ oh. la , >: .Ὁ \ / \
ἐμαυτοῦ μὲν αὐτὸς κατέγνωκα μή ποτ᾽ av δυνατὸς γενέσθαι τοὺς Ὁ
ἄνδρας καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἱκανῶς ἐγκωμιάσαι. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐμὸν οὐδὲν

5 θαυμαστόν ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν εἴληφα καὶ περὶ τῶν πάλαι
γεγονότων καὶ τῶν νῦν ὄντων ποιητῶν, οὔ τι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἀτιμά-
ἕων γένος, ἀλλὰ παντὶ δῆλον͵ ὡς τὸ μιμητικὸν ἔθνος, οἷς ἂν ἐν-
τραφῇ, ταῦτα μιμήσεται ῥᾷστα καὶ ἄριστα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐκτὸς τῆς τροφῆς
ἑκάστοις γιγνόμενον, χαλεπὸν μὲν ἔργοις, ἔτε δὲ χαλεπώτερον E

20

λόγοις εὖ μιμεῖσθαι.

τὸ δὲ τῶν σοφιστῶν γένος αὖ πολλῶν μὲν

λόγων καὶ καλῶν ἄλλων μάλ᾽ ἔμπειρον ἥγημαι, φοβοῦμαι δέ, μή
πως, ἅτε πλανητὸν ὃν κατὰ πόλεις οἰκήσεις τε ἰδίας οὐδαμῇ διῳ-
/ » “ , > a 3 \ a Pe eT
κηκός, ἄστοχον ἅμα φιλοσόφων ἀνδρῶν ἢ καὶ πολιτικῶν, Oo ἂν
οἷά τε ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ μάχαις πράττοντες ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ προσομι-

λοῦντες ἑκάστοις πράττοιεν καὶ λέγοιεν.

A n
καταλέλειπται δὴ τὸ τῆς

ς ΄ 4 , “ 3 - \ a ,
ὑμετέρας ἕξεως γένος, ἅμα ἀμφοτέρων φύσει καὶ τροφῇ μετέχον.
/ ‘ \ “ ᾽ , > a o> / ,
Τίμαιός τε γὰρ ὅδε, εὐνομωτάτης ὧν πόλεως τῆς ἐν ᾿Ιταλίᾳ Aoxpi-

> / Ν ᾿ξ 3 ! f a “ “Ὁ
δος, οὐσίᾳ καὶ γένει οὐδενὸς ὕστερος ὧν τῶν ἐκεῖ, τὰς μεγίστας
μὲν ἀρχάς τε καὶ τιμὰς τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει μετακεχείρισται, φιίλο-
σοφίας δ᾽ αὖ κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δόξαν ἐπ᾽ ἄκρον ἁπάσης ἐλήλυθε Κριτίαν
δέ που πάντες οἱ τῇδ᾽ ἴσμεν οὐδενὸς ἰδιώτην ὄντα ὧν λέγομεν" τῆς
δὲ Ἑρμοκράτους αὖ περὶ φύσεως καὶ τροφῆς, πρὸς ἅπαντα ταῦτ᾽

6 καὶ τῶν : καὶ περὶ τῶν Α.

7. τὸ μιμητικὸν ἔθνος] See Republic
392 D, 398 A, 597 E foll. Poetry, says
Plato, is an imitative art ; and poets can-
not imitate what is outside of their experi-
ence. For the use of ἔθνος compare
Sophist 242 Ὁ, Gorgias 4558, Politicus
290 B.

9. ἔτι δὲ χαλεπώτερον λόγοις] Proklos
raises needless difficulty about this. Plato
simply means that to describe such things
worthily requires a rare literary gift : it is
far easier to find an Agamemnon than a
Homer.

12. ἅτε πλανητὸν dv] cf. Sophist 224 B,
where one kind of sophist is described as
τὸν μαθήματα συνωνούμενον πόλιν τε ἐκ
πόλεως νομίσματος ἀμείβοντα.

15, τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἕξεως γένος] i.e.

men οὗ ἃ philosophical habit. We have

a very similar phrase below at 42 D τὸ
τῆς πρώτης καὶ ἀρίστης ἀφίκοιτο εἶδος
ἕξεως. ἕξις expresses a permanent habit
of mind: 2 ake
“τ. ἀμφοτέρων] sc. φιλοσόφου καὶ
πολιτικοῦ.

17. τε γάρ] The τε is not answered:
see Shilleto on Demosth. faés. deg. § 176.

εὐνομωτάτης ὧν médews] The laws
of the Epizephyrian Lokrians were
ascribed to Zaleukos, 660 B.c. From
Demosthenes κατὰ Τιμοκράτους p. 744 it
appears that this people was so conser-
vative as to pass no new law, with a
single amusing exception, during a
period of 200 years. In Laws 638 Ὁ
they are said εὐνομώτατοι τῶν περὶ ἐκεῖνον
τὸν τόπον γεγονέναι. Pindar adds his
testimony, Olymp. x1 (X) 17 νέμει yap

20 A

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

᾿Ατρέκεια πόλιν Λοκρῶν Ζεφυρίων.

20. ἐπ᾽ ἄκρον ἁπάσης] Plato’s judg-
ment of the historical Timaeus can hard-
ly have gone so far as this: that however
he must have set a high estimate on the
Pythagorean’s philosophical capacity he
has proved by making him the mouth-
piece of his own profoundest specu-
lations.

at. οὐδενὸς ἰδιώτην] ἐκαλεῖτο ἰδιώτης
μὲν ἐν φιλοσόφοις, φιλόσοφος δὲ ἐν ἰδιώ-
ταις, says Proklos. He seems to have
been one of those who made a good

show out of a little knowledge: cf. Char-

mides 169 C κἀκεῖνος [sc. Κριτίας] ἔδοξέ
μοι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἀποροῦντος ἀναγκασθῆναι καὶ
αὐτὸς ἁλῶναι ὑπὸ ἀπορίας. ἅτε οὖν εὐ-
δοκιμῶν ἑκάστοτε ἠσχύνετο τοὺς πα-
ρόντας, καὶ οὔτε ξυγχωρῆσαί μοι ἤθελεν
ἀδύνατος εἶναι διελέσθαι ἃ προὐκαλούμην
αὐτόν, ἔλεγέ τε οὐδὲν σαφές, ἐπικαλύπτων
τὴν ἀπορίαν.

22. ᾿Ἑἱρμοκράτους] This was the cele-
brated Syracusan general and statesman,
distinguished in the Peloponnesian war.
A Hermokrates mentioned among the
friends of Sokrates by Xenophon memo-
rabilia 1 ii 48 is doubtless a different

,κΑἴ δι τις.

. «οὖ

Τὴ τ πάτο

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[20 A—

εἶναι ἱκανῆς πολλῶν μαρτυρούντων πιστευτέον δή. ὃ καὶ χθὲς ἐγὼ
διανοούμενος ὑμῶν δεομένων τὰ περὶ τῆς πολιτείας διελθεῖν προ-
θύμως ἐχαριζόμην, εἰδώς, ὅτι τὸν ἑξῆς λόγον οὐδένες ἂν ὑμῶν
ἐθελόντων ἱκανώτερον ἀποδοῖεν" εἰς γὰρ πόλεμον πρέποντα κατα-

μόνοι τῶν νῦν.
a ,
νῦν λέγω.

στ δὴ > θέ ? , ς κα \
ELTT@V Of) TATTLTAVUEVTA ἀντεπέταξα υμιν ἃ

͵ \ t ᾽ A , ’ a> a
5 στήσαντες τὴν πόλιν ἅπαντ᾽ αὐτῇ τὰ προσήκοντα ἀποδοῖτ᾽ ἂν

ba

‘
Kal

/ ? > a U \ ce
ξυνωμολογήσατ᾽ οὖν κοινῇ σκεψάμενοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς

Β

> \ > a > , ‘ a , , / /
αὐτοὺς εἰς viv ἀνταποδώσειν μοι τὰ τῶν λόγων Eévia, πάρειμί Te C
οὖν δὴ κεκοσμημένος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ καὶ πάντων ἑτοιμότατος ὧν δέ-

10 χεσθαι.

EP. Καὶ μὲν δή, καθάπερ εἶπε Τίμαιος ὅδε, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὔτε

“ / OY Μ »” 5 / , can
ἐλλείψομεν προθυμίας οὐδὲν οὔτε ἔστιν οὐδεμία πρόφασις ἡμῖν
a ‘ie ee ἀκ ς \ θὲ ἡδὺς ἰυϑέυδ ᾽ δή \
τοῦ μὴ δρᾶν ταῦτα' ὥστε καὶ χθὲς εὐθὺς ἐνθένδε, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ
Κριτίαν πρὸς τὸν ξενῶνα, οὗ καὶ καταλύομεν, ἀφικόμεθα, καὶ ἔτι

/ ΚΣ δ ee WAG, > rn
15 πρότερον καθ᾽ ὁδὸν αὐτὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐσκοποῦμεν.

? , > a > δ, Ὁ Ν a , 2. K / ay)
εἰσηγήσατο ἐκ παλαιᾶς ἀκοῆς" ὃν Kal viv λέγε, ὦ Κριτία, τῷδε,
4 / \ \ > / ¥3 9 , ΠΑ SS , /
iva ξυνδοκιμάσῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐπίταξιν εἴτ᾽ ἐπιτήδειος εἴτ᾽ ἀνεπιτήδειός

ἐστιν.

KP. Ταῦτα χρὴ δρᾶν, εἰ καὶ τῷ τρίτῳ κοινωνῷ Τιμαίῳ Evv-

20 δοκεῖ.

ΤΙ. Δοκεῖ μήν.

ΚΡ, ἴΑκουε δή, ὦ Σώκρατες, λόγου μάλα μὲν ἀτόπου, παντά-
πασί γε μὴν ἀληθοῦς, ὡς ὁ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατος Σόλων ToT ἔφη. E
> \ 3 » tal \ , ς oa , a
ἦν μὲν οὖν οἰκεῖος Kal σφόδρα φίλος ἡμῖν Δρωπίδου τοῦ mpo-

1 ἱκανῆς : ἱκανήν H. ὅ: διό Α5Ζ.

person: a friendship between Sokrates
and the Syracusan leader is in itself im-
probable, if not impossible, and the lan-
guage of Sokrates in the present passage
seems inconsistent with the existence of
any intimacy. That however the Syra-
cusan is the interlocutor in this dialogue
seems to me certain. Plato has assem-
bled a company of the very highest dis-
tinction, among whom an obscure com-
panion of Sokrates would be out of
place.

4. εἰς γὰρ πόλεμον πρέποντα] The

9 ὧν omittit 5,
14 ἀφικόμεθα : ἀφικοίμεθα Α.

25 πάππου, καθάπερ λέγει πολλαχοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ ποιήσει" πρὸς
ca

13 τοῦ μή: τὸ μή 8.
19 χρή: δή A.

prominence given to war throughout the
passage is notable: it is considered as a
normal mode of a state’s activity. And
in fact, when Plato wrote, it could hardly
be regarded otherwise.

9. κεκοσμημένος] i.e. with festal attire
and garland.

11. καὶ μὲν δή] This is the only
occasion throughout the dialogue on
which Hermokrates opens his lips.

24. Δρωπίδου] Proklos makes out
the genealogy thus:

ὁ δ᾽ οὖν ἡμῖν λόγον Ὁ

E] TIMAIO®’. 65

many witnesses that his genius and acquirements qualify him to
deal with all such matters. This was in my mind yesterday
when I willingly complied with your request that I should
repeat the conversation concerning the ideal polity ; for I knew
that no men were more competent than you, if you were willing,
to supply the sequel: no one else indeed at the present day
could, after engaging our city in an honourable war, render her
conduct worthy of her in all respects. So after saying all that .
was enjoined on me I in my turn enjoined upon you the task of
which I now remind you. Accordingly you consulted together
and agreed to entertain me at this time with a return ‘feast of
reason’, Iam here then ready for it in festal array, and never
was there a more eager guest.

Hermokrates. Indeed, Sokrates, as Timaeus said, there will
be no lack of zeal on our part, nor can we attempt to excuse
ourselves from performing the task. In fact yesterday imme-
diately on leaving this spot, when we reached the guest-chamber
at the house of Kritias where we are staying, and even before
that on our way thither, we were discussing this very matter.
Kritias then told us a story from an old tradition, which you had
better repeat now, Kritias, to Sokrates, that he may help us to
judge whether it will answer the purpose for our present task or
not.

Kritias. So be it, if our third partner Timaeus agrees.

Timaeus. I quite agree.

Kritias. Listen then, Sokrates, to a tale which, strange
though it be, is yet perfectly true, as Solon, the wisest of the
seven, once affirmed. He was a relation and dear friend of
Dropides, my great-grandfather, as he says himself in many

Exekestides
r ———1—4 δ:
Solon Dropides
Kritias (the elder)
Kallaischros Glaukon (the elder)
Kritias (the younger) Periktione Charmides
Plato Glaukon Adeimantos

He must however be mistaken in making ἃ relationship. Moreover it would seem
Solon and Dropides brothers: Plato’s that Solon has been placed a generation
words evidently do not imply so close too near to the elder Kritias,

P. T. 5

66

IIAATONOS

[20 E—

Drep-

δὲ Κριτίαν που τὸν ἡμέτερον πάππον εἶπεν, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευεν αὖ
πρὸς ἡμᾶς 6 γέρων, ὅτι μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ τῆσδ᾽ εἴη παλαιὰ
ἔργα τῆς πόλεως ὑπὸ χρόνου καὶ φθορᾶς ἀνθρώπων ἠφανισμένα,

πάντων δὲ ἕν μέγιστον, οὗ νῦν ἐπιμνῃσθεῖσι πρέπον ἂν ἡμῖν εἴη σοί 21 A

5 τε ἀποδοῦναι χάριν καὶ τὴν θεὸν ἅμα ἐν τῇ πανηγύρει δικαίως τε
καὶ ἀληθῶς olovrrep ὑμνοῦντας ἐγκωμιάζειν.

Ιο

ΣΩ,. Ed λέγεις.

ἀλλὰ δὴ ποῖον ἔργον τοῦτο Κριτίας οὐ

λεγόμενον μέν, ὡς δὲ πραχθὲν ὄντως ὑπὸ τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως ἀρ-
χαῖον διηγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Σόλωνος ἀκοήν ;

Th. EP.

/ , /
᾿Εγὼ φράσω παλαιὸν ἀκηκοὼς λόγον οὐ νέου

ἀνδρός. ἦν μὲν γὰρ δὴ τότε Κριτίας, ὡς ἔφη, σχεδὸν ἐγγὺς ἤδη
τῶν ἐνενήκοντα ἐτῶν, ἐγὼ δέ πῃ μάλιστα δεκέτης" ἡ δὲ Κουρεῶτις Β

5" s ψ΄ Ψ > /
ἡμῖν οὖσα ἐτύγχανεν ᾿Απατουρίων.

τὸ δὴ τῆς ἑορτῆς σύνηθες

-“ r la
ἑκάστοτε καὶ τότε ξυνέβη τοῖς παισίν ἀθλα yap ἡμῖν οἱ πατέρες

I που Tov:

5. ἐν τῇ πανηγύρει] 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 17th to the 25th
Hekatombaion. The lesser festival was
annual. Demosthenes κατὰ Τιμοκράτους
§ 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: ὅτι ye
μὴν τὰ Παναθήναια (sc. τὰ μικρά) τοῖς
Βενδιδείοις εἵπετο λέγουσιν οἱ ὑπομνη-
ματισταί, καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλης ὁ Ῥόδιος μαρ-
τυρεῖ τὰ μὲν ἐν Πειραιεῖ Βενδίδεια τῇ εἰκάδι
τοῦ Θαργηλιῶνος ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ἕπεσθαι δὲ
τὰς περὶ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν ἑορτάς. 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 11 pp. 332—5
has a careful discussion of the question

που omittunt SZ.

_ γενόμενον δὲ ὅμως.

εἶπεν: εἰπεῖν Α.

and decides in favour of placing the lesser
Panathenaia in Thargelion.

7. οὐ λεγόμενον μέν] Stallbaum is
ill advised in adopting the interpretation
of Proklos μὴ πάνυ μὲν τεθρυλημένον,
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 Καὶ
τό τε μὴ πλασθέντα μῦθον ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινὸν
λόγον εἶναι πάμμεγά που.

21 A—25 Ὁ, ¢ 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 87} - ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 67

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 ?

11. Kvitias. I will tell an ancient story that I heard from
aman 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. ᾿Απατουρίων] 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 δόρπεια, the
second ἀνάρρυσις, the third κουρεῶτις.
On this third day the names of children
three or four years of age were enrolled
on the register of their φρατρία. Proklos
seems mistaken in making ἀνάρρυσις the
first day; all other authorities place dép-
πεια first.

s—2

68 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ (21 8--

, -
ἔθεσαν ῥαψῳδίας. πολλῶν μὲν οὖν δὴ καὶ πολλὰ ἐλέχθη ποιητῶν
- \ /
ποιήματα, ἅτε δὲ νέα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ὄντα τὰ Σόλωνος
- 7 Μ
πολλοὶ τῶν παίδων ἤσαμεν. εἶπεν οὖν δή τις τῶν φρατέρων, εἴτε
a a“ , , a
δὴ δοκοῦν αὐτῷ τότε εἴτε καὶ χάριν τινὰ τῷ Κριτίᾳ φέρων, δοκεῖν
i τά Te aX ) {var Σόλω ὶ ὶ τὴ inow C
5 of τά Te ἄλλα σοφώτατον γεγονέναι Σόλωνα καὶ κατὰ THY ποίη
a rn , 4
αὖ τῶν ποιητῶν πάντων ἐλευθεριώτατον. ὁ δη γέρων, σφόδρα yap
ὖν μέ ir ἥσθ ὶ ὃ διά irev’ Ei γε, ὦ
οὖν μέμνημαι, μάλα τε ἥσθη καὶ διαμειδιάσας εἶπε γε,
lal Ld
᾿Αμύνανδρε, μὴ παρέργῳ TH ποιήσει κατεχρήσατο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐσπουδάκει
καθάπερ ἄλλοι, τόν τε λόγον, ὃν ἀπ᾿’ Αἰγύπτου δεῦρο ἠνέγκατο,
10 ἀπετέλεσε καὶ μὴ διὰ τὰς στάσεις ὑπὸ κακῶν τε ἄλλων, ὅσα εὗρεν
4“
ἐνθάδε ἥκων, ἠναγκάσθη καταμελῆσαι, κατά γε ἐμὴν δόξαν οὔτε Ὁ
Ἡσίοδος οὔτε “Ὅμηρος οὔτε ἄλλος οὐδεὶς ποιητὴς εὐδοκιμώτερος
ca) id . eer
ἐγένετο ἄν ποτε αὐτοῦ. Tis δ᾽ ἦν ὁ λόγος, ἡ δ᾽ ὅς, ὦ Κριτία; Ἦ
περὶ μεγίστης, ἔφη, καὶ ὀνομαστοτάτης πασῶν δικαιότατ᾽ ἂν πρά-
15 ξεως οὔσης, ἣν ἥδε ἡ πόλις ἔπραξε μέν, διὰ δὲ χρόνον καὶ φθορὰν
to a -“ 3
τῶν ἐργασαμένων οὐ διήρκεσε δεῦρο ὁ λόγος. Λέγε ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἢ
δ᾽ ὄ ͵ \ a cf, κ᾿ ͵ ε ᾿ 67 ὃ . ee
ς, τί Te καὶ πῶς Kal παρὰ τίνων ὡς ἀληθῆ διακηκοὼς ἔλεγεν
ὁ Σόλων. "Ἔστι τις κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον, ἢ δ᾽ ὅς, ἐν τῷ Δέλτα, περὶ E
ὃ κατὰ κορυφὴν σχίζεται τὸ τοῦ Νείλου ῥεῦμα, Σαϊτικὸς ἐπικα-
' ΄ , δὲ a n , , > , 60 ὃ \
20 λούμενος νομός, τούτου δὲ τοῦ νομοῦ μεγίστη πόλις Laws, ὅθεν δὴ
καὶ “Apacis ἦν 6 βασιλεύς: οἷς τῆς πόλεως θεὸς ἀρχηγός τίς
ἐστιν, Αὐἰγυπτιστὶ μὲν τοὔνομα Νηίθ, Ἑλληνιστὶ δέ, ὡς 6 ἐκείνων
λόγος, ᾿Αθηνᾶ: μάλα δὲ φιλαθήναιοι καί τινα τρόπον οἰκεῖοι τῶνδ᾽
εἶναί φασιν. of δὴ Σόλων ἔφη πορευθεὶς σφόδρα τε γενέσθαι
25 παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἔντιμος, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ παλαιὰ ἀνερωτῶν τοὺς μάλιστα 22 A
περὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἱερέων ἐμπείρους σχεδὸν οὔτε αὑτὸν οὔτε ἄλλον
Ἕλληνα οὐδένα οὐδὲν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν εἰδότα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων
ἀνευρεῖν. καί ποτε προαγαγεῖν βουληθεὶς αὐτοὺς περὶ τῶν ἀρ-

10 καὶ μή: καὶ εἰ μή A. 13 ἣ περί: Gomittit 5. 25 ἀνερωτῶν : ἀνερωτῶντός ποτε A.

10. διὰ τὰς στάσεις] Plutarch So/on Stallbaum’s note it appears that this

c. 31 says it was old age, not civil
troubles, which prevented Solon from
carrying out his designs.

14. ἄν.. οὔσης] 1.6. it would have
been, had circumstances been less un-
favourable.

a1. Ἄμασις ὁ βασιλεύς] According
to Herodotus 11 172 the birthplace of
Amasis was not Sais itself, but Siouph,
another city in the Saitic nome. From

reference to Amasis placed in Solon’s
mouth has been regarded as an anachro-
nism, and so Stallbaum himself seems to
consider it. But since Amasis ascended
the Egyptian throne in 569 B.c., accord-
ing to Clinton, there is no obvious
reason why Solon should not mention
him, or why he may not even have visited
him, as Herodotus affirms, 1 30. For
Solon was certainly alive after the usur-

22 ΑἹ TIMAIO¥. 69

prizes for reciting poetry. A great deal of poetry by various
authors was recited, and since that of Solon was new at the
time, many of us children sang his poems. So one of the clans-
men said, whether he really thought so or whether he wished to
please Kritias, he considered that Solon was not only in other
respects the wisest of mankind but also the noblest of all poets
The old man—how well I recollect it—was extremely pleased
and said smiling, Yes, Amynandros, if he had not treated poetry
merely as a by-work, but had made a serious business of it like
the rest, and if he had finished the legend which he brought
hither from Egypt, instead of being compelled to abandon it by
the factions and other troubles which he found here on his
return, my belief is that neither Hesiod nor Homer nor any
other poet would have enjoyed greater fame than he. What
was.the legend, Kritias? asked Amynandros. It concerned a
mighty achievement, he replied, and one that deserved to be the
most famous in the world; a deed which our city actually per-
formed, but owing to time and the destruction of the doers
thereof the story has not lasted to our times. Tell us from the
beginning, said the other, what was the tale that Solon told, and
how and from whom he heard it as true.

There is in Egypt, said Kritias, in the Delta, at the apex of
which the stream of the Nile divides, a province called the
Saitic; and the chief city of this province is Sais, the birthplace
of Amasis the king. The founder of their city is a goddess,
whose name in the Egyptian tongue is Neith, and in Greek, as
they aver, Athena: the people are great lovers of the Athenians
and claim a certain kinship with our countrymen. Now when
Solon travelled to this city he said he was most honourably
entreated by the citizens; moreover when he questioned con-
cerning ancient things such of the priests as were most versed
therein, he found that neither he nor any other Grecian man,
one might wellnigh say, knew aught about such matters. And
once, when he wished to lead them on to talk of ancient times,

pation of Peisistratos, which occurred in νομίζουσιν, ἕδος ἐπιγραφὴν εἶχε τοιαύτην,

560. ᾿Εγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ὃν καὶ ἐσό-
22. Nnl@] This goddess is identified μενον" καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πέπλον οὐδείς rw

by Plutarch with Isis, de τας εἰ Osiride θνητὸς ἀνεκάλυψεν.

ὃ 9 τὸ δ᾽ ἐν Σάει τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς, ἣν καὶ “low

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [22 a—

70

χαίων εἰς λόγους τῶν τῇδε τὰ ἀρχαιότατα λέγειν ἐπιχειρεῖν, περὶ
Φορωνέως τε τοῦ πρώτου λεχθέντος καὶ Νιόβης, καὶ μετὰ τὸν κατα-
κλυσμὸν αὖ περὶ Δευκαλίωνος καὶ Πύρρας ὡς διεγένοντο μυθολογεῖν, ν΄
καὶ τοὺς ἐξ αὐτῶν γενεαλογεῖν, καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐτῶν ὅσα ἦν οἷς ἔλεγε BY
5 πειρᾶσθαι διαμνημονεύων τοὺς χρόνους ἀριθμεῖν" καί τινα εἰπεῖν τῶν
ἱερέων εὖ μάλα παλαιόν "QO Σόλων, Σόλων, Ἕλληνες ἀεὶ παῖδές
| | ἐστε, γέρων δὲ Ἕλλην οὐκ ἔστιν. ἀκούσας οὖν, ἸΠῶς τί τοῦτο λέγεις;
φάναι. Νέοι ἐστέ, εἰπεῖν, τὰς ψυχὰς πάντες" οὐδεμίαν γὰρ ἐν αὐταῖς
ἔχετε δι᾽ ἀρχαίαν ἀκοὴν παλαιὰν δόξαν οὐδὲ μάθημα χρόνῳ πολιὸν
10 οὐδέν. τὸ δὲ τούτων αἴτιον τόδε. πολλαὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλὰ φθοραὶ C
γεγόνασιν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἔσονται πυρὶ μὲν καὶ ὕδατι μέγισται,
μυρίοις δὲ ἄλλοις ἕτεραι βραχύτεραι. τὸ γὰρ οὖν καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν
λεγόμενον, ὥς ποτε Φαέθων Ἡλίου παῖς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἅρμα
ζεύξας διὰ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸς εἶναι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδὸν ἐλαύνειν
is τά T ἐπὶ γῆς ξυνέκαυσε καὶ αὐτὸς κεραυνωθεὶς διεφθάρη, τοῦτο
μύθου μὲν σχῆμα ἔχον λέγεται, τὸ δὲ ἀληθές ἐστι τῶν περὶ γῆν
καὶ κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἰόντων παράλλαξις καὶ διὰ μακρῶν χρόνων D
γιγνομένη τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πυρὶ πολλῷ φθορά. τότε οὖν ὅσοι κατ᾽ .᾽“
ὄρη καὶ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς τόποις καὶ ἐν ξηροῖς οἰκοῦσι, μᾶλλον διόλλυν-
Tat τῶν ποταμοῖς καὶ θαλάττῃ προσοικούντων᾽ ἡμῖν δὲ ὁ Νεῖλος
εἴς τε τὰ ἄλλα σωτὴρ καὶ τότε ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας σῴζει
λυόμενος. ὅταν δ᾽ αὖ θεοὶ τὴν γῆν ὕδασι καθαίροντες κατακλύ-

‘
ν᾿

εἰ,

20

22 θεοί: οἱ θεοί SZ.

2. Φορωνέως) Phoroneus is said in
the legend to have been the son of Ina-
chos: he was nevertheless the first man
according to the explanation in Pausanias
Ii xv λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὅδε λόγος" Φορωνέα
ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ γενέσθαι πρῶτον, Ἴναχον
δὲ οὐκ ἄνδρα ἀλλὰ τὸν ποταμὸν πατέρα
εἶναι Φορωνεῖ... Φορωνεὺς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ινάχου τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους συνήγαγε πρῶτον ἐς κοινόν, σπο-
ράδας τέως καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἑκάστοτε οἰκοῦν-
tas* καὶ τὸ χωρίον ἐς ὃ πρῶτον ἠθροίσθησαν
ἄστυ ὠνομάσθη Φορωνικόν. Proklos gives
a list of several persons who enjoyed the
distinction of being accounted ‘ first men’
in various parts of Greece.

3. ὡς διεγένοντο] ‘ how they survived’.
This seems clearly the meaning here ; but
it is a rare use, which we find also in
Hippokrates περὶ ἐπιδημιῶν 1 vol. UI p.

384 Kiihn καὶ τῶν κατακλιθέντων οὐκ οἶδ᾽
εἴ τις καὶ μέτριον χρόνον διεγένετο.

16. μύθου μὲν σχῆμα] Compare Po/i-
ticus 268 E, where another myth is
similarly explained as a fragmentary. re-
miniscence of the great convulsion that
took place when the motion of the uni-
verse was reversed.

17. παράλλαξις] This does not sig-
nify a reverse motion, like the ἀνακύκλη-
σις of Politicus 269 E, where the same
word occurs, but some deviation from the
wonted orbits, as in Republic 530 B γίγ-
verbal re ταῦτα del ὡσαύτως καὶ οὐδαμῇ
οὐδὲν παραλλάττειν. The παράλλαξις must
not be regarded as due to accident, which
Plato does not admit into his scheme: it
is a phenomenon which, occurring at long
but definite intervals, is strictly in the

D] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. γι

he essayed to tell them of the oldest legends of Hellas, of
Phoroneus who was called the first man, and of Niobe; and
again he told the tale of Deukalion and Pyrrha, how they sur-
vived after the deluge, and he reckoned up their descendants, and
tried, by calculating the periods, to count up the number of
years that passed during the events he related. Then said one
of the priests, a man well stricken in years, O Solon, Solon, ye
Greeks are ever children, and old man that is a Grecian is there
none. And when Solon heard it, he said, What meanest thou
by this? And the priest said, Ye are all young in your souls;
for ye have not in them because of old tradition any ancient
belief nor knowledge that is hoary with eld. And the reason of
it is this: many and manifold are the destructions of mankind
that have been and shall be; the greatest are by fire and by
water; but besides these there are lesser ones in countless other
fashions. For indeed that tale that is also told among you, how
that Phaethon, the child of the Sun, yoked his father’s chariot,
and for that he could not drive in his father’s path, he burnt up
all things upon earth and himself was smitten by a thunderbolt
and slain—this story, as it is told, has the fashion of a fable;
but the truth of it is a deviation of the bodies that move round
the earth in the heavens, whereby comes at long intervals of
time a destruction with much fire of the things that are upon
earth. Thus do such as dwell on mountains and in high places
and in dry perish more widely than they who live beside rivers
and by the sea. Now the Nile, which is in all else our preserver,
saves us then also from this distress by releasing his founts: but
when the gods send a flood upon the earth, cleansing her with

. quotes with disapprobation. Πορφύριος
μὲν δή φησιν, ὅτι δόξα ἦν παλαιὰ Αἰγυπτίων

regular course of nature.
22. λυόμενος] The explanation given

of this word by Proklos is utterly worth-
less: λύεται yap ᾿Αττικῶς ὅτι λύει τῆς
ἀπορίας ἡμᾶς ὁ Νεῖλος. Even conceding
the more than doubtful Atticism of λυό-
μενος τελύων (the only authority Stall-
baum can quote is a very uncertain in-
stance in Xenophon de venatu 1 17), the
clumsy tautology of the participle, thus
understood, is glaring. It appears to me
that the right interpretation has been
suggested by Porphyrios, whom Proklos

τὸ ὕδωρ κάτωθεν ἀναβλυστάνειν τῇ ἀναβάσει
τοῦ Νείλου, διὸ καὶ ἱδρῶτα γῆς ἐκάλουν τὸν
Νεῖλον, καὶ τὸ ἐπανιέναι κάτωθεν ταὐτὸ
τῷ Αἰγυπτίῳ δηλοῦν καὶ τὸ σώζειν λυό-
μενον, οὐχ ὅτι ἡ χιὼν λυομένη τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν ὑδάτων ποιεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι λύεται ἀπὸ τῶν
ἑαυτοῦ πηγῶν καὶ πρόεισιν εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς
ἐπεχόμενος πρότερον. Nothing can be
more natural than that the Egyptians
should have believed that the ‘earth is
full of secret springs’, which by their

᾿
,. ree

5 νιέναι πέφυκεν.

72 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[22 D—

ἕωσιν, οἱ μὲν ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι διασῴζονται βουκόλοι νομεῖς τε, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν
ταῖς παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πόλεσιν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν ὑπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν φέ- E
βονται, κατὰ δὲ τήνδε τὴν χώραν οὔτε τότε οὔτε ἄλλοτε ἄνωθεν
ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρούρας ὕδωρ ἐπιρρεῖ τὸ δ᾽ ἐναντίον κάτωθοιν πᾶν ἐπα-

ὅθεν καὶ δι’ ἃς αἰτίας τἀνθάδε σφζόμενα. λέγεται

παλαιότατα. τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς τόποις, ὅπου μὴ χειμὼν

ἐξαίσιος ἢ ἣ καῦμα ἀπείργει, πλέον, τοτὲ δὲ ἔλαττον ἀεὶ γένος ἐστὶν

ἀνθρώπων. ὅσα δὲ ἣ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἢ τῇδε ἣ καὶ Kat’ ἄλλον τόπον ὧν 28 A

* / / x / 3
ἀκοὴν ἴσμεν, εἴ πού τι καλὸν ἢ μέγα γέγονεν ἢ καί τινα διαφορὰν

ἱεροῖς καὶ σεσῳσμένα.

a ayn 9 \ > “

10 ἄλλην ἔχον, πάντα γεγραμμένα ἐκ παλαιοῦ τῇδ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς
a lal Μ

τὰ δὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄρτι

’ eA e /
κατεσκευασμένα ἑκάστοτε τυγχάνει γράμμασι Kal ἅπασιν, ὁπόσων
, a f ,
πόλεις δέονται, καὶ πάλιν δι’ εἰωθότων ἐτῶν ὥσπερ νόσημα ἥκει
a a \ > / \
φερόμενον αὐτοῖς ῥεῦμα οὐράνιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγραμμάτους τε Kal

a , ,
15 ἀμούσους ἔλιπεν ὑμῶν, ὥστε πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἷον νέοι γίγνεσθε,

- an fal > eC. ςΣ “ 3 -
οὐδὲν εἰδότες οὔτε τῶν τῇδε οὔτε τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ὅσα ἦν ἐν τοῖς

παλαιοῖς χρόνοις.

\ a fol \ ΄ > / \
τὰ γοῦν viv δὴ γενεαλογηθέντα, ὦ Σόλων, περὶ
τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἃ διῆλθες, παίδων βραχύ τι διαφέρει μύθων, οἱ

πρῶτον μὲν ἕνα γῆς κατακλυσμὸν μέμνησθε πολλῶν ἔμπροσθεν

4 κάτωθεν πᾶν : πᾶν omittit Ζ.

| 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. Avé-
μενος will therefore mean ‘being re-

leased’ by the unsealing of its subterra-

nean founts. This explanation also gives
a good and natural sense to κάτωθεν
ἐπανιέναι below. 1 hold it then undesira-
ble to admit ῥυόμενος, which is the reading
of some inferior mss.

3. κατὰ τήνδε τὴν χώραν͵) The
priest’s theory is as follows. The destruc-
tion of ancient records is due (1) 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

9 ἀκοὴν dedi ex A. ἀκοῇ HSZ.

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 Ὁ, 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. τὸ δὲ ἀληθές] 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 φθοραί, goes back to
an extremely remote period, and conse-
quently many φθοραὶ ἀνθρώπων are re-
corded. Elsewhere this immunity does

B

23 8] 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
you 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

φθορά; and people suppose that there
has been but one, and that the existence
of man in their country dates from ἃ com-
paratively recent time. But the truth is,
says the priest, that in all countries where
the climate admits of human life there
has been a human population of varying
extent surviving a number of φθοραί,
although no memorial of the earlier in-
habitants remains. It was a common belief
that as the North from cold, so the South
from heat was uninhabitable by man: cf.
Aristotle meteorologica 11 v 362 26 ἔνθα
μὲν yap διὰ ψῦχος οὐκέτι κατοικοῦσιν, ἔνθα
δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀλέαν. The difficulty about
the sentence is that τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθές has the
air of correcting the statement in the
preceding clause: whereas what is really
corrected is the implied misconception ;
i.e. that the antiquity of man in other

records.

12. kaTerKevacrpéva...ypdppact] ‘lit-
eris mandata’, says Stallbaum, a render-
ing which will surely find few friends :
nor can we confine ἅπασιν ὁπόσων πόλεις
δέονται to public monuments, as he would
have us. κατεσκευασμένα means ‘fur-
nished’ or ‘enriched’, a sense which it
bears several times in Thucydides: see VI
gt, vill 24. The following words ge-
nerally comprehend all the appurtenances
of civilisation : amongst others, as Proklos
says, τέχναι καὶ ἀγοραὶ kal λουτρά. τὰ παρ᾽
ὑμῖν is also a general phrase,=your insti-
tutions or commonwealths, Compare
Critias 110 A ὅταν ἴδητόν τισιν ἤδη τοῦ
βίου τἀναγκαῖα κατεσκευασμένα.

13. 8v εἰωθότων ἐτῶν] These words
show conclusively that the φθοραὶ were
normal and regularly recurrent.

74 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [23 B—

γεγονότων, ἔτι δὲ τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ ἄριστον γένος ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους
ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν οὐκ ἴστε γεγονώς, ἐξ ὧν σύ τε καὶ πᾶσα
ἡ πόλις ἔστι τὰ νῦν ὑμῶν, περιλειφθέντος ποτὲ σπέρματος βραχέος, C
ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς λέληθε διὰ τὸ τοὺς περυγενομένους ἐπὶ πολλὰς γενεὰς

5 γράμμασι τελευτᾶν ἀφώνους. ἦν γὰρ δή ποτε, ὦ Σόλων, ὑ ὑπὲρ τὴν
μεγίστην φθορὰν ὕδασιν ἡ ἡ νῦν ᾿Αθηναίων οὖσα πόλις; Léptowy πρός
τε τὸν πόλεμον καὶ κατὰ πάντα εὐνομωτάτη διαφερόντως" ἡ κάλ-
λιστα ἔργα καὶ πολιτεῖαι γενέσθαι λέγονται κάλλισται πασῶν,
ὁπόσων ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡμεῖς ἀκοὴν παρεδεξάμεθα. ἀκούσας p

4 « / » / \ lal 0 / »” ὃ /

10 οὖν ὁ Σόλων ἔφη θαυμάσαι καὶ πᾶσαν προ υμίαν ἔχειν δεόμενος
τῶν ἱερέων πάντα δι᾽ ἀκριβείας οἱ τὰ περὶ τῶν πάλαι πολιτῶν
ἑξῆς διελθεῖν. τὸν οὖν ἱερέα φάναι' Φθόνος οὐδείς, ὦ Σόλων, ἀλλὰ
σοῦ τε ἕνεκα ἐρῶ καὶ τῆς πόλεως ὑμῶν, μάλιστα δὲ τῆς θεοῦ χάριν,
ἣ τήν τε ὑμετέραν καὶ τήνδε ἔλαχε καὶ ἔθρεψε καὶ ἐπαίδευσε, προ-

/ \ \ 5" Ae Μ lf > A \e , A

15 τέραν μὲν τὴν Tap ὑμῖν ἔτεσι χιλίοις, ἐκ Τῆς τε καὶ Ηφαίστου τὸ E

΄ rn € a ‘ \ ς ’ Lal \ > ,
σπέρμα παραλαβοῦσα ὑμῶν, τήνδε δὲ ὑστέραν. τῆς δὲ ἐνθάδε
διακοσμήσεως παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν ὀκτακισχιλίων
ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸς γέγραπται. περὶ δὴ τῶν ἐνακισχίλια γεγονότων ἔτη
πολιτῶν σοι δηλώσω διὰ βραχέων νόμους, καὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῖς

20 ὃ κάλλιστον ἐπράχθη" τὸ δ᾽ ἀκριβὲς περὶ πάντων ἐφεξῆς εἰσαῦθις 244

\ \ > \ © / / , \ \ =
κατὰ σχολὴν αὐτὰ τὰ γράμματα λαβόντες διέξιμεν. τοὺς μὲν οὖν
νόμους σκόπει πρὸς τοὺς τῇδε. πολλὰ γὰρ παραδείγματα τῶν
τότε παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ὄντων ἐνθάδε νῦν ἀνευρήσεις, πρῶτον μὲν τὸ τῶν
ἱερέων γένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων χωρὶς ἀφωρισμένον, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο τὸ

9 ὁπόσων ὑπό: ὁπόσων νῦν ὑπό ΗΖ. 10 ἔχειν: σχεῖν SZ.

16 ἐνθάδε : ἐνθαδί 8.

1. ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους] ἐπὶ signifies exten-
sion over: a use exceedingly rare in Attic
prose, but occurring again in Critias 112 E
ἐπὶ πᾶσαν Eipwrnvy καὶ ᾿Ασίαν κατά τε
σωμάτων κάλλη καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ψυχῶν
παντοίαν ἀρετὴν ἐλλόγιμοί τε ἦσαν καὶ ὀνο-
μαστότατοι πάντων τῶν τότε: and ἃ similar,
though not identical, use is to be found
in Protagoras 322 D. It isnot uncommon
in Homer, e.g. //iad X 213 μέγα κέν οἱ
ὑπουράνιον κλέος εἴη | πάντας ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώ-
πους.

5: ὑπὲρ τὴν μεγίστην φθοράν] ὑπὲρ
Ξε back beyond.

8. πολιτεῖαι) The plural is somewhat

22 τῇδε: τῆσδε A,

curious : it seems to stand for
institutions’,

15. Τῆς te καὶ ᾿φαίστου)] As we
shall presently see, earth and fire are the
two principal elements of which material
nature is composed, air and water being
means between them; cf. 31 Ο foll. Fire
is the simplest combination of one of the
two primary bases, while earth is the
only form of the other, 51 D foll. These
were the two ἀρχαὶ of Parmenides: Arist.
metaph. 1 v 986” 33 δύο τὰς αἰτίας καὶ δύο
τὰς ἀρχὰς πάλιν τίθησι, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν,
οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων. Cf. physica I v
1885 2ο. Plato’s statement falls in with

‘ political

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 καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν ἱρέες, of δὲ μάχιμοι κε-

son of Earth and Hephaistos.

22. παραδείγματα is of course not put
for elxovas, as Proklos would have it, but
signifies samples, specimens.

23. τὸ τῶν ἱερέων γένος] Plato’s classi-
fication does not coincide with that given
in Herodotus 11 164. The latter makes
seven castes: ἔστι δὲ Αἰγυπτίων ἑπτὰ γένεα,

κλέαται, οἱ δὲ βουκόλοι, οἱ δὲ συβῶται, οἱ
δὲ κάπηλοι, οἱ δὲ ἑρμηνέες, οἱ δὲ κυβερνῆται.
The discrepancy arises from the fact that
there were actually three castes, the two
higher being priests and warriors, and
the lowest comprising men following
various occupations which are differently
enumerated by different authorities.

|

76 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[24 A—

ν᾽ . ,
τῶν δημιουργῶν, ὅτι καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἕκαστον ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐκ ἐπιμιγνύμενον
Lal , lol
δημιουργεῖ, τό τε τῶν νομέων καὶ τὸ τῶν θηρευτῶν TO τε τῶν

γεωργῶν" καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ μάχιμον γένος ἤσθησαί που τῇδε ἀπὸ Β

πάντων τῶν γενῶν κεχωρισμένον, οἷς οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν τὰ περὶ τὸν
5 πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου προσετάχθη μέλειν ἔτι δὲ ἡ τῆς ὁπλίσεως
αὐτῶν σχέσις ἀσπίδων καὶ δοράτων, οἷς ἡμεῖς πρῶτοι τῶν περὶ τὴν
᾿Ασίαν ὡπλίσμεθα, τῆς θεοῦ καθάπερ ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς τόποις παρ᾽

ὑμῖν πρώτοις ἐνδειξαμένης.

a ¢. ®

τὸ δ᾽ αὖ περὶ τῆς φρονήσεως, δρᾷς
\ ld lol A > ΓΖ > , ᾿ Hep), ᾽ ’ ἈΝ ]

που τὸν νόμον τῇδε ὅσην ἐπιμέλειαν ἐποιήσατο εὐθὺς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς

ι

a ἊΝ" ᾿ “ \
ip περί τε τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα, μέχρι μαντικῆς καὶ ἰατρικῆς πρὸς C

΄ >’ / “
ὑγίειαν, ἐκ τούτων θείων ὄντων εἰς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀνευρών, ὅσα τε

ἄλλα τούτοις ἕπεται μαθήματα πάντα κτησάμενος.

ταύτην οὖν

δὴ τότε ξύμπασαν τὴν διακόσμησιν καὶ σύνταξιν ἡ θεὸς προτέρους

¢ -“ , , > / ‘ , » φ >

ὑμᾶς διακοσμήσασα κατῴκισεν, ἐκλεξαμένη τὸν τόπον ἐν ᾧ γε-
’ > / an ε a > OE -“ a

15 γένησθε, τὴν εὐκρασίαν τῶν ὡρῶν ἐν αὐτῷ κατιδοῦσα, ὅτι φρονι-

μωτάτους ἄνδρας οἴσοι' ἅτε οὖν φιλοπόλεμός τε καὶ φιλόσοφος

ἡ θεὸς οὖσα τὸν προσφερεστάτους αὐτῇ μέλλοντα οἴσειν τόπον Ὁ
ἄνδρας, τοῦτον ἐκλεξαμένη πρῶτον κατῴκισεν.

ὠκεῖτε δὴ οὖν

» , ,
νόμοις τε τοιούτοις χρώμενοι καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον εὐνομούμενοι πάσῃ

‘ > rd « , > a , >.< 4
20 Te πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπερβεβηκότες ἀρετῇ, καθάπερ εἰκὸς γεννή-

' Lal
pata καὶ παιδεύματα θεῶν ὄντας.

πολλὰ μὲν οὖν ὑμῶν καὶ με-

γάλα ἔργα τῆς πόλεως τῇδε γεγραμμένα θαυμάζεται, πάντων γε

2 τὸ τῶν θηρευτῶν : τὸ omittit S.

20 πάντας: παρὰ πάντας A.

ὑπερβεβηκότες: ὑπερβεβληκότες Ἡ.

1. οὐκ ἐπιμιγνύμενον] i.e. each mind-
ed his own business, like the citizens of
Plato’s model republic.

6. τῶν περὶ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν] Egypt was
commonly regarded in Plato’s time as
belonging to Asia rather than Africa.
All Africa was indeed often regarded as
part of Asia; but that Plato distinguished
them is made clear below in 24 E.

8. τὸ δ᾽ αὖ περὶ τῆς φρονήσεως] Hav-
ing described the ordinances relating to
externals he now proceeds to the training
of the mind.

10. περί τε τὸν κόσμον] 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 (ἀνθρώπινα) upon universal
truths of nature (θεῖα). μέχρι μαντικῆς,

i.e. bringing its deductions down to divi- |

nation. In the words ἐκ τούτων θείων
ὄντων els τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀνευρὼν we cer-
tainly have a difficulty of construction.
I take the meaning to be ‘from these
divine studies (i.e. of the kéopos) having
invented them (μαντικὴ and ἰατρική) for
human needs’. But the lack of an object
to ἀνευρὼν and the construction of εἰς τὰ
ἀνθρώπινα are alike unsatisfactory ; and I

D] TIMAIOS. 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 aere
The whole sentence reads strangely in a Ζρεῖς δὲ aguis: cf. especially εὑρήσεις γὰρ ἐπὶ
passage of such singular literary brilliance τὸ πλῆθος τῆς χώρης τῇ φύσι ἀκολουθεῦντα
as this chapter. With regard to μαντικῆς καὶ εἴδεα τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοὺς τρόπους.
καὶ ἰατρικῆς Proklos observes that the Kiihn vol, I p. 567, Compare too Plo-
Egyptians combined these two profes- tinos enmead 111 i 5 ἀκολουθεῖν δὲ τοῖς τό-
sions, ποις ov μόνον Ta ἄλλα φυτά τε Kal ζῷα,
15. φρονιμωτάτους ἄνδρας] Compare ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνθρώπων εἴδη τε καὶ μεγέθη καὶ
Laws 64: C, Menexenus 237 Ο foll. The χρόας καὶ θυμοὺς καὶ ἐπιθυμίας, ἐπιτηδεύ-
Euripidean ἀεὶ διάλαμπροτάτου βαίνοντες ματά τε καὶ ἤθη.
ἁβρῶς αἰθέρος will occur to everyone. How 22. πάντων ye μὴν ἕν] The amount of
much importance was attached by Greek speculation and misdirected ingenuity
medical science to the influence of climate which Plato’s story of Atlantis has
uponthe nature ofapeople may begathered awakened surpasses belief. Plato is our

78 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [24 D—

μὴν ὃν ὑπερέχει μεγέθει καὶ ἀρετῇ" λέγει γὰρ τὰ γεγραμμένα, ὅσην E
ἡ πόλις ὑμῶν ἔπαυσέ ποτε δύναμιν ὕβρει πορευομένην ἅμα ἐπὶ
πᾶσαν Εὐρώπην καὶ ᾿Ασίαν, ἔξωθεν ὁρμηθεῖσαν ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Ατλαντι-
κοῦ πελάγους. τότε γὰρ πορεύσιμον ἦν τὸ ἐκεῖ πέλαγος" νῆσον
5. γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ στόματος εἶχεν, ὃ καλεῖται, ὥς φατε ὑμεῖς, Ηρακλέους
στῆλαι" ἡ δὲ νῆσος ἅμα Λιβύης ἦν καὶ ᾿Ασίας μείξων, ἐξ ἧς ἐπιβα-
τὸν ἐπὶ τὰς ἄλλας νήσους τοῖς τότε ἐγίγνετο πορευομένοις, ἐκ δὲ
τῶν νήσων ἐπὶ τὴν καταντικρὺ πᾶσαν ἤπειρον τὴν περὶ τὸν ἀληθι- 3ὅ Α
νὸν ἐκεῖνον πόντον. τάδε μὲν γάρ, ὅσα ἐντὸς τοῦ στόματος οὗ
10 λέγομεν, φαίνεται λιμὴν στενόν τινα ἔχων εἴσπλουν' ἐκεῖνο δὲ
πέλαγος ὄντως ἥ τε περιέχουσα αὐτὸ γῆ παντελῶς [ἀληθώς]
ὀρθότατ᾽ ἂν λέγοιτο ἤπειρος. ἐν δὲ δὴ τῇ ᾿Ατλαντίδι νήσῳ ταύτῃ
μεγάλη συνέστη καὶ θαυμαστὴ δύναμις βασιλέων, κρατοῦσα μὲν
ἁπάσης τῆς νήσου, πολλῶν δὲ ἄλλων νήσων καὶ μερῶν τῆς ἠπείρου"
πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἔτι τῶν ἐντὸς τῇδε Λιβύης μὲν ἦρχον μέχρι πρὸς Β
Αἴγυπτον, τῆς δὲ Εὐρώπης μέχρι Τυρρηνίας. αὕτη δὴ πᾶσα ξυνα-
θροισθεῖσα εἰς ἕν ἡ δύναμις τόν τε παρ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ
τὸν ἐντὸς τοῦ στόματος πάντα τόπον μιᾷ ποτὲ ἐπεχείρησεν ὁρμῇ
δουλοῦσθαι. τότε οὖν ὑμῶν, ὦ Σόλων, τῆς πόλεως ἡ δύναμις εἰς
20 ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους διαφανὴς ἀρετῇ τε καὶ ῥώμῃ ἐγένετο' πάντων
γὰρ προστᾶσα εὐψυχίᾳ καὶ τέχναις ὅσαι κατὰ πόλεμον, τὰ μὲν
τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγουμένη, τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὴ μονωθεῖσα ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν C

15

5 KaNeira...crpra: καλεῖτε... στήλας AHSZ. II ἀληθῶς erasit A. ego inclusi.

only authority for the legend: there is
no trace of confirmation from any inde-
pendent source. It appears to me im-
possible to determine whether Plato has
invented the story from beginning to end
--ῥᾳδίως Αἰγυπτίους καὶ ὁποδαποὺς ἂν ἐθέλῃ
λόγους ποιεῖ---οΟΥἨ whether it really more
or less represents some Egyptian legend
brought home by Solon. Stallbaum sup-
poses that the ancient Egyptians really
had some information of the existence of
America. But this is entirely incredible,
considering the limited powers of navi-
gation possessed by even the boldest sea-
farers of those times. The greatest voyage
on record was the circumnavigation of
Africa related by Herodotus Iv 42: but that
is mere child’s play to crossing and recross-
ing the Atlantic without a compass. The

explorers took over two years for their
enterprise and went ashore each year to
raise a crop. The view that Atlantis did
actually exist and disappear, as Plato
describes, receives, I believe, no counte-
nance from geology. The wild absurdity
of most of the theories on the subject may
be gathered from Martin’s learned and
amusing dissertation. There is hardly a
country on the face of the globe, not only
from China to Peru, but from New Zea-
land to Spitzbergen, including such an
eminently unpromising locality as Pales-
tine, which has not been confidently iden-
tified with the Platonic Atlantis. It can
only be said that such speculations are
δεινοῦ καὶ ἐπιπόνου καὶ ob πάνυ εὐτυχοῦς
ἀνδρός.

4: πορεύσιμον] Plato means that since

25 6] TIMAIOS. 79

nobleness surpasses all the rest. For our chronicles tell what a
power your city quelled of old, that marched in wanton inso-
lence upon all Europe and Asia together, issuing yonder from
the Atlantic ocean. For in those days the sea there could be
crossed, since it had an island before the mouth of the strait
which is called, as ye say, the pillars of Herakles. Now this
island was greater than Libya and Asia together; and there-
from there was passage for the sea-farers of those times to the
other islands, and from the islands to all the opposite continent
which bounds that ocean truly named. For these regions that
lie within the strait aforesaid seem to be but a bay having a
narrow entrance; but the other is ocean verily, and the land
surrounding it may with fullest truth and fitness be named a
continent. In this island Atlantis arose a great and marvellous
might of kings, ruling over all the island itself, and many other
islands, and parts of the mainland; and besides these, of the
lands east of the strait they governed Libya as far as Egypt, and
Europe to the borders of Etruria. So all this power gathered
itself together, and your country and ours and the whole region
within the strait it sought with one single swoop to enslave.
Then, O Solon, did the power of your city shine forth in all
men’s eyes glorious in valour and in strength. For being fore-
most upon earth in courage and the arts of war, sometimes she
was leader of the Hellenes, sometimes she stood alone perforce,

the Atlantic was thickly studded with
large islands, it was possible for mariners
to pass from one to another by easy stages
until they reached the transatlantic conti-
nent, without the necessity of a long sea
voyage. We know from Thucydides that
even the passage across the Ionian sea
was regarded as formidable ; we may rea-
dily conceive then that many halting
places would be required to make the
Atlantic ocean πορεύσιμον.

5. τοῦ στόματος] i.e. the strait of
Gibraltar.

ὃ καλεῖται) The mss. give καλεῖται
«στήλας, which is usually corrected into
καλεῖτε. But owing to the tautology thus
produced, I prefer on Stallbaum’s sug-
gestion to retain καλεῖται and read στῆλαι.

6. Λιβύης ἦν καὶ Ασίας μείζων] In
estimating the size of Atlantis allowance
must be made for Plato’s imperfect know-
ledge of the magnitude of Asia and Africa.

8. τὴν καταντικρὺ πᾶσαν ἤπειρον]
Martin suggests that the notion of a
transatlantic continent may have arisen
from the early conception of Ocean as a
river, implying a further shore.

20. πάντων yap προστᾶσα] The un-
mistakable similarity between the posi-
tion of the legendary Athens in the
Atlantine war and that of the historical
Athens in the Persian invasion indicates

‘that if Plato is using an ancient legend,

he has freely adapted it to his own ends:
for the existence of such a coincidence in
the original is highly improbable.

80 ITAATONOS [25 c—

ἄλλων ἀποστάντων, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐσχάτους ἀφικομένη κινδύνους, Kpa-
τήσασα μὲν τῶν ἐπιόντων τρόπαια ἔστησε, τοὺς δὲ μήπω δεδουλω-
μένους διεκώλυσε δουλωθῆναι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους, ὅσοι κατοικοῦμεν
ἐντὸς ὅρων Ἡρακλείων, ἀφθόνως ἅπαντας ἠλευθέρωσεν. ὑστέρῳ
5. δὲ χρόνῳ σεισμῶν ἐξαισίων καὶ κατακλυσμῶν γενομένων, μιᾶς
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς χαλεπῆς ἐπελθούσης, τό τε παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μάχιμον
πᾶν ἀθρόον ἔδυ κατὰ γῆς, ἥ τε ᾿Ατλαντὶς νῆσος ὡσαύτως κατὰ τῆς
θαλάττης δῦσα ἠφανίσθη" διὸ καὶ νῦν ἄπορον καὶ ἀδιερεύνητον
γέγονε τὸ ἐκεῖ πέλαγος, πηλοῦ κάρτα βραχέος ἐμποδὼν ὄ ὄντος, ὃν
το ἡ νῆσος ἱζομένη παρέσχετο.

IV. Τὰ μὲν δὴ ῥηθέντα, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὑπὸ τοῦ παλαιοῦ Κρι-
τίου κατ᾽ ἀκοὴν τὴν Σόλωνος, ὡς συντόμως εἰπεῖν, ἀκήκοας"
λέγοντος δὲ δὴ χθὲς σοῦ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ods
ἔλεγες, ἐθαύμαζον ἀναμιμνῃσκόμενος αὐτὰ ἃ νῦν λέγω, κατανοῶν,
15 ὡς δαιμονίως ἔκ τινος τύχης οὐκ ἄπο σκοποῦ ξυνηνέχθης τὰ πολλὰ
οἷς Σόλων εἶπεν. οὐ μὴν ἐβουλήθην παραχρῆμα εἰπεῖν" διὰ
χρόνου γὰρ οὐχ ἱκανῶς ἐμεμνήμην' ἐνενόησα οὖν, ὅτε χρεὼν εἴη
με πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν πρῶτον ἱκανῶς πάντα ἀναλαβόντα λέγειν οὕτως.
ὅθεν ταχὺ ξυνωμολόγησά σοι τἀπιταχθέντα χθές, ἡγούμενος,
20 ὅπερ ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς τοιοῖσδε μέγιστον ἔργον, λόγον τινὰ πρέποντα
τοῖς βουλήμασιν ὑποθέσθαι, τούτου μετρίως ἡμᾶς εὐπορήσειν.
οὕτω δή, καθάπερ 08° εἶπε, χθές τε εὐθὺς ἐνθένδε ἀπιὼν πρὸς

6 ἐπελθούσης : ἐλθούσης Z.

6. τό τε παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μάχιμον] 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. ἄπορον καὶ ἀδιερεύνητον] Ατί-
stotle agrees, though assigning α different
reason, about the shallowness of the At-
lantic near Gibraltar : cf. meteorologica 11i
354° 22 τὰ δ᾽ ἔξω στηλῶν βραχέα μὲν διὰ
τὸν πηλόν, ἄπνοα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὡς ἐν κοίλῳ τῆς
θαλάττης οὔσης. ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ κατὰ μέρος
ἐκ τῶν ὑψηλῶν οἱ ποταμοὶ φαίνονται ῥέοντες,
οὕτω καὶ τῆς ὅλης γῆς ἐκ τῶν ὑψηλοτέρων
τῶν πρὸς ἄρκτον τὸ ῥεῦμα γίνεται. τὸ

9 βραχέος: βαθέος ΑΖ.

πλεῖστον, ὥστε τὰ μὲν διὰ τὴν ἔκχυσιν
οὐ βαθέα, τὰ δ᾽ ἔξω πελάγη βαθέα
μᾶλλον. Aristotle’s notion was that the
more northerly parts of the globe were
higher than the southern: hence the
marine currents flowed southward car-
rying with them quantities of sand which,
being deposited off the coasts of southern
Europe, silted up the entrance to the
Mediterranean.

9. πηλοῦ κάρτα βραχέος] I believe
this reading to be perfectly correct, al-
though I am unable to produce an exact
parallel. βραχέα was the regular word
for shoals: cf. Herodotus 11 102 θάλασσαν
οὐκέτι πλωτὴν ὑπὸ βραχέων : also IV 179,
and Plutarch de genio Socratis § 22 ἀραιὰ
τενάγη καὶ βραχέα. The peculiarity in
our passage is of course that βραχέος is

D

E

26 A

26 A] TIMAIOS. 81

when the rest fell away from her; and after being brought into
the uttermost perils, she vanquished the invaders and triumphed
over them: and the nations that were not yet enslaved she pre-
served from slavery; while the rest of us who dwell this side the
pillars of Herakles, all did she set free with ungrudging hand.
But in later time, after there had been exceeding great earth-
quakes and floods, there fell one day and night of destruction;
and the warriors in your land all in one body were swallowed up
by the earth, and in like manner did the island Atlantis sink
beneath the sea and vanish away. Wherefore to this day the
ocean there is impassable and unsearchable, being blocked by
very shallow shoals, which the island caused as she settled down.

IV. You have heard this brief statement, Sokrates, of what
the ancient Kritias reported that he heard from Solon: and
when you were speaking yesterday about the polity and the
men whom you described, I was amazed as I called to mind the
story I have just told you; remarking how by some miraculous
coincidence most of your account agreed unerringly with the
description of Solon. I was unwilling however to say anything
at the moment, for after so long a time my memory was at
fault. I conceived therefore that I must not speak until I had
thoroughly gone over the whole story by myself. Accordingly
I was quick to accept the task you imposed on us yesterday,
thinking that for the most arduous part of all such undertakings,
I mean supplying a story fitly corresponding to our intentions,

an adjective agreeing with πηλοῦ. But
though this use does not seem to occur
elsewhere, I see no conclusive reason
for rejecting it here; and certainly no
tolerable substitute has been offered for
it. A gives βαθέος, which is pointless:
surely the question that would interest a
sailor is how near the mud was to the
surface ; its depth he would regard with
profound indifference. And there is little
more to be said for Stallbaum’s suggestion
τραχέος. Accordingly I retain πηλοῦ κάρτα
βραχέος in the sense of ‘very shoaly mud’.

25 D—27 B, ¢ iv. Kritias proceeds
to say that he was greatly struck by the
resemblance between the ideal common-

Pes

wealth as painted by Sokrates and ancient
Athens as described in Solon’s legend.
He therefore taxed his memory to re-
cover every detail of the history, thinking
it would serve to fulfil Sokrates’ wish to
see his imaginary citizens brought into
life and action. Sokrates welcomes the
suggestion ; and it is agreed that Timaeus
shall first expound the order of the uni-
verse down to the creation of man, and
that Kritias shall follow with his account
of the former Athenians and of their war
with Atlantis.

18. πάντα ἀναλαβόντα] referring to
the detailed account to be given in the
Critias.

6

82 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [26 8--

> , ,
τούσδε ἀνέφερον αὐτὰ ἀναμιμνῃσκόμενος, ἀπελθών τε σχεδόν THB
7 lal « \ Ld
πάντα ἐπισκοπῶν τῆς νυκτὸς ἀνέλαβον. ὡς δή τοι, TO λεγόμενον,
a“ ; BE. ,
τὰ παίδων μαθήματα θαυμαστὸν ἔχει τι μνημεῖον, ἐγὼ γάρ, ἃ
μὲν χθὲς ἤκουσα, οὐκ ἂν οἶδ᾽ εἰ δυναίμην ὃ ἅπαντα ἐν μνήμῃ πάλιν
ελαβεῖν: ταῦτα δέ, ἃ πάμπολυν χρόνον διακήκοα, παντάπασι
θαυμάσαιμ᾽ adv εἴ τί με αὐτῶν διαπέφευγεν. ἦν μὲν οὖν μετὰ
“Ὁ a Le! “
πολλῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ παιδικῆς τότε ἀκουόμενα, καὶ τοῦ πρεσβύτου C
προθύμως με διδάσκοντος, ἅτ᾽ ἐμοῦ πολλάκις ἐπανερωτῶντος,
7 ‘ /,
ὥστε οἷον ἐγκαύματα ἀνεκπλύτου γραφῆς ἔμμονά por γέγονε"
\ a "Δλ “ 9-4 a 7 ᾽ a
10 καὶ δὴ καὶ τοῖσδε εὐθὺς ἔλεγον ἕωθεν αὐτὰ ταῦτα, ἵνα εὐποροῖεν
λόγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ.
, + παῖ
λέγειν εἰμὶ ἕτοιμος, ὦ Σώκρατες, μὴ μόνον ἐν κεφαλαίοις ἀλλ
cf wv > «Φ{ \ ' 4 , «“
ὥσπερ ἤκουσα καθ᾽ ἕκαστον" τοὺς δὲ πολίτας καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἣν
χθὲς ἡμῖν ὡς ἐν μύθῳ διήεισθα σύ, νῦν μετενεγκόντες ἐπὶ τἀληθὲς Ὁ
“ , ¢ > ‘ 3 7 “Δ
15 δεῦρο θήσομεν ὡς ἐκείνην τήνδε οὖσαν, καὶ τοὺς πολίτας, οὺς
διενοοῦ, φήσομεν ἐκείνους τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς εἶναι προγόνους ἡμῶν,
“Δ ΝΜ Εν , Ul ¢ , \ ᾽ > , /
ods ἔλεγεν ὁ ἱερεύς. πάντως ἁρμόσουσι Kal οὐκ ἀπᾳσόμεθα λέ-
> , » / a \
yovtes αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῷ τότε ὄντας χρόνῳ' κοινῇ δὲ δια-
λαμβάνοντες ἅπαντες πειρασόμεθα τὸ πρέπον εἰς δύναμιν οἷς
20 ἐπέταξας ἀποδοῦναι. σκοπεῖν οὖν δὴ χρή, ὦ Σώκρατες, εἰ κατὰ
an c , ες» Φ Vv wv > >». > > > n /
νοῦν ὃ λόγος ἡμῖν οὗτος, ἢ τινα ET ἄλλον ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ ζητητέον. E
=. Kai τίν᾽ ἄν, ὦ Κριτία, μᾶλλον ἀντὶ τούτου μεταλάβοι-
μεν, ὃς τῇ τε παρούσῃ τῆς θεοῦ θυσίᾳ διὰ τὴν οἰκειότητ᾽ ἂν πρέποι
μάλιστα, τό τε μὴ πλασθέντα μῦθον GAN ἀληθινὸν λόγον εἶναι
2 , , a ‘ / ΜΝ. > , > /

5 πάμμεγά Tov, πῶς yap καὶ πόθεν ἄλλους ἀνευρήσομεν ἀφέμενοι
, > ΝΜ > ? > a , \ / \ c An 2
τούτων ; οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ χρὴ λέγειν μὲν ὑμᾶς, ἐμὲ

δὲ ἀντὶ τῶν χθὲς λόγων νῦν ἡσυχίαν ἄγοντα ἀντακούειν.
ΚΡ, Σκόπει δὴ τὴν τῶν ξενίων σοι διάθεσιν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἣἧ
διέθεμεν. ἔδοξε γὰρ ἡμῖν Τίμαιον μέν, ἅτε ὄντα ἀστρονομικώτατον

a 3 Φ 4 , a y
νυν OUVV, OUVTTEP EVEKA TAVTA ταῦτα εἰρηται,

Q7 A

2 πάντα: ἅπαντα ὃ.
omittunt SZ.

7 παιδικῆς : παιδιᾶς S.
19 post ἅπαντες inserit A τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.

14 νῦν ante μετενεγκόντες

4. οὐκ dy οἶδ᾽ εἰ δυναίμην] For the 9.
construction and position of ἂν see Euri-
pides Alcestis 48, Medea 941. I have
not noted another instance in Plato.

ἐγκαύματα] For the methods of
encaustic painting see Pliny Wat. Hist.
XXXV ὃ 149.

24. μὴ πλασθέντα μῦθον] Cf. 21 A.

7- παιδικῆς] Stallbaum with very
slight ms. authority reads παιδιᾶς, without
noticing any other reading: apparently
he failed to perceive that παιδικῆς was in
agreement with ἡδονῆς.

We must not bind Plato down too strictly
to this affirmation.

29. ἀστρονομικώτατον] Not in the
popular sense merely, but in the sub-
limated Platonic manner,

27 A] | TIMAIOS. 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, bat 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. ow 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

6—z2

84 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [27 A—

ἡμῶν καὶ περὶ φύσεως τοῦ παντὸς εἰδέναι μάλιστα ἔργον πεποιη-
μένον, πρῶτον λέγειν ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως,
τελευτᾶν δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπων φύσιν: ἐμὲ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον, ὡς παρὰ
μὲν τούτου δεδεγμένον ἀνθρώπους τῷ λόγῳ γεγονότας, παρὰ σοῦ
5 δὲ πεπαιδευμένους διαφερόντως αὐτῶν τινάς, κατὰ δὴ τὸν Σόλωνος B
λόγον τε καὶ νόμον εἰσαγαγόντα αὐτοὺς ὡς εἰς δικαστὰς ἡμᾶς
ποιῆσαι πολίτας τῆς πόλεως τῆσδε ὡς ὄντας τοὺς τότε ᾿Αθηναίους,
ods ἐμήνυσεν ἀφανεῖς ὄντας ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων φήμη, τὰ
λοιπὰ δὲ ὡς περὶ πολιτῶν καὶ ᾿Αθηναίων ὄντων ἤδη ποιεῖσθαι
10 τοὺς λόγους.

ΣΩ. Τελέως τε καὶ λαμπρῶς ἔοικα ἀνταπολήψεσθαι τὴν τῶν
λόγων ἑστίασιν. σὸν οὖν ἔργον λέγειν ἄν, ὦ Τίμαιε, εἴη τὸ μετὰ
τοῦτο, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐπικαλέσαντα κατὰ νόμον θεούς.

V. TI. ᾿Αλλ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦτό γε δὴ πάντες, ὅσοι καὶ C

y 18 κατὰ βραχὺ σωφροσύνης μετέχουσιν, ἐπὶ παντὸς ὁρμῇ καὶ σμικροῦ
καὶ μεγάλου πράγματος θεὸν ἀεί που καλοῦσιν" ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς περὶ
τοῦ παντὸς λόγους ποιεῖσθαί πῃ μέλλοντας, ἣ γέγονεν ἢ καὶ ἀγενές

. ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ παντάπασι παραλλάττομεν, ἀνάγκη θεούς τε καὶ
᾿ς θεὰς ἐπικαλουμένους εὔχεσθαι πάντα κατὰ νοῦν ἐκείνοις μὲν
4 20 μάλιστα, ἑπομένως δὲ ἡμῖν εἰπεῖν. καὶ τὰ μὲν περὶ θεῶν ταύτῃ
Ὶ παρακεκλήσθω: τὸ δ᾽ ἡμέτερον παρακλητέον, ἣ pact ἂν ὑμεῖς D
μὲν μάθοιτε, ἐγὼ δὲ ἣ διανοοῦμαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν περὶ τῶν προκει-
μένων ἐνδειξαίμην.

Ἔστιν οὖν δὴ κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δόξαν πρῶτον διαιρετέον τάδε" τί τὸ

3 μετὰ τοῦτον: τούτων Α.
6 ἡμᾶς: ὑμᾶς ΗΖ.

5 δὴ pro δὲ reposui suadente 8.
12 εἴη omittit A. ante ὦ Τίμαιε ponit S.

3. φύσιν seems to have its old
sense of ‘generation’.

4. τῷ λόγῳ γεγονότας] cf. Republic

27 C—29 Ὁ, ὦ v. Timaeus, after due
invocation of heavenly aid, thus begins
his exposition. The first step is to dis-

361 B τὸν δίκαιον wap’ αὐτὸν ἱστῶμεν τῷ
λόγῳ, ἄνδρα ἁπλοῦν καὶ γενναῖον, also 534 Ὁ
παῖδας οὗς τῷ λόγῳ τρέφεις τε καὶ παι-
δεύεις, εἴ ποτε ἔργῳ τρέφοις.

5. κατὰ δή] Stallbaum’s suggestion
of reading δὴ for δὲ appears to me to
restore the true structure of the sentence.

6. λόγον τε καὶ νόμον] i.e. accept-
ing the statement of Solon that they were
Athenian citizens, we formally admit their
claim to citizenship in the mode pre-
scribed by his law.

tinguish the eternally existing object of
thought and reason from the continually
fleeting object of opinion and sensation,
To which class does the material uni-
verse belong, to Being or Becoming?
To Becoming, because it is apprehen-
sible by the senses. All that comes to
be comes from some cause; so therefore
does the universe. Also it must be a
likeness of something. Now what is
modelled on the eternal must needs be
fair, but what is modelled on the created

p] TIMAIOS. : 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.
And in dealing with the eternal type and
the created image, we must remember
that the words we use of each must
correspond to their several natures: those
which deal with the eternally existent
must be so far as possible sure and true
and incontrovertible; while with those
which treat of the likeness we must be
content if they are likely. To this So-
krates assents.

discourse, extending to 490 Ὁ, deal with
the universe as a whole; after which he
proceeds to its several portions.

21. τὸ δ᾽ ἡμέτερον παρακλητέον] ie.
after appealing to the gods for aid, we
must appeal to ourselves to put forth
all our energies: heaven helps those who
help themselves.

22. ἡ διανοοῦμαι] Stallbaum proposes
to read a, β

,
A

1

2

on

΄

86 TAATONOS [27 p—

4 3 * \
ὃν del, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, καὶ τί τὸ yuyvouevov μὲν ἀεί, ὃν δὲ

οὐδέποτε. τὸ μὲν δὴ νοήσει μετὰ λόγου περιληπτόν, ἀεὶ κατὰ 28 A

᾽ ’ PORES |

ταὐτὰ ἔν, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ δόξῃ per αἰσθήσεως ἀλόγου δοξαστόν, yuyvo-
μενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὄντως δὲ οὐδέποτε ὄν. πᾶν δὲ αὖ τὸ
᾽ / / \ \

γιγνόμενον ὑπ᾽ αἰτίου τινὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης γίγνεσθαι: παντὶ yap

a “ \ 3 a «
ἀδύνατον χωρὶς αἰτίου γένεσιν σχεῖν. ὅτου μὲν οὖν ἂν ὁ δη-

/ ae , ‘
, μιουργὸς πρὸς TO κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον βλέπων ἀεί, τοιούτῳ τινὶ

ο

ur

ο

> fo! >
προσχρώμενος παραδείγματι, τὴν idéav καὶ δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἀπερ-
γάξηται, καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὕτως ἀποτελεῖσθαι πᾶν" οὗ δ᾽ ἂν Β
εἰς τὸ γεγονός, γεννητῷ παραδείγματι, προσχρώμενος, οὐ καλόν.
ὁ δὴ πᾶς οὐρανὸς--ἢ κόσμος ἢ καὶ ἄλλο ὅ τί ποτε ὀνομαζόμενος
n a / ΄ ᾽ 3

μάλιστ᾽ ἂν δέχοιτο, τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ὠνομάσθω' σκεπτέον δ᾽ οὖν περὶ
rn Led 3 “Ὁ » -
αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, ὅπερ ὑπόκειται περὶ παντὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ δεῖν σκοπεῖν,
| ἥν" ἯΙ >>
πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, aT
fol , Ν
ἀρχῆς τινὸς ἀρξάμενος. γέγονεν' ὁρατὸς γὰρ ἅπτός τέ ἐστι καὶ

a / δὲ \ r > 6 LA Ν δ᾽ > 0 U 50
σῶμα ἔχων, πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα αἰσθητά, τὰ δ᾽ αἰσθητά, δόξῃ
Ν / a ?
περιληπτὰ μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως, γιγνόμενα καὶ γεννητὰ ἐφάνη. τῷ ὃ
/ s / \
av γενομένῳ φαμὲν ὑπ᾽ αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνάγκην εἶναι γενέσθαι. τὸν
μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ

« / > , > , / 4 > 3 , >

εὑρόντα eis πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν: τόδε δ᾽ οὖν πάλιν ἐπισκε-

2. τὸ μὲν δὴ νοήσει] νόησις and δόξα
denote the faculties, λόγος and αἴσθησις
the processes. The language of the pre-
sent passage precisely agrees with the
account given at the end of the fifth book
of the Republic,

5. ὑπ᾿ αἰτίου τινός] So Philebus 26
E ὅρα γὰρ εἴ σοι δοκεῖ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι
πάντα τὰ γιγνόμενα διά τινα αἰτίαν γίγνε-
σθαι. Only the ὄντως ὄν, the changeless
and abiding, is a cause to itself and needs
no αἰτία from without: the γιγνόμενον
has no principle of causation in itself and
must find the source of its becoming in
some ulterior force.

8. τὴν ἰδέαν καὶ δύναμιν] Neither

customary reverent diffidence in naming
the divine: cf. Aeschylus Agamemnon
160 Ζεύς, ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν, εἰ τόδ᾽ αὐτῷ
φίλον κεκλημένῳ, τοῦτό νιν προσεννέπω.

The sentence becomes an anacoluthon
owing to the parenthetical words ἢ καὶ
ἄλλο... ὠνομάσθω.

14. πότερον ἦν ἀεί] i.e. whether it
belongs to things eternal or to things
temporal. It cannot be too carefully
borne in mind that there is throughout no
question whatsoever of the beginning of
the universe in time. The creation in
time is simply part of the figurative
representation: it is κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν only.
In Plato’s highly poetical and allegorical

of these words has a technical meaning,
though δύναμιν is here not so very far
removed from the Aristotelian sense.
ἰδέαν =the form and fashion of it, δύναμιν
its function or quality.

11. ἢ καὶ ἄλλο] The universe is a
living god: Plato therefore uses the

exposition a logical analysis is repre-
sented as a process taking place in time,
and to reach his true meaning we must
strip off the veil of imagery. He con-
ceived the universe to be a certain evo-
lution of absolute thought; and the
several elements in this evolution he

28 c] TIMAIOS¥. 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.
Such criticism then as that of Aris-
totle in de caelo 1 x is wholly irrele-
vant: he treats a metaphysical concep-
tion from a merely physical point of
view. Stobaeus ec/. 1 450 says Πυθα-
yopas φησὶ γεννητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν
κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον : and presently he
ascribes the same view to Herakleitos.
Whether these philosophers really held
that opinion there seems no means of
determining: but since in the immediate
context Stobaeus assigns to Pythagoras
some distinctively Platonic notions, we
may pretty fairly infer that the creation
of the world κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν was one of
the many Platonic doctrines which were
foisted by the later doxographers upon
Pythagoras, whose school served them as

a πανδοκεῖον for all views they had a
difficulty in otherwise bestowing. As to
the past tense ἦν del, Proklos very justly
observes εἰ δὲ τὸ ἦν οὔ φησι προελθὼν
οἰκεῖον εἶναι τοῖς αἰωνίοις, οὐ δεῖ ταράττεσ-
θαι" πρὸ γὰρ τῆς διαρθρώσεως ἕπεται τῇ συν-
ηθείᾳ. The said διάρθρωσις is at 37 E—38 Β.

19. εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον] Proklos says this
is a warning against superficially seeking
our ἀρχὴ in the physical forces which
served the old φυσιολόγοι. It may be
observed also that, were we to accept the
δημιουργὸς literally, Plato would surely
not have used such language in referring
to so simple and familiar a conception as
a personal creator of the universe; but if
the δημιουργὸς is but a mythical repre-
sentative of a metaphysical ἀρχή, the
justice of the remark is evident.

on

Ιο

88 ne

ΠΛΑΤΩΏΝΟΣ

od pes Ty “yor +7

[28 c—

πτέον περὶ αὐτοῦ, πρὸς πότερον τῶν παραδευγμάτων ὁ τεκται-
νόμενος αὐτὸν ἀπειργάξετο, πότερον πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ
ὡσαύτως ἔχον ἢ πρὸς τὸ γεγονός. εἰ μὲν δὴ καλός ἐστιν ὅδε ὁ
κόσμος ὅ τε δημιουργὸς ὠγαθὸός, δῆλον ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἀίδιον ἔβλεπεν"
εἰ δὲ ὃ μηδ εἰπεῖν τινὶ θέμις, πρὸς τὸ γεγονός. παντὶ δὴ σαφὲς
ὅτι πρὸς τὸ ἀΐδιον" ὁ μὲν γὰρ κάλλιστος τῶν γεγονότων, ὁ δ᾽
ἄριστος τῶν αἰτίων. οὕτω δὴ γεγενημένος πρὸς τὸ λόγῳ καὶ
φρονήσει. περιληπτὸν καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον δεδημιούργηται" τού-
των δὲ ὑπαρχόντων αὖ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τόνδε τὸν κόσμον εἰκόνα Β
τινὸς εἶναι. μέγιστον δὴ παντὸς ἄρξασθαι κατὰ φύσιν ἀρχήν.
ὧδε οὖν περί τε εἰκόνος καὶ περὶ τοῦ παραδείγματος αὐτῆς διο-
ριστέον, ὡς ἄρα τοὺς λόγους, ὧνπέρ εἰσιν ἐξηγηταί, τούτων αὐτῶν
καὶ ξυγγενεῖς ὄντας. τοῦ μὲν οὖν μονίμου καὶ βεβαίου καὶ μετὰ
νοῦ καταφανοῦς μονίμους καὶ ἀμεταπτώτους, καθ᾽ ὅσον [οἷόν] τε
ἀνελέγκτοις προσήκει λόγοις εἶναι καὶ ἀκινήτοις, τούτου δεῖ μηδὲν
ἐλλείπειν: τοὺς δὲ τοῦ πρὸς μὲν ἐκεῖνο ἀπεικασθέντος, ὄντος δὲ

> , > / > A , 3 ΝΜ
εἰκόνος, εἰκότας ἀνὰ λόγον τε ἐκείνων ὄντας"
οὐσία, τοῦτο πρὸς πίστιν ἀλήθεια.

3 πρὸς τὸ γεγονός: τὸ omittit A.
ὅσον οἷόν τε ΑΖ.

1. πρὸς πότερον τῶν παραδειγμάτων]
It may reasonably be asked, how could
the creator look πρὸς τὸ γεγονός, since at
that stage there was no γεγονὸς to look
to? Plato’s meaning, I take it, is this:
the γεγονὸς at which the Artificer would
look can of course only be the γεγονὸς
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

καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷόν τε καί H.
15 ἀνελέγκτοις : ἀνελέγκτους et mox λόγους εἰ ἀκινήτους S.

ὅ τί περ πρὸς γένεσιν
ἐὰν οὖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, πολλὰ

8 καὶ ante κατὰ omittit A. 14 καθ᾽
καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷόν τε ὃ. inclusi οἷον.
δεῖ: δέ 8.

on the part of the creator; it is the
working out of an inevitable law.

6. κάλλιστος τῶν γεγονότων] i.e.
there is nothing in the universe which,
taken by itself, is so fair as the universe
as a whole.

9. εἰκόνα τινὸς εἶναι] This leads the
way to the question raised in 30 Ὁ.
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 εἰκόνα ἀίΐδιόν τινος
ἀιδίου, which it has been proposed to re-
store. This however it were rash to do
against all existing mss. and Proklos.
The phrase εἰκόνα aidiov might perhaps
be defended on the same principle as

29 CJ TIMAIOS. 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

αἰώνιον εἰκόνα in 37 Ὁ: but there the ex-
pression has a pointedness which is lack-
ing here. ἀΐδιον properly means exempt
from time, and cannot strictly be applied
to the phenomenal world, though its
duration be everlasting.

13. τοῦ μὲν οὖν μονίμου] Some cor-
ruption has clearly found its way into
this sentence. It seems to me that the
simplest remedy is to reject οἷον, which I
think may have arisen from a duplication
of ὅσον. By this omission the sentence
becomes perfectly grammatical. Stall-
baum, reading καὶ before καθ᾽ ὅσον, alters
ἀνελέγκτοις, λόγοις, ἀκινήτοις, to the accu-
sative, and writes δὲ for δεῖ, This method

does indeed produce a sentence that can
be construed ; but it involves larger alte-
rations of the text, and the position of
the word λόγους seems extremely unsatis-
factory. I cannot therefore concede his
claim to have restored Plato’s words,
According to my version of the sentence
εἶναι must be supplied with μονίμους καὶ
ἀμεταπτώτους.

17. ἀνὰ λόγον] i.e. they stand in the
same relation to the λόγοι of the παρά-
δειγμα as the εἰκὼν to the παράδειγμα: as
becoming is to being so is probability to
truth. We have here precisely the analogy
of Republic 511 E.

90 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

a Lal lel / \
πολλῶν εἰπόντων περὶ θεῶν καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως, μὴ
δυνατοὶ γιγνώμεθα πάντη πάντως αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς ὁμολογουμένους
λόγους καὶ ἀπηκριβωμένους ἀποδοῦναι, μὴ θαυμάσῃ τις" ἀλλ᾽

ἐὰν ἄρα μηδενὸς ἧττον παρεχώμεθα εἰκότας, ἀγαπᾶν χρή, μεμνη-

5 μένον, ὡς 6 λέγων ἐγὼ ὑμεῖς τε οἱ κριταὶ φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην

“ 3 / ,

ἔχομεν, ὥστε περὶ τούτων τὸν εἰκότα μῦθον ἀποδεχομένους πρέπει
/ tal
τούτου μηδὲν ἔτι πέρα ζητεῖν.

> /
XO. "Apiota, ὦ Τίμαιε, παντάπασί τε ws κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον"

οὖ \ s 7 θ “ 2 ὃ Ρ θ , \ δὲ ὃ \ ,
τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιον θαυμασίως ἀπε εξαμεθά σου, τὸν δὲ δὴ νόμον

10 ἡμῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε.

"
on

VI. ΤΙ. Λέγωμεν δὴ δι’ ἥν τινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν
τόδε ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησεν. ἀγαθὸς ἦν, ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ
οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος" τούτου δ᾽ ἐκτὸς ὧν πάιτα ὅ
τι μάλιστα γενέσθαι ἐβουλήθη παραπλήσια ἑαυτῷ. ταύτην δὴ
γενέσεως καὶ κόσμου μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις ἀρχὴν κυριωτάτην παρ᾽
ἀνδρῶν φρονίμων ἀποδεχόμενος ὀρθότατα ἀποδέχοιτ᾽ ἄν. βου-
ληθεὶς γὰρ 6 θεὸς ἀγαθὰ μὲν πάντα, φλαῦρον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι

1 εἰπόντων omittit A.
μεμνημένους H. 9 νόμον : λόγον Z.

2. αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς ὁμολογουμένους]
The modesty οἵ 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
ἀπηκριβωμένα. 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 εἰκὼς μῦθος. The differ-
ence between the εἰκὼς μῦθος and ὁ δι᾽
ἀκριβείας ἀληθὴς λόγος 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 κόσμος to be one only, and gives the
metaphysical reason: in 55D all the
former ventures to say is τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ

3 θαυμάσῃ Tis: θαυμάσῃς HSZ.

4 μεμνημένον :
14 ταύτην δή: δέ AHZ.

παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἕνα αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον
πεφυκότα μηνύει, ἄλλος δὲ εἰς ἄλλα πῇ
βλέψας ἕτερα δοξάσει.

9. τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιον] The meta-
phor is from harp-playing: προοίμιον is
the prelude, νόμος the main body of the
composition: cf. Republic 531 D ἢ οὐκ
ἴσμεν ὅτι πάντα ταῦτα προοίμιά ἐστιν αὐτοῦ
τοῦ νόμου ὃν δεῖ μαθεῖν.

29 Ὁ---31 B,¢. vi. What then was the
cause of creation? The creator was good
and desired that all things should be so far
as possible good like himself. So he took
the world of matter, a chaos of disturb-
ance and confusion, and brought it to
order and gave it life and intelligence.
And the type after which he ordered it
was the eternal universal animal in the
world of ideas; that, even as this compre-
hends within it all ideal animals, so the
visible universe should include in it all
animals that are material. And as the
ideal animal is of its very essence one and
alone, so he created not two or many

[29 σ-Ψ

D

E

30 A

» 304] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. gt

the gods and the generation of the universe, we should not prove
able to render an account everywhere and in all respects con-
sistent and accurate, let no one be surprised; but if we can
produce one as probable as any other, we must be content,
remembering that I who speak and you my judges are but men:
so that on these subjects we should be satisfied with the probable
story and seek nothing further.

Sokrates. Quite right, Timaeus ; we must accept it exactly
as you say. Your prelude is exceedingly welcome to us, so
please proceed with the strain itself.

VI. TZimaeus. Let us declare then for what cause nature
and this All was framed by him that framed it. He was good,
and in none that is good can there arise jealousy of aught at
any time. So being far aloof from this, he desired that all things
should be as like unto himself as possible. This is that most
sovereign cause of nature and the universe which we shall most
surely be right in accepting from men of understanding. For
God desiring that all things should be good, and that, so far as

systems of material nature, but one uni-
verse only-begotten to exist for ever.

12. ἀγαθὸς ἦν] Consistently with all
his previous teaching Plato here makes
the αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν the source and cause of
all existence; this in the allegory is sym-
bolized by a benevolent creator bringing
order out of a preexisting chaos. Of
course Plato’s words are not to be inter-
preted with a crude literalness. The
cause of the existence of visible nature is
the supreme law by virtue of which the
one absolute intelligence differentiates
itself into the plurality of material objects:
that is the reason why the world of matter
exists at all: then, since intelligence must
needs work on a fixed plan and with the
best end in view, the°universe thus
evolved was made as perfect as anything
material can be. It is necessary to insist
on this distinction, although, when we
remember that for Plato existence and
goodness are one and the same, the dis-
tinction ultimately vanishes: all things
exist just so far as they are good, and no

more. Thus the conception of the αὐτὸ
ἀγαθὸν as the supreme cause, which is
affirmed in the Republic but not ex-
pounded, is here definitely set forth,
though still invested with the form of a
vividly poetical allegory.

13. οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος] The
vulgar notion τὸ θεῖον φθονερόν was ex-
tremely distasteful to Plato: cf. Phaedrus
247 A φθόνος γὰρ ἔξω θείου χοροῦ ἵσταται.
So Aristotle metaph. A ii 983% 2 ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε
τὸ θεῖον φθονερὸν ἐνδέχεται εἶναι, ἀλλὰ
καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν πολλὰ ψεύδονται
ἀοιδοί.

15. παρ᾽ ἀνδρῶν φρονίμων] Who are
the φρόνιμοι dvdpes? 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 ec/. ii 64 Σωκράτης Πλάτων
ταὐτὰ τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ" τέλος ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ
[? θεῷ]. Stallbaum cites the apophthegm
attributed by Diogenes Laertius to Thales,
κάλλιστον κόσμος, ποίημα γὰρ θεοῦ: but
this does not seem specially apposite.

5

το

ΠΛΑΤΩΏΝΟΣ [30 A—

92

κατὰ δύναμιν, οὕτω δὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐχ ἡσυ-
χίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως, εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ
ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας, ἡγησάμενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου πάντως ἄμεινον.
θέμις δὲ οὔτ᾽ ἦν οὔτ᾽ ἔστι τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ κάλ-
λιστον' λογισάμενος οὖν εὕρισκεν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ὁρατῶν

οὐδὲν ἀνόητον τοῦ νοῦν ἔχοντος ὅλον ὅλου κάλλιον ἔσεσθαί ποτε Β

ἔργον, νοῦν δ᾽ αὖ χωρὶς ψυχῆς ἀδύνατον παραγενέσθαι τῳ. διὰ
δὴ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε νοῦν μὲν ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴν δὲ ἐν σώματι
ξυνιστὰς τὸ πᾶν ξυνετεκταίνετο, ὅπως ὅ τι κάλλιστον εἴη κατὰ
φύσιν ἄριστόν τε ἔργον ἀπειργασμένος. οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον
τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν, τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε

ΩΡ. / \ \ a a 4 t ᾿
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν.

Τούτου δ᾽ ὑπάρχοντος αὖ τὰ τούτοις ἐφεξῆς ἡμῖν λεκτέον, Tive C
τῶν ξῴων αὐτὸν εἰς ὁμοιότητα ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησε.

1. κατὰ δύναμιν] 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. Zheaetetus 176 A ἀλλ᾽ οὔτ᾽
ἀπολέσθαι τὰ κακὰ δυνατόν, ὦ Θεόδωρε"
ὑπεναντίον γάρ τι τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἀεὶ εἶναι ἀνάγ-
kn’ οὔτ᾽ ἐν θεοῖς αὐτὰ ἱδρῦσθαι, τὴν δὲ
θνητὴν φύσιν καὶ τόνδε τὸν τόπον περιπολεῖ
ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 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.

πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβών]
Martin finds in this passage a clear indi-
cation that chaos actually as a fact existed
before the ordering of the κόσμος. But
this is due to a misunderstanding of
Plato’s figurative exposition. Proklos
says with perfect correctness κατ᾽ ἐπί-
votav θεωρεῖται πρὸ τῆς κοσμοποιίας. The
statement that the δημιουργὸς found cha-

τῶν μὲν

otic matter ready to his hand is one
which πολὺ μετέχει τοῦ προστυχόντος.
We learn in 34 C that soul is prior to
matter, which can only mean that matter
is evolved out of soul. What Plato ex-
pressed as a process taking place in time
must be regarded as a logical conception
only. When he speaks of matter as cha-
otic, he does not mean that there was a
time when matter existed uninformed by
mind and that afterwards νοῦς ἐλθὼν διε-
κόσμησεν : 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 dogm. Plat. 1 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.

οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον] 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
ψυχή, since for Plato ψυχὴ is the sole
ἀρχὴ κινήσεως. κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ

᾿

TIMAIOS¥. 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

C]

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.

ἀτάκτως describes the condition of matter
as it would be were it not derived from
an intelligent ἀρχή. Aristotle refers to
this passage de caelo 111 ii 300 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 κόσμος. It is impossible that
Plato could have imagined that this dis-
orderly motion ever actually existed :
since all motion is of ψυχή, and ψυχὴ
is intelligent.

3. ἡγησάμενος ἐκεῖνο τούτου πάντως
ἄμεινον] sc. τάξιν ἀταξίας. Throughout
this passage Plato is careful to remedy
the defect he found in Anaxagoras. ‘ Ail
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 ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον.

To

7. νοῦν δ᾽ αὖ χωρὶς ψυχῆς] Compare
Philebus 30 C σοφία μὴν καὶ νοῦς ἄνευ
ψυχῆς οὐκ ἄν ποτε γενοίσθην. Stallbaum,
following the misty light of neoplatonic
inspiration, says of ψυχή, ‘media est inter
corpora atque mentem’. But in truth
νοῦς is simply the activity of ψυχὴ 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 ψυχή, but a particular
function of ψυχή.

8. Ψυχὴν δὲ ἐν σώματι] Plato is here
employing popular language : accurately
speaking, God constructed body within
soul, as we see in 36 E. Plutarch guwaest.
platon. 1V wrongly infers from this pas-
sage that, as νοῦς can only exist in ψυχή,
so Ψυχὴ can only exist in σῶμα. This of
course is not so: the converse would he
more correct, that σῶμα can only exist in
ψυχή. The phrase νοῦν ἐν ψυχῇ is also
an exoteric expression; for Plato is not
here concerned to use technical language.

hea)

94

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[30 ς--

, > a \
οὖν ἐν μέρους εἴδει πεφυκότων μηδενὶ καταξιώσωμεν' atedet yap
ἐοικὸς οὐδέν ποτ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο καλόν" οὗ δ᾽ ἔστι τἄλλα ζῷα καθ᾽ ἕν
καὶ κατὰ γένη μόρια, τούτῳ πάντων ὁμοιότατον αὐτὲν εἶναι τιθῶ-

μεν.

a lal ς a \
τὰ γὰρ δὴ νοητὰ ἕῷα πάντα ἐκεῖνο ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιλαβὸν

- “ Μ 4 /
5 ἔχει, καθάπερ ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ἡμᾶς ὅσα τε ἄλλα θρέμματα ἕξυνέ-
a “ / \ \ ,
στηκεν ὁρατά. τῷ γὰρ τῶν νοουμένων καλλίστῳ καὶ κατὰ πάντα
fal \ a 3 /

τελέῳ μάλιστα αὐτὸν 6 θεὸς ὁμοιῶσαι βουληθεὶς ζῷον ἕν ὁρατόν,
a a a \ 4 ς r

πάνθ᾽ ὅσα αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ξυγγενῆ ζῷα ἐντὸς ἔχον ἑαυτοῦ,

ξυνέστησε.

, .4 ᾽ Ὁ i. \ “ Δ
πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν προσειρήκαμεν, ἢ

, Ν \ \
10 πολλοὺς Kal ἀπείρους λέγειν ἦν ὀρθότερον; ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ TO

I

on

παράδειγμα δεδημιουργημένος ἔσται.

’
τὸ γὰρ περιέχον πάντα,

a > Μ /
ὁπόσα νοητὰ faa, μεθ᾽ ἑτέρου δεύτερον οὐκ av ποτ᾽ εἴη" πάλιν

/ - Φ / x» »
yap ἂν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ περὶ ἐκείνω δέοι ζῷον, οὗ μέρος ἂν εἴτην
> / > x Μ) > / >? wR / a / io. a
ἐκείνω, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔτι éxeivow ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνῳ TO περιέχοντι TOO ἂν

ἀφωμοιωμένον λέγοιτο ὀρθότερον.

iA s / \ \ ,
ἵνα οὖν τόδε κατὰ τὴν μόνωσιν

13 ἐκείνω : ἐκείνῳ A.

1. ἐν μέρους εἴδει] Stallbaum cites
Cratylus 394 Ὁ ἐν τέρατος εἴδει, Phaedo
gt Ὁ ἐν ἁρμονίας εἴδει, Republic 389 Β ὡς
ἐν φαρμάκου εἴδει, Hippias maior 297 Β ἐν
πατρός τινος ἰδέᾳ.

2. καθ᾽ ἕν καὶ κατὰ γένη] The neo-
platonic commentators are at variance
whether ἕν or γένη is to be regarded as
the more universal expression. I think
Plato’s usage is pretty conclusive in favour
of taking ἕν as the more special. & will
thus signify the separate species, such as
horse or tree ; while yévy, 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 αὐτὸ 6 ἔστι ζῷον compre-
hends in it all the scale of inferior ideas
from the four highest to the lowest species.

6. τῶν νοουμένων καλλίστῳ] 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 ἵνα τόδε ὡς ὁμοιό-
τατον ἢ τῷ τελέῳ Kal νοητῷ ζῴῳ.

8, αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ξυγγενῆ] For
the construction αὐτοῦ ξυγγενῆ compare
29 B, 77 A, Philebus 11 B.

10. ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα]
The objection might occur that every
other idea, just as much as the αὐτὸ
ζῷον, is necessarily one and unique. That
is true; but the difference lies in this:
the αὐτὸ {Pov is ἕν as being πᾶν ; there
cannot be a second αὐτὸ gor, else it
would not contain within it all νοητὰ fea.
Therefore while the other particulars may
be satisfactory μιμήματα of their ideas,
although they are many, the ὁρατὸς κόσ-
μος must be one only, else it would not
copy the νοητὸς κόσμος in the essential
attribute of all-comprehensiveness.

It is noticeable that in this case we have
an idea with only one particular cor-
responding. This would have been im-
possible in the earlier phase of Plato’s
metaphysic. He says in Repudlic 596 A
εἶδος γάρ πού τι ἕν ἕκαστον εἰώθαμεν τίθε-
σθαι περὶ ἕκαστα τὰ πολλά, οἷς ταὐτόν
ὄνομα ἐπιφέρομεν. But now that the
ideas are restricted to ὁπόσα φύσει, 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,

31 A

B

31 8] TIMAIOS. 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 αὐτὸ ¢gov ? Surely
not an essence existing outside the κόσ-
μος, else we should have something over
and above the All, and the All would not
be all. It is then (to keep up Plato’s
metaphor) the idea of the κόσμος existing
in the mind of the δημιουργός : or, trans-
lating poetry into prose, it is the primal
év which finds its realisation and ultimate
unity through its manifestation as πολλά:
there will be more to say about this on
92 6. Proklos has for once expressed the
truth with some aptness: 7d μὲν γὰρ
[παράδειγμα] ἣν νοητῶς πᾶν, αὐτὸς δὲ [ὁ
δημιουργός] νοερῶς πᾶν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος αἰσθη-
τῶς πᾶν: i.e, the παράδειγμα is universal
thought regarded as the supreme intelli-
gible, the δημιουργὸς represents the same
regarded as the supreme intelligence,
and the κόσμος is the same in material
manifestation, See introduction § 38.

Aristotle deduces the unity of the ov-
pavos thus: metaph. A viii 1074% 31 ὅτι

δὲ els οὐρανὸς φανερόν. el γὰρ πλείους
οὐρανοὶ ὥσπερ ἄνθρωποι, ἔσται εἴδει μία 7
περὶ ἕκαστον ἀρχή, ἀριθμῷ δέ γε πολλαί.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀριθμῷ πολλά, ὕλην ἔχει...τὸ δὲ
τί ἦν εἶναι οὐκ ἐχει ὕλην τὸ πρῶτον.
ἐντελέχεια γάρ. ὃν ἄρα καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἀριθ-
μῷ τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον ὄν. καὶ τὸ
κινούμενον ἄρα ἀεὶ καὶ συνεχῶς ὃν μόνον"
εἷς ἄρα οὐρανὸς μόνος.

12. πάλιν γὰρ ἄν] Compare Republic
507 C εἰ δύο μόνας ποιήσειε, πάλιν ἂν μία
καταφανείη, ἧς ἐκεῖναι ἂν αὖ ἀμφότεραι τὸ
εἶδος ἔχοιεν, καὶ εἴη ἂν ὃ ἔστι κλίνη ἐκείνη,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ αἱ δύο.

13. μέρος] i.e, a subdivision, a lower
generalisation.

15. κατὰ τὴν μόνωσιν] i.e. respect of
its isolation, of being the only one of its
kind. This would not have called for
explanation, but for Stallbaum’s strange
remark ‘mox κατὰ τὴν μόνωσιν i. q.
pdvov’.

5

15

96 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [31 B—

ὅμοιον ἡ τῷ παντελεῖ ζῴῳ, διὰ ταῦτα οὔτε δύο οὔτ᾽ ἀπείρους
ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιῶν κόσμους, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανὸς γεγονὼς
ἔστι τε καὶ ἔτ᾽ ἔσται.

VII. Σωματοειδὲς δὲ δὴ καὶ ὁρατὸν ἁπτόν τε δεῖ τὸ γενόμενον
εἶναι: χωρισθὲν δὲ πυρὸς οὐδὲν ἄν ποτε ὁρατὸν γένοιτο, οὐδὲ
ἁπτὸν ἄνευ τινὸς στερεοῦ, στερεὸν δὲ οὐκ ἄνευ γῆς" ὅθεν ἐκ
πυρὸς καὶ γῆς τὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχόμενος ξυνιστάναι σῶμα ὁ θεὸς
ἐποίει. δύο δὲ μόνω καλῶς ξυνίστασθαι τρίτου χωρὶς οὐ δυνατόν'
δεσμὸν γὰρ ἐν μέσῳ δεῖ τινὰ ἀμφοῖν ξυναγωγὸν γίγνεσθαι" δεσ-
μῶν δὲ κάλλιστος ὃς ἂν αὑτόν τε καὶ τὰ ξυνδούμενα ὅ τι μά-
λιστα ἕν ποιῇ. τοῦτο δὲ πέφυκεν ἀναλόγία κάλλιστα ἀποτελεῖν"
ὁπόταν γὰρ ἀριθμῶν τριῶν εἴτε ὄγκων εἴτε δυνάμεων, ὡντινωνοῦν
ἦ τὸ μέσον, ὅ τί περ τὸ πρῶτον πρὸς αὐτό, τοῦτο, αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ
ἔσχατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖθις, ὅ τι τὸ ἔσχατον πρὸς τὸ μέσον, τὸ μέσον
πρὸς τὸ πρῶτον, τότε τὸ μέσον μὲν πρῶτον καὶ ἔσχατον γιγνόμενον,
τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον καὶ τὸ πρῶτον αὖ μέσα ἀμφότερα, πάνθ᾽ οὕτως ἐξ
ἀνάγκης τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι ξυμβήσεται, τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ γενόμενα ἀλλήλοις Ev

10 Te omittunt SZ. 14 τοῦτο ante alterum τὸ μέσον habent SZ.

1. οὔτε δύο οὔτ᾽ ἀπείρους] This is harmony. And of these substances God

directed against the theory of Demo-
kritos, that there were an infinite number
of κόσμοι: a theory which is of course
a perfectly just inference from Demo-
kritean principles.

2. εἷς ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανός] Com-
pare 92 C εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενὴς ὦν,
The words that follow must be under-
stood as an affirmation of the everlasting
continuance of the κόσμος, and γεγονώς,
as I have already done my best to show,
does not imply its beginning in time.

31 B—34 A, ¢ viis 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. Spardv ἅπτόν te] 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 1884 20 καὶ γὰρ Παρμενίδης θερμὸν καὶ
ψυχρὸν ἀρχὰς ποιεῖ, ταῦτα δὲ προσαγορεύει
πῦρ καὶ γῆν: and Parmenides 112 foll.
(Karsten): see too Aristotle de gen. ef
corr. Il ix 336% 3. The four elements

32 A

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-
selves to two: cf. Aristotle metaph. A iv
9857 33 οὐ μὴν χρῆταί ye τέτταρσιν, ἀλλ᾽
ὡς δυσὶν οὖσι μόνοις, πυρὶ μὲν καθ᾽ αὑτό,
τοῖς δ᾽ ἀντικειμένοις ὡς μιᾷ φύσει, γῇ τε καὶ
ἀέρι καὶ ὕδατι: and de gen. et corr. τὶ iii
330” 20. His division however does not
agree with that of Plato, who classes fire
air and water as forms of the same base,
and places earth alone by itself.

8. ϑύο δὲ μόνω] Two things alone
cannot be formed into a perfect harmony
because they cannot constitutean ἀναλογία.

12. εἴτε ὄγκων εἴτε δυνάμεων] ‘whe-
ther cubic or square.’ The Greek mathe-
matician in the time of Plato looked
upon number from a geometrical stand-
point, as the expression of geometrical
figures. ὄγκος is a solid body, here a
number representing a solid body, i.e.
composed of three factors, so as to repre-
sent three dimensions. δύναμις is the
technical term for a square, or sometimes

ἘΣ T.

a square root; cf. 7heaetetus 148 A; and
here stands for a number composed of
two factors and representing two dimen-
sions. This interpretation of the terms
seems to me the only one at all apposite
to the present passage. Another expla-
nation is that they represent the dis-
tinction made by Aristotle in Cavegortes
1 vi 4> 20 between continuous and dis-
crete number; the former being a geo-
metrical figure, the latter a number in the
strict sense. But as our present passage
is not concerned with pure numbers at
all, this does not seem to the purpose.

13. 6 τί περ τὸ πρῶτον πρὸς αὐτό] e.g.
the continuous proportion 4:6 :: 6 : 9
may either be reversed so that ἔσχατον
becomes πρῶτον, 9 : 6 :: 6: 4: or alter-
nated so that the μέσον becomes ἔσχατον
and πρῶτον, as 6:9 2: 4:6, or6: 4::9:6.
Thus, says Plato, the ἀναλογία forms a
coherent whole, in which the members
may freely interchange their positions.

7

98 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [32 A—

πάντα ἔσται. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπίπεδον μέν, βάθος δὲ μηδὲν ἔχον
ἔδει γίγνεσθαι τὸ τοῦ παντὸς σῶμα, μία μεσότης ἂν ἐξήρκει
τά τε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ξυνδεῖν καὶ ἑαυτήν: νῦν δέ---στερεοειδῆ γὰρ B
αὐτὸν προσῆκεν εἶναι, τὰ δὲ στερεὰ μία μὲν οὐδέποτε, δύο δὲ ἀεὶ

5 μεσότητες ξυναρμόττουσιν' οὕτω δὴ πυρός τε καὶ γῆς ὕδωρ ἀέρα

τε ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θείς, καὶ πρὸς pain καθ᾽ ὅσον ἦν δυνατὸν
ἀνὰ τὸν αὐτὸν "λόγον ἀπεργασάμενος, ᾿ὅ τί περ πῦρ πρὸς ἀέρα, ,,.» 1

τοῦτο ἀέρα πρὸς ὕδωρ, καὶ ὅ τι ἀὴρ πρὸς ὕδωρ, ὕδωρ πρὸς γὴν ΠΡ pu

ξυνέδησε καὶ ξυνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἅπτόν. καὶ διὰ
ταῦτα ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων τοιούτων καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τεττάρων TOC
τοῦ κόσμου σῶμα ἐγεννήθη δι’ ἀναλογίας ὁμολογῆσαν, φιλίαν τε
ἔσχεν ἐκ τούτων, ὥστ᾽ εἰς ταὐτὸν αὑτῷ ξυνελθὸν ἄλυτον ὑπό του

3 στερεοειδῆ : στεροεῖδῆ (sic) A.

10 τούτων τοιούτων: τούτων [καὶ] τοιούτων H.

2. μία μεσότης ἂν ἐξήρκει] Plato lays
down the law that between two plane
numbers one rational and integral mean
can be obtained, while between solid
numbers two are required. But here
we are met by a difficulty. For there
are certain solid numbers between which
one mean can be found; and this cer-
tainly was not unknown to Plato, who
was one of the first mathematicians of
his day. For instance, between 8 (2°)
and 512 (8°) we have the proportion
8 : 64 ::64:512. A second point, re-
garded by both Béckh and Martin as
a difficulty, is really no difficulty at all,
viz. the fact that there are plane numbers
between which two means can be found,
e.g. between 4 (27) and 256 (16?) we have
4:16::64:256. This is immaterial;
for Plato does not say that two means
can never be found between two planes,
but merely that one is sufficient. The
other point however does require eluci-
dation. Béckh, who has written two
able essays on the subject, offers the
following explanation: ‘ Philosophus nos-
ter non universe planorum et solidorum
magnitudinem spectavit, sed solum eam
comparabilium figurarum rationem, quae
fit, ubi alterum alteri inscribas, ut supra
fecimus, et ibi notatas lineas exares:

8 τοῦτο ante ὕδωρ dedit 8.
12 ξυνελθόν : ξυνελθεῖν A.

idque etiam quadratis et cubis accom-
modari potest.’ This he supports by a
geometrical demonstration. Martin’s ex-
planation however (with some modifi-
cations), despite Béckh’s criticism of it,
appears to me simpler and better. He
points out that Plato’s statement is true,
if we suppose him to be using the words
ἐπίπεδον and στερεὸν in their strictest
sense, so that a plane number consists
of two factors only, and the solid only
of three; all the factors being primes.
Now it is @ priori in the highest degree
probable that Plato is using these terms
in their strictest possible sense. Martin
is not indeed correct in saying that be-
tween two such strictly plane numbers
two means can never be intercalated:
for, given that a, 4, ¢ are prime numbers,
we may have this proportion: αὖ : ac ::
¢ : c*, where ac, dc are integral. But
this, as we have seen, is of no import-
ance, since Plato does not deny the possi-
bility of such a series, and since his ex-
tremes must be squares. On the other
hand, provided that both the extremes are
squares, we can always interpose a single
mean between them, e.g. a? : αὖ :: ab: 0.
Again between solids formed of prime num-
bers we can never (with one exception)
find one rational mean: for if αὐ: x :: x : 43,

ο] TIMAIOS. | 99

body of the universe were to have been made a plane surface
having no thickness, one mean would have sufficed to unify itself
and the extremes; but now since it behoved it to be solid,
and since solids can never be united by one mean, but require two
—God accordingly set air and water betwixt fire and earth, and
making them as far as possible exactly proportional, so that fire
is to air as air to water,:and as air is to water water is to earth,
thus he compacted and constructed a universe visible and tangible.
For these reasons and out of elements of this kind, four in
number, the body of the universe was created, being brought
into concord through proportion; and from these it derived
friendship, so that coming to unity with itself it became in-

dissoluble by any force save the will of him who joined it.

then x=ab/ab; and similarly if the ex-
tremes are of the form a*J or abc. The
exception is the case ab : abc :: abc : δεῖ,
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*: αϑό ::
ab: al? :: ab? : 8, 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 Bockh
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.
Boéckh’s defence of his own explana-
tion is to be found in vol. 111 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-
méme’,

9. ϑιὰ ταῦτα ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων] ‘on
this principle and out of these materials’:
ταῦτα signifies the ἀναλογία, τούτων the
στοιχεῖα. 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 φιλίαν
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 φιλία: he is
not content with the vague assertion that
φιλία keeps the universe together; he
must show how φιλία comes about.

7—2

100

ἄλλου πλὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ξυνδήσαντος γενέσθαι.
ὃν ὅλον ἕκαστον εἴληφεν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου ξύστασις.

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[32 c—

τῶν δὲ δὴ τεττάρων

ἐκ γὰρ πυρὸς

παντὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς ξυνέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ξυνιστάς,
μέρος οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς οὐδὲ δύναμιν ἔξωθεν ὑπολυπών, τάδε διανοη-
5 θείς, πρῶτον μὲν ἵνα ὅλον ὅ τι μάλιστα Sov τέλεον ἐκ τελέων Ὁ

τῶν μερῶν εἴη, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἕν, ἅτε οὐχ ὑπολελειμμένων ἐξ 33.4
ὧν ἄλλο τοιοῦτον γένοιτ᾽ av, ἔτι δὲ ἵνα ἀγήρων καὶ ἄνοσον ἧ,
κατανοῶν, ὡς ξυστάτῳ σώματι θερμὰ καὶ ψυχρὰ καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα
δυνάμεις ἰσχυρὰς ἔχει περιιστάμενα ἔξωθεν καὶ προσπίπτοντα

10 ἀκαίρως, λύει καὶ νόσους γῆράς τε ἐπάγοντα φθίνειν ποιεῖ.

διὰ

λ ἃ 7 ΈΥΥ,
δὴ τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε ἕν ὅλον ὅλων ἐξ ἁπάντων

τέλεον καὶ

ἀγήρων καὶ ἄνοσον αὐτὸν ἐτεκτήνατο.
ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὸ πρέπον καὶ τὸ ξυγγενές.

Ὁ Ν \ / ΕἸ >
τῷ δὲ τὰ πάντ᾽ ἐν

αὑτῷ ζῷα περιέχειν μέλλοντι ζῴῳ πρέπον ἂν εἴη σχῆμα τὸ
15 περιειληφὸς ἐν αὑτῷ πάντα ὁπόσα σχήματα" διὸ καὶ σφαιροειδές,
ἐκ μέσου πάντῃ πρὸς τὰς τελευτὰς ἴσον ἀπέχον, κυκλοτερὲς αὐτὸ
ἐτορνεύσατο, πάντων τελεώτατον ὁμοιότατόν. τε αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ σχη-

μάτων, νομίσας μυρίῳ κάλλιον ὅμοιον ἀνομοίου.
κύκλῳ πᾶν ἔξωθεν αὐτὸ ἀπηκριβοῦτο πολλῶν χάριν.

λεῖον δὲ δὴ
ὀμμάτων

20 TE γὰρ ἐπεδεῖτο οὐδέν, ὁρατὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν ὑπελείπετο ἔξωθεν. οὐδ᾽
ἀκοῆς, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀκουστόν' πνεῦμά τε οὐκ ἣ πόρμεστος δεόμενον
ἀναπνοῆς" οὐδ᾽ αὖ τινὸς ἐπιδεὲς ἢ ἦν ὀργάνου σχεῖν; ᾧ τὴν μὲν εἰς
ἑαυτὸ τροφὴν δέξοιτο, τὴν δὲ πρότερον ἐξικμασμένην ἀποπέμψοι

πάλιν.

8 ξυστάτῳ σώματι dedi cum H e W. Wagneri coniectura.
20 ὑπελείπετο: ὑπέλειπτο A.

ἃ ξυνιστᾷ τὰ σώματα SZ.

4- οὐδὲ δύναμιν] δύναμιν is not to be
understood as ‘potentiality’, but as
‘power’ or ‘faculty’.

5- τέλεον] ‘complete’ and so _per-
fect: cf. Aristotle metaph. A xvi 1021
12 τέλειον λέγεται ἕν μὲν ov μὴ ἔστιν ἔξω
τι λαβεῖν μηδὲ ἕν μόριον: and from this
sense Aristotle derives all the other
meanings of this word.

8. ὡς ξυστάτῳ σώματι) I have
adopted the correction of W. Wagner.
The reading of Stallbaum and the Ziirich
edition ἃ ξυνιστᾷ τὰ σώματα has poor ms.
authority and is weak in sense ;.moreover
the form ξυνιστᾷ is extremely doubtful

anne. Te yap οὐδὲν οὐδὲ προσήειν αὐτῷ ποθέν" οὐδὲ γὰρ

ξυνιστὰς τᾷ σώματι Α.

Attic. The mss, for the most part have
ξυνιστὰς or ξυνιστὰν τῷ σώματι. ξυστάτῳ
σώματι is supported by Cicero’s rendering
‘ coagmentatio corporis’.

9. περιιστάμενα ἔξωθεν καὶ προσπίπ-
τοντὰ] Compare the statement in 81 D
as to the cause of disease and decay.

11. ἕν ὅλον] It is needless either with
Stallbaum to read ἕνα or to change αὐτὸν
into αὐτό: the meaning is ‘he made it
(the κόσμος) one single whole’.

14. τὸ περιειληφὸς ἐν αὑτῷ] The
sphere is said to contain within it all
other shapes, because of all figures

σχῆμα δὲΒ

having an equal periphery it is the great-

TIMAIOS’. IOI

33 6]

Now the making of the universe took up the whole bulk of
each of these four elements. Of all fire and all water and air
and earth its framer fashioned it, leaving over no part nor power
without. Therein he had this intent: first that it might be
a creature perfect to the utmost with all its parts perfect; next
that it might be one, seeing that nothing was left over whereof
another should be formed; furthermore that it might be free
from age and sickness; for he reflected that when hot things
and cold and all such as have strong powers gather round a
composite body from without and fall unseasonably upon it,
they undermine it, and bringing upon it sickness and age cause
its decay. For such motives and reasons he fashioned it as one
whole, with each of its parts whole in itself, so as to be perfect
and free from age and sickness. And he assigned to it its
proper and natural shape. To that which is to comprehend all
animals in itself that shape seems proper which comprehends in
itself all shapes that are. Wherefore he turned it of a rounded
and spherical shape, having its bounding surface in all points at
an equal distance from the centre: this being the most perfect
and regular shape; for he thought that a regular shape was
infinitely fairer than an irregular. And all round about he
finished off the outer surface perfectly smooth, for many
reasons. It needed not eyes, for naught visible was left
outside; nor hearing, for there was nothing to hear; and there
was no surrounding air which made breathing needful. Nor
must it have any organ whereby it should receive into itself its
sustenance, and again reject that which was already digested ;
for nothing went forth of it nor entered in from anywhere ; for

est: all others can be inscribed within it. Aristotle physica IV vi 213> 22 εἶναι δ᾽

18. λεῖον δὲ δή] This might be sup-
posed to be involved in what has been
said: but Plato is insisting that not only
is the general shape of the κόσμος spheri-
cal, but that it is a sphere without any
appendages.

21. πνεῦμά τε οὐκ ἦν περιεστός] This
\ is directed against a Pythagorean fancy,

that outside the universe there existed
κενόν, or ἄπειρον πνεῦμα, which passed
into the cavities in the universe, as
‘though the latter were respiring it: cf.

ἔφασαν καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι κενόν, καὶ ἐπεισ-
ἰέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου
πνεύματος ὡς ἀναπνέοντι καὶ τὸ κενόν, ὃ
διορίζει τὰς φύσεις, ὡς ὄντος τοῦ κενοῦ
χωρισμοῦ τινὸς τῶν ἐφεξῆς καὶ τῆς διορί-
σεως" καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι πρῶτον ἐν τοῖς ἀριθ-
potss τὸ γὰρ κενὸν διορίζειν τὴν φύσιν
αὐτῶν: and physica U1 iv 203* 6 οἱ μὲν
Πυθαγόρειοι ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς [sc. τιθέασι
τὸ ἄπειρον) οὐ γὰρ χωριστὸν ποιοῦσι τὸν
ἀριθμόν: καὶ εἶναι τὸ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἄπειρον. See too Stobaeus δεῖ. 1 382.

on

10

102 « ;εεες

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[33 C—

hv: αὐτὸ yap ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ
πάντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης Ὁ
γέγονεν" ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ ξυνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὃν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι
a n s
μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων. χειρῶν δέ, als οὔτε λαβεῖν οὔτε αὖ
a a /
τινὰ ἀμύνασθαι χρεία τις ἦν, μάτην οὐκ ᾧετο δεῖν αὐτῷ προσά-
᾽ 7 > ¢ A \ ͵ τυ δ 7
πτειν, οὐδὲ ποδῶν οὐδὲ ὅλως τῆς περὶ τὴν βάσιν ὑπηρεσίας.
lal n nr \
κίνησιν yap ἀπένειμεν αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ σώματος οἰκείαν, TOV ἑπτὰ
a Ν
τὴν περὶ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν μάλιστα odcav: διὸ δὴ κατὰ ταὐτὰ
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιαγωγὼν αὐτὸ ἐποίησε κύκλῳ κι-
a \
νεῖσθαι στρεφόμενον, τὰς δὲ ἕξ ἁπάσας κινήσεις ἀφεῖλε καὶ
> \ > , > / δὲ \ / ὃ U & ᾽
ἀπλανὲς ἀπειργάσατο ἐκείνων! ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν περίοδον ταύτην ἅτ
> lal / > \ . Le Vy * d
οὐδὲν ποδῶν δέον ἀσκελὲς Kal ἄπουν αὐτὸ ἐγέννησεν.
VIII. Οὗτος 81) πᾶς ὄντος ἀεὶ λογισμὸς θεοῦ περὶ τὸν ποτὲ

I. τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέ-
xov] 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 iscomposed
feed upon each other and are fed upon in
turn. The idea is still more boldly ex-
pressed by Herakleitos fr. 25 (Bywater)
ζῇ πῦρ τὸν γῆς θάνατον καὶ ἀὴρ ζῇ τὸν
πυρὸς θάνατον, ὕδωρ ζῇ τὸν ἀέρος θάνατον,
γῆ τὸν ὕδατος.

4. χειρῶν δέ] There is an anaco-
luthon: the genitive is written as though
χρεία τις ἦν belonged to the main clause.

7. τὴν τοῦ σώματος οἰκείαν] 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
τῶν ἑπτὰ see 43 B: the seven are up and
down, forwards and backwards, to right
and to left, and finally rotation upon an
axis.

8. τὴν περὶ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν] Com-
pare Laws 898 A τὸ κατὰ ταῦτα δήπου καὶ
ὡσαύτως καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τὰ αὐτὰ
καὶ πρὸς τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ καθ᾽ ἕνα λόγον καὶ
τάξιν μίαν ἄμφω κινεῖσθαι λέγοντες νοῦν
τήν τε ἐν ἑνὶ φερομένην κίνησιν, σφαίρας
εὐτόρνου ἀπεικασμένα φοραῖς, οὐκ ἄν ποτε

φανεῖμεν φαῦλοι δημιουργοὶ λόγῳ καλῶν
εἰκόνων. Aristotle states his objections
(which are not very cogent) to the com-
parison in de anima 1 iii § 15.

9. κύκλῳ κινεῖσθαι στρεφόμενον] If
we compare the account given in the
Timaeus concerning the motion of the
κόσμος with that in the myth of the Pol-
ticus, we shall observe a peculiar and very
significant discrepancy. In a passage of
the latter dialogue, 269 A foll., we are told
that for a fixed period God turns the uni-
verse in a given direction, making it re-
volve upon its axis; at the end of this
period he lets go of it and suffers it to
rotate by itself for a like period in a re-
verse direction: its motion being the
recoil from that which had been imparted
by God. And this alternation recurs ad .
infinitum. Now the reason for this
singular arrangement is thus stated by
Plato: τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν
ἀεὶ καὶ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τοῖς πάντων θειοτάτοις
προσήκει μόνοις, σώματος δὲ φύσις οὐ ταύτης
τῆς τάξεως. ὃν δὲ οὐρανὸν καὶ κόσμον ἐπω-
νομάκομεν, πολλῶν μὲν καὶ μακαρίων παρὰ
τοῦ γεννήσαντος μετείληφεν, ἀτὰρ οὖν δὴ
κεκοινώνηκε καὶ σώματος. For this cause
it was impossible to give it the same mo-
tion unchanged for ever; so God devised
this ἀνακύκλησις as the slightest παράλ-

TIMAIOS. 103

34 ΑἹ

there was nothing. For by design was it created to supply its
own sustenance by its own wasting, and to have all its action
and passion in itself and by itself: for its framer deemed that
were it self-sufficing it would be far better than if it required
aught else. And hands, wherewith it had no need to grasp
aught nor to defend itself against another, he thought not fit idly
to bestow upon it, nor yet feet, nor in a word anything to serve
as the means of movement. For he assigned it that motion
which was proper to its bodily form, of all the seven that which
most belongs to reason and intelligence. Wherefore turning it
about uniformly in the same spot on its own axis, he made it to
revolve round and round ; but all the six motions he took away

from it and left it without part in their wanderings.

And since

for this revolution there was no need of feet he made it without

legs and without feet.
VIII.

λαξις from a perpetually constant motion.
But in the Z7zmaeus the movement of the
universe is changeless and everlastingly in
the same direction. Now the interpreta-
tion of this difference is in my judgment
indubitably this. The passage in the
Politicus belongs to a different class of
myth to the allegory of the 7%macus.
Plato is not there expounding his meta-
physical theories under a similitude ; he
is telling a tale with a moral to it. There-
fore it suited his convenience to adopt
the popular distinction between spirit
and matter; and since the κόσμος was
material, he was forced to deny it the
motion peculiar to τὸ θειότατον. In the
Timaeus, on the contrary, when the entire
universe is the self-evolution of νοῦς, the
distinction between spirit and matter is
finally eliminated; and there is now no
reason for refusing, or rather there is a
necessity for assigning to the κόσμος the
unchanging motion of the Same. I do
not mean to imply that Plato’s view on
this subject was different when he wrote
the Politicus; merely that the circum-
stances and object of his writing were
other.

So the universal design of the ever-living God, that

34 A—36 D, c. viii. So God made the
universe a sphere, even and smooth and
perfect, quickened through and through
with soul, alone and sufficient to itself.
But he made not soul later than body,
as we idly speak of it: but rather, as
soul was to be mistress and queen over
body, he framed her first, of three ele-
ments blended, of Same and of Other
and of Essence. And when the blending
was finished, he ordered and apportioned
her according to the intervals of a musical
scale, so that the harmony thereof per-
vaded all her substance. And then he
divided the whole soul into two portions,
which he formed into two intersecting
circles; and he called them the circle
of the Same and the circle of the Other:
and he gave the circle of the Same
dominion over the circle of the Other.
And the outer circle, which is of the
Same, he left undivided, but the circle
of the Other he cleft into seven circles,
four one way revolving and three the
other; and their distances one from an-
other were ordained according to the
proportion of the seven harmonic num-
bers of the soul.

5 στρεφόμενον οὐρανὸν ἕνα μόνον ἔρημον κατέστησε, δ ἀρετὴν δὲ

1§

104

MAATONO®

[34 B—

ἐσόμενον θεὸν λογισθεὶς λεῖον καὶ ὁμαλὸν πανταχῇ τε ἐκ μέσου B
ἴσον καὶ ὅλον καὶ τέλεον ἐκ τελέων σωμάτων σῶμα ἐποίησε'
ψυχὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ θεὶς διὰ παντός τε ἔτεινε καὶ ἔτι
ἔξωθεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτῇ περιεκάλυψε ταύτῃ, καὶ κύκλῳ δὴ κύκλον

αὐτὸν αὐτῷ δυνάμενον ξυγγίγνεσθαι καὶ οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου προσδεό-

μενον, γνώριμον δὲ καὶ φίλον ἱκανῶς αὐτὸν αὑτῷ. διὰ πάντα

δὴ ταῦτα εὐδαίμονα θεὸν αὐτὸν ἐγεννήσατο.

Τὴν δὲ δὴ ψυχὴν οὐχ ὡς νῦν ὑστέραν ἐπιχειροῦμεν λέγειν,
ιο οὕτως ἐμηχανήσατο καὶ ὁ θεὸς νεωτέραν: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄρχεσθαι αὶ
πρεσβύτερον ὑπὸ νεωτέρου ξυνέρξας εἴασεν: ἀλλά πως ἡμεῖς
πολὺ μετέχοντες, τοῦ προστυχόντος τε καὶ εἰκῇ, ταύτῃ πῃ καὶ
λέγομεν" ὁ δὲ καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν
ψυχὴν σώματος ὡς δεσπότιν καὶ ἄρξουσαν ἀρξομένου ξυνεστή-

> “Ὁ / Ὁ la
gato ἐκ. τῶνδέ τε Kal τοιῷδε τρόπῳ.

lal ?
τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ ἀεὶ

2 καὶ ante ἐκ habet A.

2. τέλεον ἐκ τελέων σωμάτων] i.e.
it was a complete whole constructed out
of the whole quantity that existed of its
constituent elements, as stated in 32 Cc.

3. Ψυχὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ μέσον] Soul
being unextended, this is of course meta-
phorical, signifying that every part of
the material universe from centre to cir-
cumference is informed and instinct with
soul. In the words that follow, ἔξωθεν
τὸ σῶμα αὐτῇ περιεκάλυψε ταύτῃ, Stall-
baum (who seems throughout to regard
Plato as incapable of originating any
idea for himself) will have it that he
is following Philolaos. Now the Py-
thagorean πνεῦμα ἄπειρον, the existence
of which is peremptorily denied by Plato
in 33 C, has not a trace of community
with the Platonic world-soul: nor is
there any reasonable evidence that Philo-
laos or any other Pythagorean conceived
such a soul. Plato seems by this phrase
simply to assert the absolute domination
of soul over body. The old physicists
regarded soul or life as a function of
material things, but for Plato matter is
but an accident of soul: neither will he
allow that soul is contained in body, as

the Epicureans later held—corpus quod
vas quasi constitit eius, Lucr. 111 440—
rather she comprehends it. The same
figure recurs 36 E. Aristotle’s criticism
in metaph. A vi 1071” 37 is based on a
confusion between κατὰ χρόνον and κατ᾽
ἐπίνοιαν.

9. οὐχ ὡς νῦν ὑστέραν] This passage
ought surely to be warning enough to
those who will not allow Plato the ordi-
nary licence of a story-teller. A similar
rectification of an inexact statement is to
be found at 54 B.

12. τοῦ προστυχόντος τε καὶ εἰκῇ]
Cf. Philebus 28 D τὴν τοῦ ἀλόγου καὶ
εἰκῇ δύναμιν. Stallbaum has the follow-
ing curious remark: ‘egregie convenit
cum iis quae Legum libro xX. go4 A dis-
putantur, ubi animam indelebilem qui-
dem esse docetur, nec vero aeternam’.
This were ‘inconstantia Platonis’ with a
vengeance: fortunately nothing of the
kind is taught in the passage cited. The
words are ἀνώλεθρον δὲ ὃν γενόμενον [τὸ
γενόμενον Herm.] ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ αἰώνιον, ὧσ-
περ οἱ κατὰ νόμον ὄντες θεοί. Plato here
plainly denies eternity, not to soul, but
to the ξύστασις of soul and body, which

35 A

35 Al ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ.

he planned for the God that was some time to be, made its
surface smooth and even, everywhere equally distant from the
centre, a body whole and perfect out of perfect bodies. And
God set soul in the midst thereof and spread her through all its
body and even wrapped the body about with her from without,
and he made it a sphere in a circle revolving, a universe one and
alone; but for its excellence it was able to be company to itself
and needed no other, being sufficient for itself as acquaintance
and friend. For all these things then he created it a happy god.

But the soul was not made by God younger than the body,
even as she comes later in this account we are essaying to give;
for he would not when he had joined them together have suffered
the elder to be governed by the younger: but we are far too
prone to a casual and random habit of mind which shows itself
in our speech. God made soul in birth and in excellence
earlier and elder than body, to be its mistress and governor; and
he framed her out of the following elements and in the following

105

is ἀνώλεθρος, since such a mode of exist-
ence must subsist perpetually, but not
αἰώνιος, since it belongs to γένεσις.

13. γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν] The
statement that soul is prior to matter in
order of generation can mean nothing
else but that matter is evolved out of
soul: for had matter an independent
ἀρχή, it would not be ὕστερον γενέσει.
Again the priority is logical not temporal.

15. ἐκ τῶνδε] Aristotle de anima 1
ii 404> τό says τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον Kal
Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τῶν
στοιχείων ποιεῖ" γινώσκεσθαι γὰρ τῷ ὁμοίῳ
τὸ ὅμοιον, καὶ τὰ πράγματα ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν
εἶναι. This statement is in more than
one respect gravely misleading. First,
although it is impossible to suppose that
Aristotle really meant to classify Plato’s
στοιχεῖα along with the material στοιχεῖα
of Empedokles and the rest, yet, after
stating the theories of the materialists,
to proceed τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ Πλά-
τῶν is, to say the least, a singularly in-
felicitous mode of exposition. Next,
while it is true that in Plato’s scheme
like is known by like, yet that is not the

fundamental principle. The antithesis
Same and Other, One and Many, is the
very basis of his whole metaphysic, and
must inevitably be the basis of his psy-
chogony. γινώσκεσθαι τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον
is consequent, not antecedent.

τῆς ἀμερίστου) First a word con-
cerning the Greek. The genitives τῆς
ἀμερίστου... μεριστῆς might well enough

be taken with Proklos as dependent on ,
ἐν μέσῳ. I think however they are rather |
to be considered as in a somewhat loose

anticipative apposition to ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, with
which words the construction first be-
comes determinate. Stallbaum is cer-
tainly wrong in connecting them with
εἶδος. Presently the words αὖ περὶ after
τῆς τε ταὐτοῦ φύσεως are unquestionably
spurious—repeated no doubt from τῆς αὖ
περὶ τὰ σώματα. In the phrase del κατὰ
ταὐτὰ ἐχούσης οὐσίας Dr Jackson has
with some probability suggested that
for οὐσίας we should read φύσεως: there
is certainly an awkwardness in this use
of οὐσίας, when we have the word directly
afterwards in so very peculiar and tech-
nical a sense.

=

σι

106 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [35 A—

κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐχούσης οὐσίας καὶ τῆς ad περὶ τὰ σώματα yryvo-
μένης μεριστῆς τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐν μέσῳ ξυνεκεράσατο οὐσίας
εἶδος, τῆς τε ταὐτοῦ φύσεως καὶ τῆς θατέρου, καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα
ξυνέστησεν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ τε ἀμεροῦς αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὰ
σώματα μεριστοῦ: καὶ τρία λαβὼν αὐτὰ ὄντα συνεκεράσατο εἰς
μίαν πάντα ἰδέαν, τὴν θατέρου φύσιν δύσμικτον οὖσαν εἰς ταὐτὸν
ξυναρμόττων βίᾳ" μιγνὺς δὲ μετὰ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἐκ τριῶν ποιη-
σάμενος ἕν, πάλιν ὅλον τοῦτο μοίρας ὅσας προσῆκε διένειμεν,
ἑκάστην δὲ ἔκ τε ταὐτοῦ καὶ θατέρου καὶ τῆς οὐσίας μεμυγμένην.
ἤρχετο δὲ διαιρεῖν ὧδε. μίαν ἀφεῖλε τὸ πρῶτον ἀπὸ παντὸς
μοῖραν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἀφήρει διπλασίαν ταύτης, τὴν δ᾽ αὖ τρίτην
ἡμιολίαν μὲν τῆς δευτέρας, τριπλασίαν δὲ τῆς πρώτης, τετάρτην

3 Post φύσεως delevi αὖ πέρι, quae cum consensu codicum retinent SZ: inclusit H.

This passage is obviously one of the
most important in the dialogue; and it
is necessary to use the utmost care in
interpreting the terms. ταὐτὸν and θάτε-
poy are in their widest and most radical
sense respectively the principle of unity
and identity and the principle of multi-
plicity and difference: but they are like-
wise used in special applications of these
significations. Such applications are 7
ἀμέριστος οὐσία and ἡ περὶτὰ σώματα γιγνο-
μένη μεριστή, which are identical but not
coextensive with ταὐτὸν and θάτερον. Re-
garded objectively, ταὐτὸν is the element
of changeless unity in the κόσμος, the
intelligible ἀρχή, θάτερον is the plurality
of variable phenomena, in which the
primal unity is materially and visibly
manifested. The first is ἡ ἀμέριστος οὐσία,
pure mind as it is in its own nature, the
second is mind as it becomes diffe-
rentiated into material existence. Re-
garded subjectively, ταὐτὸν is that faculty
in the world-soul which deals with the
intelligible unity, θάτερον that which
deals with sensible multiplicity. One is
the simple activity of thought as such,
the other the operation of thought as
subjected to the conditions of time and
space.

But what is οὐσίαῦ This is stated by
Plato to be τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς

τε ταὐτοῦ φύσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ érépov—a
third term arising from the other two
and intermediate between them. I think
the nature of οὐσία will be made clearest
if we take the case of an individual soul.
Every one has (1) the faculty of pure
thought, of reasoning apart from sen-
sation, (2) the faculty of perceiving sen-
sible impressions. Now if we hold that
these two faculties are simply processes
which go on in the brain, so that thought
and perception are merely affections of
the substance of the brain and nothing
more—there is an end: there is no οὐσία :
the two faculties have no bond of union
further than they are affections of the
same brain. But if we consider, as Plato
did, that the physical action of the brain
which accompanies thought and sen-
sation does not constitute these, but that
there is a thinking and sentient substance
which acts by means of these brain-pro-
cesses, at once we have a unity: the two
faculties are no longer independent phy-
sical processes but diverse activities of
one and the same intelligence: the sub-
ject is no morea series of consciousnesses
but a conscious personality. Just so the
κόσμος, being a sentient intelligence,
must be conscious of itself as a whole:
by ταὐτὸν it apprehends itself as unity,
by θάτερον it apprehends itself as multi-

B

B] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 107

way. From the undivided and ever changeless substance and
that which becomes divided in material bodies, of both these he
mingled in the third place the form of Essence, in the midst
between the Same and the Other; and this he composed on such
wise between the undivided and that which is in material bodies
divided; and taking them, three in number, he blended them
into one form, forcing the nature of the Other, hard as it was to
mingle, into union with the Same. And mingling them with
Essence and of the three making one, again he divided this into
as many parts as was meet, each part mingled of Same and
of Other and of Essence, And he began his dividing thus: first
he took one portion from the whole ; then he went on to take a
portion double of this; and the third half as much again as the

plicity: and as these are not apart, but
are activities of the same thinking sub-
ject, we have οὐσία, their union as modes
of one and the same consciousness. οὐσία
then is neither identical with ταὐτὸν or
θάτερον nor a substance apart from both:
it is the identification of the two as one
substance. And as in the particular soul
the reasoning and perceptive faculties
have no independent existence of their
own, but, if they are to exist, must co-
exist in a soul and thus obtain οὐσία, so
it is in the cosmic soul. Taken apart,
both ταὐτὸν and θάτερον are mere logical
abstractions, they have no existence.
Combined they instantly unite into a
single οὐσία, they are no longer abstract,
but concrete. Thus οὐσία is said to be
τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, because it arises from
their union. So again we see that the
One and the Many cannot exist but in
combination.

2. ἐν μέσῳ] i.e. it is a bond of
union and connecting link between them.
I would draw special attention to the
fact that according as they are regarded
objectively or subjectively, ἀμερὴς and
μεριστὴ οὐσία have a distinct significance:
they are (a) ψυχὴ as the primal and
eternal ἕν ὄν, and ψυχὴ as evolved into a
plurality of γιγνόμενα, (8) ψυχὴ as dealing

directly by pure thought with absolute
unity, and ψυχὴ as dealing sensually
with the multitude of material pheno-
mena, ,

6. ϑύσμικτον οὖσαν] The element
of difference and divergency was natu-
rally refractory and hard to force into
union with the rest. Plato, while con-
vinced of the necessity of conciliating
the opposites ἕν and πολλά, is fully alive
to the magnitude of the undertaking.

10. ἤρχετο δὲ διαιρεῖν ὧδε] Here
Plato is really pythagorising. The num-
bers which follow are those which com-
pose the geometrical rerpaxris of the
Pythagoreans. ‘This τετρακτὺς is double,
proceeding in one branch from 1 to 2°,
in the other from 1 to 3%, thus:

It will be observed that the sum of the
first six numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 equals
the last, 27. This τετρακτὺς was sig-
nificant of many things to the Pytha-
goreans : of these it will suffice to mention
one, which Plato may have had in view
in selecting these numbers: 1 denotes
the point; then in the διπλάσια διαστή-

108

ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ

[35 c—

δὲ τῆς δευτέρας διπλῆν, πέμπτην δὲ τριπλῆν τῆς τρίτης, τὴν δ᾽ Ὁ
ἕκτην τῆς πρώτης ὀκταπλασίαν, ἑβδόμην δὲ ἑπτακαιεικοσιπλα-
σίαν τῆς πρώτης: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα συνεπληροῦτο τά τε διπλάσια

καὶ τριπλάσια διαστήματα, μοίρας ἔτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀποτέμνων καὶ 36 A

/ /

ς τιθεὶς εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων, ὥστε ἐν ἑκάστῳ διαστήματι δύο

n a a ς ,

εἶναι μεσότητας, τὴν μὲν ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέ-
\ ΝΜ > > Ἁ «

χουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην, τὴν δὲ ἴσῳ μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑπερέ-

χουσαν, ἴσῳ δὲ ὑπερεχομένην"

ἡμιολίων δὲ διαστάσεων καὶ

lal >

ἐπιτρίτων καὶ ἐπογδόων γενομένων ἐκ τούτων τῶν δεσμῶν ἐν
a lal a / \ /

10 ταῖς πρόσθεν διαστάσεσι, τῷ τοῦ ἐπογδόου διαστήματι Ta ἐπί- B

ματα 2 stands for the straight line, 4 for
the rectilinear plane, 8 for the rectilinear
solid. In the τριπλάσια διαστήματα 3 is
the curved line, 9 the curvilinear super-
ficies, 27 the curvilinear solid. These
numbers also, as we presently see, form
the basis of a musical scale. The simple
Pythagorean τετρακτύς, 1+2+3+4=10
is not employed by Plato.

I. πέμπτην δὲ τριπλῆν τῆς τρίτης]
Note that 9 is prior in the enumeration to
8: this is because 9 is a lower power, being
the square of 3, while 8 is the cube of 2.

3. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα συνεπληροῦτο]
Next between every two members of the
double and triple intervals severally he

inserted two means, the harmonical and
the arithmetical. The harmonical mean
is such that it exceeds the lesser extreme
and is exceeded by the greater in the
same fraction of each extreme respec-
tively : 1.6. if « and y be the extremes and

m the mean, xo ay-%=m. Thearith-

metical mean exceeds the lesser extreme by
the same number whereby it is exceeded
by the greater extreme, x+n=y-—n=m.
Thus between 6 and 12 we have 8 as the
harmonical mean, 9g as the arithmetical.
Nowinserting these means in the two series
above, we get

In the διπλάσια διαστήματα 1, S 3, 2; 3 3. 4, Ξ, 6, 8:

In the τριπλάσια διαστήματα 1,

8. ἡμιολίων δέ] It will be seen that
the first of the two series given in the
preceding note proceeds regularly in the
ratios $, ὃ, $ &c; while the second pro-
ceeds in the ratios ὃ, $, ὃ &c: there being
in the first series three sets of 4, ὃ, 4, in
the second three sets of ὃ, 4, ὃ.

10. τῷ τοῦ ἐπογδόου διαστήματι] 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

2, 2, 8, 2, 6, 9, =, 18, 27.

2

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 4 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 1: 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 8] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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 3 and 4 and 8, he went on to fill up all the intervals
of 4 with that of 8, leaving in each a fraction over; and the

ber of vibrations executed in a given time
—as is the practice of modern musicians—
or the relative lengths of string required
to produce the several notes, as was usual
amongtheGreeks. In the first case it is ob-
vious that the ratio 4 expresses the octave
upwards, in the second downwards. As

Plato doubtless followed the latter plan, I
shall follow it too—that is, we shall reckon
the scale from top to bottom. Now taking
the διπλάσια διαστήματα with their harmo-
nical and arithmetical means, and filling
up the intervals as Plato directs, we shall
have :

8:9 8:9 243 8:9 8:9 8:9 743
οἱ. G5" οι ὁ Sh S43
8: 64:3 2: i 16.7 338
8:9 8:9 743 8:9 8:9 68:9 243
<a Bees 27 3435
4 32" ἃ 8 64
8:9 8:9 243 8:9 8:9 243
815616 ay 2435
4 2 ΣΤ 3 4 32

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 3
=

The original notes of the τετρακτὺς
are marked as semibreves, the means as
minims, and the insertions of the ἐπόγδοα

and λείμματα 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

τριπλάσια διαστήματα should be con-
structed. The most obvious method is
to continue the system of ἐπίτριτα 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,

ITTAATONOS [36 B—

5 fe)

τριτα πάντα ξυνεπληροῦτο, λείπων αὐτῶν ἑκάστου μόριον, τῆς
τοῦ μορίου ταύτης διαστάσεως λειφθείσης ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς ἀριθμὸν
ἐχούσης τοὺς ὅρους ἕξ καὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων πρὸς τρία
καὶ τετταράκοντα καὶ διακόσια. καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ μιχθέν, ἐξ οὗ
5 ταῦτα κατέτεμνεν, οὕτως ἤδη πᾶν ἀναλώκει. ταύτην οὖν τὴν
ξύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν κατὰ μῆκος σχίσας μέσην πρὸς μέσην
ἑκατέραν ἀλλήλαις οἷον yi προσβαλὼν κατέκαμψεν, εἰς Ev κύκλῳ C

4 καὶ δὴ kal: alterum καὶ omittunt SZ.

I τῆς τοῦ: τῆς δὲ τοῦ H cum το. A.
5 πᾶν: πάντ᾽ Α.

ἀναλώκει dedicum ἃ. ἀνηλώκει H.

καταναλώκει SZ.

where 12, 16, 24 are derived from the

8, 9; δε. 33 2 ἊΣ πεν 16,
δ εν 7 ee a6 octaves of the former series : and we shall
8 i i
16, 18, 8, 64 24, 275 continue the scale thus from where it
4° 5:8 left off :
8 9 16 27
Se ee ee ἘῈ |
{-» za Φ' i « ΞΕ 4. 4. }
ὡς ae oe = ΞΕ =
ao

But a serious, if not fatal, objection to
this scale is that it does not constitute a
perfect system or systems in any one of the

Alterthums), construct the triple scale quite
independently of the other. Then for each
of the intervals 1: 3, 3 : 9, 9: 27 we shall

Greek modes. It would seem then asif have three dodecachords :
we must, with Westphal (A/usik d. gr.
μέση
Ι 3
os ; mpoohaup.
ar es ἐπὶ τα eo sa ο ΟΦ 3
WSS πῆ σι σε. =]
SS ἘΞΞ ΕΞ. τ}
ry ae eS
μέση
9 F προσλ.
3 2 9
+. Ἴ ; 5 [πὰ i=
—— oo reese = ἘΞ — 1
e) — SF «0. &
éo
ΒΩ poor
9 2 18 27
ote | 1 4 ee |
εἰ Ϊ i 1 J
a = es Seer —j
Fe os —+ —
Here we have three conjunct dodeca- Gminor. This scale, which is identical

chords in the Dorian or Aeolian mode,
passing from A minor to D minor and

with that given by Westphal, does not
seem free from objection ; but it is more

c] | TIMAIOS.

It!

terms of the interval forming this fraction are in the numerical

proportion of 256 to 243.

By this time the mixture, whence he

cut off these portions, was all used up. Next he cleft the
structure so formed lengthwise into two halves, and laying the
two so as to meet in the centre in the shape of the letter X, he
bent them into a circle and joined them, causing them to meet

satisfactory than any other I can suggest.
The scale given by Proklos is not suit-
able; nor yet one which he attributes to
Severus, who, supposing him to start
from A minor, modulates as far as C
minor. The extent of Plato’s scale, four
octaves and a major sixth, is far greater
than any that actually occurred in Greek
music, which employed at most but two
octaves. It has been suggested by Proklos
that Plato’s reason for using so extensive
a scale is that ψυχὴ has to apprehend
not only spirit but matter, which has
three dimensions; hence in the symbol
the cubes 8 and 27 were required.

τ. λείπων αὐτῶν ἑκάστου μόριον]
Taking the first tetrachord of our scale,
E to B, if we proceed to insert as many
ἐπόγδοα as we can, we find we can intro-
duce two, viz. E to D, D to C: a third
would take us to Bb instead of B. This
interval then, C to B, is the μόριον which
remains over. This is called the λεῖμμα
and has the ratio 243 : 256. The Py-
thagoreans held that the tone cannot be
divided into two equal parts, because
there is not a rational mean between 8
and g: they accordingly distributed it

: * : a 2.
into a minor semitone or λεῖμμα, ae and

3948. of
2187
which two the product =<. The Pytha-

gorean λεῖμμα is slightly less than the
ἘΣ or 22 |
16 256
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

a major semitone or ἀποτομή,

‘natural’ semitone, which is

for no other reason than that 36 is the
sum of another double τετρακτὺς 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 ;
eg, Ὁ, B, Bb, A: the interval C—B
being a λεῖμμα, the interval B—Bb is an
ἀποτομή. But the apotome is totally
foreign to Plato’s scale, which is διάτονον
σύντονον of the strictest kind. Noris there
any Greek scale which would tolerate
three half-tones successively : even in the
χρῶμα τονιαῖον 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 Boéckh, we must refuse to attribute
to Plato a scale which is altogether bar-
barous.

τῆς τοῦ μορίου] τῆς δὲ has been
retained by Hermann, who defends it as
coordinating λείπων and ἐχούσης. But it
seems to me rather clumsy.

7. οἷον xt προσβαλών] We are to
conceive the soul, after having been duly
blended and having received her mathe-
matical ratios, as extended like a hori-
zontal band: then the creator cleaves it
lengthwise and lays the two strips across
each other in the shape of the letter X
(i.e. at an acute angle), and so that the
two centres coincide: next he bends them
both round till the ends meet, so that
each becomes a circle touching the other
at a point in their circumferences oppo-
site to the original point of contact. Thus
we have two circles bisecting each other

112

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[36 ---

ξυνάψας αὐταῖς τε καὶ ἀλλήλαις ἐν τῷ καταντικρὺ τῆς προσβο-
λῆς, καὶ τῇ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ταὐτῷ περιαγομένῃ κινήσει πέριξ
αὐτὰς ἔλαβε, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἔξω, τὸν δ᾽ ἐντὸς ἐποιεῖτο τῶν κύκλων.
τὴν μὲν οὖν ἔξω φορὰν ἐπεφήμισεν εἶναι τῆς ταὐτοῦ φύσεως, τὴν
5. δ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς θατέρου. τὴν μὲν δὴ ταὐτοῦ κατὰ πλευρὰν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ
περιήγαγε, τὴν δὲ θατέρου κατὰ διάμετρον ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά, κράτος
δ᾽ ἔδωκε τῇ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιφορᾷ' μίαν γὰρ αὐτὴν ἄσχι- Ὁ
στον εἴασε, τὴν δ᾽ ἐντὸς σχίσας ἑξαχῇ ἑπτὰ κύκλους ἀνίσους κατὰ

3 αὐτάς: αὐτῆς Α.

and inclined at an acute angle. The
obliquity of the inclination is insisted on,
because, as we shall presently see, the
two circles represent respectively (amongst
other things) the equator and the ecliptic.

2. πέριξ αὐτὰς ἔλαβε] As the soul
was interfused throughout the whole
sphere of the universe, we must regard
the two circles simply as a framework, so
to speak, denoting the directions of the
two movements. These two circles are
encompassed by a moving spherical en-
velope, being the circumference of the
entire sphere of soul, revolving κατὰ ταὐτὰ
καὶ ἐν ταὐτῷ.

3. τὸν μὲν ἔξω] The circle of the
Same is made exterior, because it was to
control the circle of the Other, and also
because it symbolises the sphere of the
fixed stars.

5. κατὰ πλευράν] This expression
will be readily understood by means of
the accompanying diagram. ACE, CDG

are two circles in different planes, cutting
each other at the points C, D. 48 and

CD are their respective diameters, bisect-
ing one another in H. The dotted lines
are a parallelogram inscribed in the circle
ACE, having its sides ED, CF parallel
to AB and having CD for its diagonal.
The rotation of the circle 4 CZ, which is
the circle of the Same, is κατὰ πλευράν,
in the direction of DZ ; that is, its axis is
perpendicular to DZ or AS, and it re-
volves from east to west. CDG, the circle
of the Other, rotates κατὰ διάμετρον, i.e.
in the direction of the diagonal CD, from
WSW to ENE. The Greek term ἡ διά-
μετρος generally means diagonal, not dia-
meter. Proklos sees a special significance
in the circle of the Other moving κατὰ
διάμετρον, inasmuch as (the sides of the
rectangle being expressed by integral
numbers) the diagonal is irrational. It is
quite possible thatPlato 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.

ἐπὶ δεξιά... ἐπ᾿ ἀριστερά]πἠ 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 Ὁ τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ γιγ-
νέσθω τὸ πρὸς ἕω : 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

D) ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 113

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. V1 § 24 (of some visitors from
the tropics) sed maxume mirum iis erat
umbras suas in nostrum caelum cadere,
non in suum, solemque a laeva oriri et in
dextram occidere potius quam e diverso.
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 foll.) 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 11 ii 284° 6 foll.

6. κράτος δ᾽ ἔδωκε τῇ ταὐτοῦ] 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.

ἄσχιστον εἴασε] Note that though the
circle of the Same is one and undivided,
it contains the same mathematical ratios
as the Other: this clearly signifies that
the multiplicity of the Other is only a
different form of the unity of the Same—
there exists in immaterial soul a law or
principle which, when expressed in terms
of matter (or here rather of the apprehen-

BT.

sion of matter), assumes the form of these
mathematical ratios. Note also that the
portion of the soul which constitutes the
circle of the Same is composed both of
Same and of Other, as also is the circle of
the Same. The antithesis Same and Other
pervades all οὐσία from highest to lowest.
8, σχίσας ἑξαχῇ] The circle of the
Other is subdivided into seven concen-
tric circles corresponding to the seven
planets which were reckoned in Plato’s
day. These are ordered at distances from
the earth corresponding to the seven num-
bers of the rerpaxrés; τ represents the
distance of the moon, 2 the sun, 3 Venus,
4 Mercury, 8 Mars, 9 Jupiter, 27 Saturn.
The question might suggest itself, how
would Plato have been affected, had he
become aware that the real position of
the heavenly badies is widely different
from his supposition? In my judgment
he would haye been absolutely uncon-
cerned. How these bodies are situated
is to him a matter of profound indiffer-
ence: what does concern him is that where-
ever they are and whatever they do should
be the result of the orderly evolution of
νοῦς. For it should be borne in mind
that, strange and fantastic as this Ψυχο-
γονία may seem at first sight, Plato has
but one aim steadily in view throughout.
Whatever exists and happens in material
nature is simply the material symbol of
immaterial truth; it is the inevitable re-
sult of the regular evolution of spirit,
according to the eternal law of its nature,

8

10

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

114 [36 Υν---

τὴν τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ τριπλασίου διάστασιν ἑκάστην, οὐσῶν
e / a \ ᾽ , \ 3 / / 7
ἑκατέρων τριῶν, κατὰ τἀναντία μὲν ἀλλήλοις προσέταξεν ἰέναι
\ Ul Ul δὲ al \ ε / \ δὲ έ AX ,
τοὺς κύκλους, τάχει δὲ τρεῖς μὲν ὁμοίως, Tos δὲ τέτταρας ἀλλή-
λοις καὶ τοῖς τρισὶν ἀνομοίως, ἐν λόγῳ δὲ φερομένους.
IX. Ἐπεὶ δὲ κατὰ νοῦν τῷ ξυνιστάντι πᾶσα ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς
ξύστασις ἐγεγένητο, μετὰ τοῦτο πᾶν τὸ σωματοειδὲς ἐντὸς αὐτῆς
Φ ‘ , « > >
érextaiveto καὶ μέσον μέσῃ ξυναγαγὼν προσήρμοττεν' ἡ δ᾽ ἐκ
μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάντῃ διαπλακεῖσα κύκλῳ τε
> a /
αὐτὸν ἔξωθεν περικαλύψασα, αὐτὴ ἐν αὑτῇ στρεφομένη, θείαν
ἀρχὴν ἤρξατο ἀπαύστου καὶ ἔμφρονος βίου πρὸς τὸν ξύμπαντα
χρόνον. καὶ τὸ μὲν δὴ σῶμα ὁρατὸν οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, αὐτὴ δὲ
ἀόρατος .pév, λογισμοῦ δὲ μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρμονίας ψυχή, τῶν
νοητῶν ἀεί τε ὄντων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀρίστη γενομένη τῶν

3 ἀλλήλοις : ἀλλήλοις τε 5.

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 de anima 1 iii 407° 2 foll.—a piece
of criticism which at first it is hard to
believe was intended seriously.

2. κατὰ τἀναντία] 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 b τὴν δ᾽ ἐναντίαν εἰ-
ληχότας αὐτῷ δύναμιν, where the motive

‘8 διαπλακεῖσα: διαπλεκεῖσα A.

for this arrangement is discussed. Inthe
parallel passage of the Republic, 616 D—
617 C, it is not said that any of the planets
have a contrary motion, though it is stated
that Venus, Mercury and the Sun com-
plete their orbits in the same period.
The harmoric numbers of the Zimaeus
seem to be represented by the eight
Sirens, who stood on the σφόνδυλοι, each
singing one tone. In the Repudlic 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 11 ix 290” 12 foll.: he thinks the
idea κομψόν, ἐμμελές, and μουσικόν, but
cannot believe it.

36 D—37 Ὁ, 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-
selfis 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

E

37 A

TIMAIOS. 115

37 A]

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. Nowafter 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. κατὰ νοῦν] Probably, as in Phaedo
97 D, there is a double meaning in these
words ‘to his mind’, and ‘ according to
reason’.

6. μετὰ τοῦτο] τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο μὴ
χρονικὸν ὑπολάβῃς, ἀλλὰ τάξεως σημαντι-
κόν, says Proklos very rightly.

7. μέσον μέσῃ] 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. πάντῃ διαπλακεῖσα,
i.e. she interpenetrated its every particle,
being everywhere present in her two
modes of Same and of Other.

9. ἔξωθεν wepixadripaca] See note
on 34 B. Plutarch de anim. procr. § 21
says Palto is ὥσπερ ἀπωθούμενος τῆς ψυχῆς
τὴν ἐκ σώματος γένεσιν. Compare Plotinos
ennead 11 ix ἐν γὰρ τῇ πάσῃ Ψυχῇ ἡ τοῦ

σώματος φύσις δεδεμένη ἤδη συνδεῖ ὃ ἂν
περιλάβῃ, αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴ οὐκ
ἂν δέοιτο ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς δεδεμένων.

10. ἤρξατο] Again of course a begin-
ning κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν only.

11. καὶ τὸ μὲν δὴ σῶμα] So Laws
808 Ὁ ἡλίου πᾶς ἄνθρωπος σῶμα μὲν ὁρᾷ,
ψυχὴν δὲ οὐδείς.

12. λογισμοῦ δὲ μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρ-
μονίας ψυχή] Notwithstanding Stall-
baum’s defence of ψυχή, I feel strong
misgivings as to its genuineness: its
position is strange and disturbs the con-
nexion.

τῶν νοητῶν ἀεί τε ὄντων] It is very
significant that the δημιουργὸς is iden-
tified with the object of reason, νοῦς
with vonrov. Here then we have another
token that the δημιουργὸς is merely a
mythological representative of univer-
sal νοῦς which evolves itself in the
form of the κόσμος. Still more remark-
able is the use of λογιστικὸν below in
37 Cc. There is no other passage in
Plato where λογιστικὸν is contrasted with
αἰσθητόν : the regular term is of course
νοητόν. It is surely impossible that Plato
could have substituted λογιστικὸν for νοη-

8—2

5

10

116 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[37 A—

a a / U
ate οὖν ἐκ τῆς ταὐτοῦ Kal τῆς θατέρου φύσεως
“ a ae /
ἔκ τε οὐσίας τριῶν τούτων συγκραθεῖσα μοιρῶν, Kal ava λόγον
Lal Lal Α ε ,
μερισθεῖσα καὶ ξυνδεθεῖσα, αὐτή τε ἀνακυκλουμένη πρὸς αὑτήν,
+i ee > ,
ὅταν οὐσίαν σκεδαστὴν ἔχοντός τινος ἐφάπτηται καὶ ὅταν ἀμέ-
an >, A ει
ρίστον, λέγει κινουμένη διὰ πάσης ἑαυτῆς, ὅτῳ τ᾽ ἄν τι ταὐτὸν ἢ
“ \
καὶ ὅτου ἂν ἕτερον, πρὸς 6 Ti τε μάλιστα Kal ὅπῃ Kal ὅπως καὶ
ὁπότε ξυμβαίνει κατὰ τὰ γιγνόμενά τε πρὸς ἕκαστον ἕκαστα
+ \ ‘ \ \ ‘ \ > \ ΝΜ + BET ,
εἶναι καὶ πάσχειν καὶ πρὸς τὰ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχοντα ἀεί: λόγος
» 2 \ < rt. 3 \ / / , x A \
δὲ ὁ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀληθὴς γιγνόμενος περί Te θάτερον ὧν Kai περὶ
- τ, v U
τὸ ταὐτόν, ἐν τῷ κινουμένῳ ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ φερόμενος ἄνευ φθόγγου
lal ε ΄
καὶ ἠχῆς, ὅταν μὲν περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν γίγνηται καὶ ὁ τοῦ θατέρου
a , ’
κύκλος ὀρθὸς ὧν εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτὰ τὴν ψυχὴν διαγγείλῃ, δόξαι
“i a \
καὶ πίστεις γίγνονται βέβαιοι Kal ἀληθεῖς: ὅταν δὲ αὖ περὶ τὸ
fel -“ ᾿ A /
λογιστικὸν ἢ Kal ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ κύκλος εὔτροχος ὧν αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ,

γεννηθέντων.

fal > , > > , 7 lal 3 \ >
vous ἐπιστήμη τε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται: τούτω δὲ ἐν

7 ξυμβαίνει : ξυμβαίνηι A.

τὸν until he had reached a period in his
metaphysic where he deliberately affirmed
the identity of thought and its object.
I believe also his present use both of von-
τῶν and of λογιστικὸν is purposely de-
signed to draw attention to this.

3. μερισθεῖσα καὶ ξυνδεθεῖσα)] μερισ-
θεῖσα refers to the original distribution of
the soul according to the seven numbers
of the τετρακτύς, ξυνδεθεῖσα to the intro-
duction of the δεσμοί, the arithmetical
and harmonical means which mediated
between them.

αὐτή τε ἀνακυκλουμένη πρὸς αὑτήν]
This is merely Plato’s favourite meta-
phor describing the activity of thought,
which is complete and perfect in itself.

4. οὐσίαν σκεδαστήν] Formerly called
ἡ κατὰ τὰ σώματα μεριστή: i.e. οὐσία
which appears in the form of plurality,
sensible phenomena, opposed to ἀμέρισ-
τον, which is νοητόν.

5. κινουμένη διὰ πάσης ἑαυτῆς] This
is the consequence of the soul being com-
posed not only of ταὐτὸν and θάτερον but
of οὐσία. Had the circles of Same and
Other been the only possession of the
soul, the experiences of each circle might

9 ὦν : ὄν AH.

φ

?

12 αὐτὰ scripsi: αὐτοῦ AHSZ.

TOV

have been confined to it: but now, since
the elements of ταὐτὸν and θάτερον are
unified in οὐσία, the reports received
from either circle are the property of the
whole soul.

ὅτῳ τ᾿ ἄν τι ταὐτὸν ἢ] Stallbaum,
affirming that no one has hitherto under-
stood this passage, takes the antecedent
of ὅτῳ as the subject of ξυμβαίνει: ‘she
declares of that wherewith anything is
the same and wherefrom it is different,
in relation to what &c’. It may well be
doubted whether he has thus improved
upon his predecessors. Surely the dis-
cernment of sameness and difference is a
function necessarily belonging to soul
and necessarily included in the catalogue
of her functions: yet Stallbaum’s render-
ing excludes it from that catalogue. The
fact that we have ὅτῳ dv 7, not ὅτῳ ἐστί,
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 ὅτῳ 7’ dy as indirect
interrogation subordinate to λέγει.

6. πρὸς ὅ τί re μάλιστα͵] Lindau has
justly remarked that all or nearly all

B

σ

c] TIMAIOS. 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.

Aristotle’s ten categories are to be found
in this sentence.

8. πρὸς τὰ κατὰ ταὐτά] This phrase
is exactly parallel to κατὰ τὰ γιγνόμενα
above. The only reason for the change
of preposition is the obvious lack of eu-
phony in κατὰ τὰ κατὰ ταὐτά.

λόγος] ‘her verdict’. λόγος -- ὃ λέγει,
what she pronounces concerning that
which is submitted to her judgment.
Stallbaum aptly refers to Sophist 263 E
οὐκοῦν διάνοια μὲν Kal λόγος ταὐτόν" πλὴν
ὁ μὲν ἐντὸς τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς αὑτὴν διάλογος
ἄνευ φωνῆς γιγνόμενος τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἡμῖν
ἐπωνομάσθη, διάνοια. See too Philebus
39 A, and Zheaetetus 189 E, where So-
krates defines διανοεῖσθαι as λόγον ὃν αὐτὴ
πρὸς αὑτὴν ἡ ψυχὴ διεξέρχεται περὶ ὧν ἂν
σκοπῇ.

9. κατὰ ταὐτόν is adverbial, ‘equally’:
there is nothing in it of the technical
sense of ταὐτόν.

10. ἐν τῷ κινουμένῳ ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ] i.e. ἐν
ψυχῇ, ψυχὴ being αὐτοκίνητος.

12, ὀρθὸς dv] Proklos draws attention

And in whatsoever existing thing these two are

to the difference of the language applied
to the two circles; of the circle of the
Same it is said edrpoxos wy. The change
of expression is readily understood if we
turn to 43 D foll. 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 (ἐπέδησαν).

εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτὰ THY ψυχὴν διαγγείλῃ]
The ms, reading αὐτοῦ is clearly wrong,
though Martin defends it. Stallbaum
proposes αὐτό : but as we presently have
αὐτὰ referring to λογιστικόν, that is per-
haps more likely to be right here.

13. βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς] There is a
slight chiasmus: βέβαιοι is appropriate to
πίστεις and ἀληθεῖς to δόξαι.

περὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν ἡ] Of the peculiar
use of λογιστικὸν I have already spoken.
Note however that the verb is changed
from γίγνηται to 7 and for διαγγείλῃ we
have the more authoritative word μηνύσῃ.

15. τούτω δέ] There has been much

118

ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ

[370 Ξ-

ὄντων ἐγγίγνεσθον, ἄν ποτέ τις αὐτὸ ἄλλο πλὴν ψυχὴν εἴπῃ, πᾶν

μᾶλλον ἢ τἀληθὲς ἐρεῖ.

X. ‘As δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησε τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν
γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι
5 δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι.
καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ἕῷον ἀΐδιον ὄν, καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως D
εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου

,
φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος.

Ν “- \ sf “ rn
καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ

a , > 5 , ee a. τὰ a ͵
παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν' εἰκὼ δ᾽ ἐπινοεῖ κινητόν

- ᾽ ‘ -“ ’
10 τίνα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος
- ‘ a a “Δ \
αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ

3 ἐνόησε: ἐνενόησε SZ.

discussion as to the exact reference of
τούτω. One interpretation, mentioned
by Proklos, is to refer it to the two pairs,
. δόξαι πίστεις, νοῦς ἐπιστήμη: and this is
practically the view of Stallbaum, who
understands δόξα and ἐπιστήμη. The
natural grammatical reference however is
to νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε, and so I believe we
should understand it: cf. 30 B νοῦν δ᾽ αὖ
χωρὶς ψυχῆς ἀδύνατον παραγενέσθαι τῳ.
No doubt it is true that δόξα and πίστις
are equally impossible χωρὶς ψυχῆς : but
these are functions of soul in her material
relations, whereas the other two are
characteristic of soul gwa soul, in the
activity of pure thought. The distinction
between νοῦς and ἐπιστήμη is that between
the faculty of reason and the possession
of knowledge.

37 C—38 B, ὦ. x. So when the uni-
verse was quickened with soul, God was
well pleased; and he bethought him to
make it yet more like its type. And
whereas the type is eternal and nought
that is created can be eternal, he devised
for it a moving image of abiding eternity,
which we call time. And he made days
and months and years, which are portions
of time ; and past and future are forms of
time, though we wrongly attribute them
also to eternity. For of eternal Being
we ought not to say ‘it was’, ‘it shall
be’, but ‘it is’ alone: and in like manner

6 ὄν omittunt AS.

ἐπενόει A,

9 ἐπινοεῖ :

we are wrong in saying ‘it is’ of sen-
sible things which become and perish ;
for these are ever fleeting and changing,
having their existence in time.

3. κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν] Motion is
always for Plato the inalienable cha-
racteristic of life: cf. Phaedrus 245 E
and Theaetetus 153 A τὸ μὲν εἶναι δοκοῦν
καὶ τὸ γίγνεσθαι κίνησις παρέχει, TO δὲ
μὴ εἷναι καὶ τὸ ἀπόλλυσθαι ἡσυχία.

τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα]
This is a very singular phrase. The
κόσμος we know is the image of the
αὐτὸ ζῷον, and the creatures in it are
images of the νοητὰ ζῷα. Therefore the
ἀίδιοι θεοὶ can be nothing else than the
ideas. But nowhere else does Plato
call the ideas ‘gods’, and the significance
of so calling them is very hard to see.
If however Plato wrote θεῶν (which I
cannot help regarding as doubtful), I am
convinced that he used this strange
phrase with some deliberate purpose in
view; but what that purpose was, I con-
fess myself unable to divine. The inter-
pretation of Proklos is naught.

6. αὐτό] sc. τὸ παράδειγμα.

8. ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος] Pre-
sently Plato tells us that the past tense is
not applicable to eternal existence: the
use of it is however necessitated by the
narrative form into which he has thrown
his theory. This use of ἐτύγχανεν, in

D] TIMAIOS. 119

found, if a man affirm it is aught but soul, what he says will be
anything rather than the truth.

X. And when the father who begat it perceived the created
image of the eternal gods, that it had motion and life, he re-
joiced and was well pleased; and he bethought him to make it
yet more nearly like its pattern. Now whereas that is a living
being eternally existent, even so he essayed to make this All the
like to the best of his power. Now so it was that the nature of
the ideal was eternal. But to bestow this attribute altogether
upon a created thing was impossible; so he bethought him to
make a moving image of eternity, and while he was ordering
the universe he made of eternity that abides in unity an eternal
image moving according to number, even that which we have

the face of the explicit declaration a few
lines later, is an additional proof, if
more were wanted, that the creation of
the κόσμος is pure allegory. For if
Plato meant to be understood literally,
he is flagrantly violating his own law.

9. εἰκὼ δ᾽ ἔπινοεῖ] Plato’s meaning
in terming time the εἰκὼν of eternity
may thus be stated. As extension is
to the immaterial, so is succession to the
eternal. The material universe is the
εἰκὼν of pure being or thought: that is to
say, it is the mode in which the One
manifests itself in the form of multi-
plicity. Now the two main character-
istics of material existence are (a) ex-
tension, (8) succession. The universe
then regarded as extended is the εἰκὼν
of νοῦς regarded as unextended: the
same universe regarded as a succession
of phenomena is the εἰκὼν of νοῦς re-
garded as eternal. As then space is the
image of the immaterial, so is time the
image of the eternal: space and time
being the conditions under which the
spaceless and timeless ἕν evolves itself
in the apprehension of finite intelli-
gences.

11, κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν] ie. moving
by measurable periods: the ἀριθμὸς is
the temporal reflection of the changeless
ἕν of eternity.

αἰώνιον εἰκόνα] 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
isitself declaredtobeeternal. Plato’s care-
ful definition of the word αἰώνιος 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 μεριστὴ οὐσία,
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 MAATONOS

[37 D—

χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν. ἡμέρας yap Kal νύκτας καὶ μῆνας καὶ
ἐνιαυτούς, οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι, τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ ¥
ξυνισταμένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται: ταῦτα δὲ πάντα
> ‘ ,
μέρη χρόνου, καὶ τό τ᾽ ἦν τό τ᾽ ἔσται χρόνου γεγονότα εἴδη, ἃ δὴ
, , + Ὁ... \ 4) > , > > -“ ,ὔ
5 φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. λέγομεν
\ \ « 3 ΝΜ ὶ ΝΜ, A δὲ \ » , a \
yap δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστι τε καὶ ἔσται, τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστι μόνον κατὰ τὸν
ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει, τὸ δ᾽ ἦν τό τ᾽ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ 38 A
a : \ >

γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι: κινήσεις yap ἐστον" τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ
κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσ-
, 7 θ. ὃ \ , Ἰδὲ / θ \ de /
net γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνου οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι
νῦν οὐδ᾽ εἰσαῦθις ἔσεσθαι, τὸ παράπαν τε οὐδὲν ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς
> > , / lol > \ / nr IA
ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν, ἀλλὰ χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα
μιμουμένου καὶ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη. καὶ
πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε, τό τε γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ
γιγνόμενον εἶναι γυγνόμενον, ἔτι δὲ τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενη-

\ \ \ a» ‘ x “3 O\ Ἵ Ν rf
σόμενον καὶ TO μὴ ὃν μὴ ὃν εἶναι, dv οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς λέγομεν.
περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων τάχ᾽ ἂν οὐκ εἴη καιρὸς πρέπων ἐν τῷ
παρόντι διακριβολογεῖσθαι.

Β

οι

4 καὶ post ἦν inserit A. 12 αἰῶνα : αἰῶνά re SZ. 15 ἔτι δέ: ἔτι τε A.

evolution of thought. It is eternal, not
as an aggregate, but as a whole.

I. ἡμέρας ... ἐνιαυτούς] There is a
slight anacoluthon, τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν
being substituted for the original object.

2. οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι]
That is to say, time and its divisions are
not logically: conceivable without the

4. γεγονότα εἴδη] i.e. forms or modes
of time, and therefore belonging to
γένεσις.

6. τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστι] This passage
leaves no doubt about the perfect clear-
ness of Plato’s conception of eternity |
as distinguished from time. Eternity is
quite another thing from everlasting du-

—

existence of a world of phenomena: if
there is to be succession, there must be
things to succeed each other. But .as
there is no beginning of the κόσμος in
time, there is no beginning of time itself.
Aristotle, with his usual confusion be-
tween metaphor and substance, accuses
Plato of generating time in time: physica
Vill i 2515 17 Πλάτων δ᾽ αὐτὸν γεννᾷ
μόνος. In Plato’s narrative no other
mode of expressing it would be ad-
missible. Proklos well says χρόνος γὰρ
μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ob χρόνου μόριον,
ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πᾶς χρόνος, ὥστε ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ
χρόνῳ γίνεται ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἀνέκλειπτός
ἐστιν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα καθάπερ ὁ χρόνος.

ration: it is that which μέκει ἐν ἑνί, it
is apart from time and has nothing to do
with succession. Time has been and
shall be for everlasting, but the infinity
of its duration has nothing in common
with eternity, for it isa succession. Plato,
as he was certainly the first to form a
real conception of immateriality, was
probably the first who firmly grasped
the notion of eternity. Parmenides in-
deed uses similar language, verse 64
(Karsten), οὔποτ᾽ ἔην οὐδ᾽ ἔσται, ἐπεὶ νῦν
ἔστιν ὁμοῦ πᾶν | ἕν ξυνεχές. But the
materiality attaching to his conception
of ἕν renders it very doubtful whether
he actually realised the full meaning of

38 B] TIMAIOS. 12

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 zs 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 zs the become, and the becoming zs the be-
coming, and that which shall become zs that which shall become,
and not-being: zs 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
Aristotle, though Plato had preceded
him, held an equally clear view: see for
instance de cae/o 1 ix 279% 23 foll. With
the present passage may be compared
the minute discussion in Parmenides
140 E—I142A.

8. κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον] i.e. they im-
ply succession.

13. κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου] i.e. ful-
filling regular periodic cycles, such as
years months and days.

14. τ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε] sc.
οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγομεν.

τὸ γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονός] One in-
accuracy of which we are guilty is
to apply the terms ἦν and ἔσται to
eternity: a second is to apply ἔστι to
phenomena» and to non-existence. To
say that γεγονὸς 7s γεγονός is incorrect;
for even as we say ‘is’, it has changed
from what it was: it is ever moving and
we can find no stable point where we

can say it ἦς. Compare Plutarch de εἰ
apud Delphos § 19. Again to say μὴ ὃν
zs μὴ ὃν is absurd and contradictory.
It might be rejoined that Plato has
himself proved that μὴ ὃν does in a
certain sense exist: Sophist 259 A ἔστι
σαφέστατα ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι τὸ μὴ ὄν.
And in Parmenides 162 A he shows that
δεῖ αὐτὸ δεσμὸν ἔχειν τοῦ μὴ εἷναι τὸ εἷναι
μὴ ὄν, εἰ μέλλει μὴ εἶναι. Inthe Sophist
however Plato, by elucidating the true
nature of μὴ ὄν, is controverting the
logical and metaphysical errors which
arose from assuming that μὴ ὃν was an
absolute contradictory of ὄν, and from
ignoring the copulative force of ἐστί.
Here he is complaining of that very use
of ἐστὶν as a copula: it is wrong, he says,
that the word should have been employed
for that purpose: it is the inaccuracy
of human thought represented in lan-
guage.

38 B—39 E, ὦ. xi. So time is created

122 IIAATONOS [38 B—

XI. Χρόνος δ᾽ οὖν μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ἵνα ἅμα γεννηθέντες
ἅμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἄν ποτε λύσις τις αὐτῶν γίγνηται, καὶ κατὰ
τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς διαιωνίας φύσεως, ἵν᾿ ὡς ὁμοιότατος αὐτῷ
κατὰ δύναμιν ἢ" τὸ μὲν γὰρ δὴ παράδειγμα πάντα αἰῶνά ἐστιν C
ὄν, ὁ δ᾽ αὖ διὰ τέλους τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον γεγονώς τε καὶ ὧν καὶ
ἐσόμενος. ἐξ οὖν λόγου καὶ διανοίας θεοῦ τοιαύτης πρὸς χρόνου
γένεσιν, [ἵνα γεννηθῇ xpovos,] ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ πέντε ἄλλα
ἄστρα, ἐπίκλην ἔχοντα πλανητά, εἰς διορισμὸν καὶ φυλακὴν
ἀριθμῶν χρόνου γέγονε. σώματα δὲ αὐτῶν ἑκάστων: ποιήσας ὁ
θεὸς ἔθηκεν εἰς τὰς περιφοράς, ἃς ἡ θατέρου περίοδος ἤειν, ἑπτὰ
οὔσας ὄντα ἑπτά, σελήνην μὲν εἰς τὸν περὶ γῆν πρῶτον, ἥλιον δ᾽
εἰς τὸν δεύτερον ὑπὲρ γῆς, ἑωσφόρον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἱερὸν “Eppod
λεγόμενον εἰς τοὺς τάχει μὲν. ἰσόδρομον ἡλίῳ κύκλον ἰόντας,

3 διαιωνίας : αἰωνίας 8.
8 πλανητά: πλανῆται 58.

along with the material universe and co-
eval therewithal, to complete its simili-
tude to the eternal type. And for the
measuring of time God made the sun
and the moon and five other planets ;
and he set them in the seven orbits into
which the circle of the Other was sun-
dered, and gave each of them its fitting
period: and being instinct with living
soul every planet learnt and understood
its appointed task. And those that re-
volved in smaller orbits fulfilled their
revolutions more speedily than those which
moved in larger. And whereas their
orbits were inclined at an angle to the
direction wherein the universe moves,
the motion of the Same in its diurnal
round converted all their circles into
spirals: and since their motion was op-
posed to the rotation of the universe,
whereby they were carried round, the
slower, as making less way against this
rotation, seemed more swift than the
swifter and to overtake those by which
they were in truth overtaken. And God
kindled a light, even the sun, in the
second orbit, that it should shine to the
ends of the universe, and men might
learn number from the heavenly periods.

“γέγονεν.

7 ἵνα γεννηθῇ χρόνος inclusi.

13 τούς: τόν AHZ.

For night and day are measured by the
revolution of the universe, and months
and years by the moon and the sun; and
all the other planets give measures of
time, diverse and manifold, though they
are not accounted such by the multitude:
and the perfect year is fulfilled when all
the revolutions come round at the same
time to the same point. For these causes
were the heavenly bodies created.

I. μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν] ‘has come
into being in our story’, as the tense de-
notes. Time and the material universe
are of necessity strictly coeval, since each
implies the other nor can exist apart
from it. Ξ

2. ἄν ποτε λύσις] Proklos has some
sensible remarks on this passage, saying
σαφῶς ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον δείκνυσι
τὸν οὐρανόν. εἰ γὰρ γέγονεν, ἐν χρόνῳ
εἰ δὲ μετὰ χρόνου γέγονεν, οὐκ
ἐν χρόνῳ γέγονεν' οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ χρόνος ἐν
χρόνῳ γέγονεν, ἵνα μὴ πρὸ χρόνου χρόνος
fi. εἰ ἄρα μετὰ χρόνου γέγονεν, οὐ γέγονε.
δεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ γιγνόμενον μεταγενέστερον
εἶναι χρόνου" ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς οὐδαμῶς ἐστὶ
χρόνου μεταγενέστερος.. «ὅμοιον οὖν ὡς εἴ
τις περιττὰς εἶναι βουλόμενος τὰς θατέρου
περιφορὰς ἑπτάδα λέγοι συνυπάρχειν αὐταῖς,

p] TIMAIOS. 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,

ἵνα ἐάν ποτε ἡ ἑπτὰς ἀρτία γίγνηται, καὶ
αὗται ἄρτιαι γίγνωνται, σημαίνων μὴ μετα-
πεσεῖσθαι τὰς περιφορὰς ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρτιον, οὕτω
δὴ καὶ νῦν ἡγεῖσθαι νομιστέον περὶ τῆς
ἀλυσίας τῆς τοῦ κόσμου τε καὶ τοῦ χρόνου.

5. ὁ δ᾽ αὖ] Lindau understands
χρόνος : but this produces tautology ;
evidently οὐρανὸς is to be supplied.

7. [ἵνα γεννηθῇ χρόνος] Although
these words are in all mss. and in Pro-
klos, they appear to me so unmistakably
a mere gloss on πρὸς χρόνου γένεσιν that
I have bracketed them. They are not
represented in Cicero’s translation.

8. ἐπίκλην ἔχοντα πλανητά] I have
retained the reading of A, though Stall-
baum’s πλανῆται is perfectly good gram-
mar; ἐπίκλην ἔχοντα being equivalent to
ἐπικαλούμενα: compare Sywzposium 205 Ὁ
τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ὄνομα ἴσχουσιν, ἔρωτά, τε Kal
ἐρᾶν καὶ ἐρασταί. In Laws 821 B Plato
condemns the term πλανητὰ on the score
of irreverence, as implying that these
bodies wandered at random without law.

10. εἰς τὰς περιφοράς] sc. the zodiac,

11. ἥλιον δ᾽ εἰς tov δεύτερον] 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. ἑωσφόρον] i.e. Venus. Plato was
aware of the identity of ἑωσφόρος and
ἕσπερος. It is somewhat strange that he
gives none of the planets their usual ap-
pellations except Mercury; forthese names
must have been current in his day: they
are all given in Epinomis 987 B, C.
Other Greek names were for Saturn φαί-
νων, for Jupiter φαέθων, for Mars πυρόεις,
for Mercury στίλβων, while Venus was
φωσφόρος, ἑωσφόρος, or ἕσπερος : see
Cicero de natura deorum II 88 52, 53;
pseudo-Aristotle de mundo 392% 23.

13. εἰς τοὺς τάχει μὲν ἰσόδρομον] I
have with Stallbaum adopted τούς, The
reading τόν, which has best authority,
can nevertheless hardly be right, since it
would imply that Venus and Mercury had
one and the same orbit. It may be ob-
jected that, if κύκλους is to be supplied,
we have an awkward tautology in κύκλους
κύκλον ἰόντας. But may we not under-
stand πλανήτας As to the equality of
the periods assigned to the Sun, Venus,
and Mercury, compare Republic 617 B

on

124

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[38 p—

τὴν δ᾽ ἐναντίαν εἰληχότας αὐτῷ δύναμιν: ὅθεν καταλαμβάνουσί τε
καὶ καταλαμβάνονται κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἥλιός τε καὶ ὁ

τοῦ “Ἑρμοῦ καὶ ἑωσφόρος.

τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα οἵ δὴ καὶ δι’ ἃς αἰτίας

is , Μ > / / ¢ , , *» / a
ἱδρύσατο, εἴ τις ἐπεξίοι πάσας, ὁ λόγος Tapepyos ὧν πλέον ἂν
ἔργον ὧν ἕνεκα λέγεται παράσχοι. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἴσως τάχ᾽ ἂν E

\ \ “ a Sees / “ > \ \ 3
κατὰ σχολὴν ὕστερον τῆς ἀξίας τύχοι διηγήσεως. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὖν

δευτέρους τε καὶ ἅμα ἀλλήλοις τόν τε ἕβ-
δομον καὶ ἕκτον and πέμπτον. The author
of the Zpinomis, though in rather indefi-
nite language, gives the same account,
986 Ε ἡ τετάρτη δὲ φορὰ καὶ διέξοδος ἅμα
καὶ πέμπτη τάχει μὲν ἡλίῳ σχεδὸν ἴση, καὶ
οὔτε βραδυτέρα οὔτε θάττων: cf. 990 B.
Probably, as Martin suggests, Plato was
led to this hypothesis by the observation
that at the end of the sun's annual revo-
lution the two planets are in close prox-
imity to him.

Sept.

Noy.

(714

Plato’s observation do not in the slightest
degree lend themselves to such a hypo-
thesis. Martin gives the following state-
ment of the facts which it is supposed
the contrary motion is intended to ex-
plain. After the conjunction of either
Venus or Mercury with the sun at perigee,
for some time the planet gains upon the
sun; then for several days it is nearly

1. τὴν δ᾽ ἐναντίαν εἰληχότας αὐτῷ
ϑύναμιν] These words are usually under-
stood to mean that Venus and Mercury
revolve in a direction contrary to that of
the sun. This view I believe to be un-
tenable. Aristotle indeed says, metaph.
Axii 1019? 15, δύναμις λέγεται ἡ μὲν ἀρχὴ
κινήσεως ἢ μεταβολῆς ἢ ἐν ἑτέρῳ ἢ 7 ἕτερον.
But still δύναμις ἐναντία cannot amount
in itself to contrary motion, only to a
contrary tendency, whatever that may be.
Moreover the facts which fell under

stationary in relation to him; after which
it begins to lose ground, comes into con-
junction with the sun at apogee, continues
for some time longer to lose ground, and
then again appears stationary: once more
it begins to gain on the sun, comes into
conjunction at perigee, and so forth ad
infinitum.

Now, as Martin observes, the theory of

E] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 125

but having a contrary tendency: wherefore the sun and Hermes
and the morning star in like manner overtake and are over-
taken one by another. And as to the rest, were we to set forth
all the orbits wherein he put them and the causes wherefore he
did so, the account, though only by the way, would lay on us a
heavier task than that which was our chief object in giving it.
These things perhaps may hereafter, when we have leisure, find

a fitting exposition.

contrary motion is flagrantly inadequate
to account for these facts; for since the
motion of the planets will thus be ap-
proximately in the same direction as the
motion of the Same, they would regularly
and rapidly gain upon the sun. The truth
is, as I believe, that Plato meant the sun
to share the contrary motion of Venus
and Mercury in relation to the other four
planets. It is quite natural, seeing that
the sun and the orbits of Venus and Mer-
cury are encircled by the orbit of the
earth, while Plato supposed them all to
revolve about the earth, that he should
class them together apart from the four

whose orbits really do encircle that of the ©

earth: his observations would very readily
lead him to attributing to these three a
motion contrary to the rest; but there
seems nothing which could possibly have
induced him to class the sun apart from
the two inferior planets. But if this is
so, what is the ἐναντία δύναμι) What I
believe it to be may be understood from
the accompanying figure, which is copied
from part of a diagram in Arago’s
Popular Astronomy. This represents the
motion of Venus relative to the earth
during one year, as observed in 1713.
It will be seen that the planet pursues her
path among the stars pretty steadily from
January to May; after that she wavers,
begins a retrograde movement, and then
once more resumes her old course, thus
forming a loop, which is traversed from
May to August. After that she proceeds
unfaltering on her way for the rest of the
year. This process is repeated so that

five such loops are formed in eight years.
Mercury behaves in precisely the same
way, except that his curve is very much
more complex and the loops occur at far
shorter intervals. Now this is just what
I believe is the ἐναντία δύναμις, this ten-
dency on the part of Venus, as viewed
from the earth, periodically to retrace her
steps. These retrogressions of the planets
were well known to the Greek astrono-
mers, who invented a complex theory of
revolving spheres to account for them.
Probably Plato meant to put forward no
very definite astronomical theory: for
instance he gives no hint of the revolving
spheres: he merely records the fact of this
retrogressive tendency being obseryable.
If the contrary motion of the two
planets is insisted on, the result follows
that we have here the one theory in the
whole dialogue which is manifestly and
flagrantly inadequate. Plato’s physical
theories, however far they may differ
from the conclusions of modern science,
usually offer a fair and reasonable expla-
nation of such facts as were known to
him: they are sometimes singularly feli-
citous, and never absurd. I cannot then
believe that he has here presented us
with a hypothesis so obviously futile.
And if he had, how did it escape the
vigilance of Aristotle, who would have
been ready enough to seize the occasion
of making a telling point against Plato?
It is remarkable that neither in Xe-
public 617 A, nor in Epinomis 986 Ε (the
author of which must have been well
acquainted with Plato’s astronomy), nor

126 IIAATONOS [38 π--

εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῷ πρέπουσαν ἕκαστον ἀφίκετο φορὰν τῶν ὅσα ἔδει
ξυναπεργάζεσθαι χρόνον, δεσμοῖς τε ἐμψύχοις σώματα δεθέντα
a“ 4 / \ ΝΜ \ \ ‘ /
ἕῷα ἐγεννήθη τό τε προσταχθὲν ἔμαθε, κατὰ δὴ τὴν θατέρου
, ΓῚ a ° a bal er) , \
φορὰν πλαγίαν οὖσαν, διὰ THs ταὐτοῦ φορᾶς ἰοῦσάν τε Kai Kpa- 39 A
5 τουμένην, τὸ μὲν μείζονα αὐτῶν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐλάττω κύκλον ἰόν, θᾶττον
μὲν τὰ τὸν ἐλάττω, τὰ δὲ τὸν μείζω βραδύτερον περιήειν. τῇ δὴ
ταὐτοῦ φορᾷ τὰ τάχιστα περιιόντα ὑπὸ τῶν βραδύτερον ἰόντων
ἐφαίνετο καταλαμβάνοντα καταλαμβάνεσθαι: πάντας γὰρ τοὺς
κύκλους αὐτῶν στρέφουσα ἕλικα, διὰ τὸ διχῇ κατὰ τὰ ἐναντία

4 ἰοῦσαν : ἰούσης et mox κρατουμένης AHZ. 7 τὰ τάχιστα: τὰ OMittit A.
βραδύτερον : βραδυτέρων Α.

yet in the pseudo-Timaeus Locrus, who
has a rather minute paraphrase of the
present passage, is there mention of a
contrary motion as belonging to any of
the planets. :

4. ἰοῦσάν τε kal κρατουμένην] This
correction is absolutely necessary. The
circle of the Other passes διὰ τῆς ταὐτοῦ
φορᾶς, 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 ἰούσης
καὶ κρατουμένης by treating it as a genitive
absolute referring to τὴν θατέρου φοράν:
but this is hopeless,

5. θᾶττον μὲν τὰ τὸν ἐλάττω] Thus
the periods of revolution continuously in-
crease from the Moon to Saturn. Béckh
has sufficiently demonstrated that the
words θᾶττον and βραδύτερον 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 ἀποκα-
τάστασις, differ in actual velocity in the
proportion 2, 3, 4.

6. τῇ δὴ ταὐτοῦ φορᾷ] The difficult
passage which follows has been very
lucidly expounded by Bockh in his in-
valuable essay ‘Ueber das kosmische
System des Platon’ pp. 38—48. Martin’s
note also is excellent: of Stallbaum’s the
less said the better. The two chief points
requiring explanation are the apparent
overtaking of the swifter planets by the
slower, and the formation of the spirals.
To take the former first, the sentence τῇ
δὲ ταὐτοῦ... καταλαμβάνεσθαι is explained
by the following πάντας γὰρ.. ἀπέφαινεν.

Let the circle ACBD represent the
universe, diurnally rotating from east to
west onitsown axis, which is perpendicular
to the plane of the equator 4.8. The re-
presentation being in two dimensions, the
straight lines 48, CD must be taken to
indicate great circles of asphere. Thus the
motion of the Same is in the direction 42.
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 Z. Now had these planets, which we

TIMAIOS. 127

39 A]

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! and ?, 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 Z. But suppose that P?

a

travels twice as fast as P! (that is accom-
plishes twice as great a fraction of its own
orbit in the same time): then, while during
the day /! has arrived at 7, 7? has got
as far as G. Thus, since the course of
the planets is approximately opposite to
the rotation of the whole, /? has counter-
acted that motion to twice as great an
extent as /!, and accordingly is propor-
tionally longer in being carried back
opposite Z. Thus 7, departing more
slowly from the revolution of the Same
(βραδύτατα ἀπιὸν ax αὐτῆς), arrives at
the same region of the heavens earlier
than /?, 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: στρέφουσα ἕλικα] 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
£. Now, as before said, were the planet
itself stationary, this diurnal revolution
would in twenty-four hours bring it round
again to the point Z; 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 Z 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 D;
so that each daily journey of the planet
caused by the revolution of the Same is

nm

10

MAATQNOS [39 A—

[ of \ ’ 5» \ ἣν δ. cn wv 7,
ἅμα προϊέναι, τὸ βραδύτατα ἀπιὸν ἀφ᾽ αὑτῆς οὔσης ταχίστης
\
ἐγγύτατα ἀπέφαινεν. ἵνα δ᾽ εἴη μέτρον ἐναργές τι πρὸς ἄλληλα
A D > \ , “
βραδυτῆτι καὶ τάχει, καθ᾽ ἃ περὶ τὰς ὀκτὼ φορὰς πορεύοιτο, φῶς
« fa) \ 7 A > a \ a ὃ ΄ A 40 “Δ δὴ r
ὁ θεὸς ἀνῆψεν ἐν τῇ πρὸς γῆν δευτέρᾳ τῶν περιόδων, ὃ δὴ viv
Ul ef -“ ¢ f > a / \ >
κεκλήκαμεν ἥλιον, va 6 TL μάλιστα εἰς ἅπαντα φαίνοι τὸν ovpa-
᾿- n \ a “ 3 tal ,
νὸν μετάσχοι τε ἀριθμοῦ τὰ Spa, ὅσοις ἦν προσῆκον, μαθόντα
nn fal \ s €
mapa τῆς ταὐτοῦ Kal ὁμοίου περιφορᾶς. νὺξ μὲν οὖν ἡμέρα τε
“- « a a \ ,
γέγονεν οὕτως Kal διὰ ταῦτα, ἡ τῆς μιᾶς Kal φρονιμωτάτης Kv-
κλήσεως περίοδος: μεὶς δὲ ἐπειδὰν σελήνη περιελθοῦσα τὸν
ἑαυτῆς κύκλον ἥλιον ἐπικαταλάβῃ, ἐνιαυτὸς δὲ ὁπόταν ἥλιος
τὸν ἑαυτοῦ περιέλθῃ κύκλον. τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων τὰς περιόδους οὐκ
> / wv \ ~ / bel “ "» ’ ,
ἐννενοηκότες ἄνθρωποι, πλὴν ὀλίγοι τῶν πολλῶν, οὔτε ὀνομά-
rn r > lal
ζουσιν οὔτε πρὸς ἄλληλα ξυμμετροῦνται σκοποῦντες ἀριθμοῖς,
ὥστε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἴσασι χρόνον ὄντα τὰς τούτων πλάνας,
πλήθει μὲν ἀμηχάνῳ χρωμένας, πεποικιλμένας δὲ θαυμαστῶς:
ἔστι δ᾽ ὅμως οὐδὲν ἧττον κατανοῆσαι δυνατόν, ὡς 6 γε τέλεος
ἀριθμὸς χρόνου τὸν τέλεον ἐνιαυτὸν πληροῖ τότε, ὅταν ἁπασῶν

128

3 καθ᾽ ἃ scripsi. καὶ τά Α5Ζ.

a spiral. This of course in no wise affects
its own proper movement along the circle
of the Other.

It is necessary to bear clearly in mind
that the apparent overtaking of the swifter
by the slower planets has nothing to do
with the spirals. The spirals are due
solely to the obliquity of the ecliptic.
But if there were no such obliquity, if the
motion of the Other were directly opposed
to that of the Same, the illusion concern-
ing the swifter and slower planets would
be unaltered. In that case 7! and P?,
instead of travelling to # and G, would
travel to points on ZA equidistant with &
and G from £. In this case no spirals
would arise; the planets would all in
good time get back to Z; but ?! would
equally appear to have outstripped 7”.

A few words must be said concerning
the construction, which is not quite free
from obscurity. I agree with Bockh in
joining διὰ τὸ diy7...mpotévac with the pre-
ceding clause, but not in taking πάντας
τοὺς κύκλους as the subject ; for then it is

ws τά H.

hardly possible to give a suitable sense to
διχῇ. But if we regard τὴν θατέρου φορὰν
and τὴν ταὐτοῦ jointly as the subject of
προϊέναι we are enabled to do so. The
spirals are formed because the circles
move διχῇ, 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. κατὰ τἀναντία 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 διχῇ, the
second by κατὰ τἀναντία. The difficulty
of the passage mainly arises from this ex-
treme brevity.

3. καθ᾽ ἅ] I have ventured upon this
correction of the ms. reading καὶ τά, which
certainly cannot stand, involving as it
does the absurd conception that the hea-

B

D

By: TIMAIOS’. 129

taneous motion in the opposite way, being of all the swiftest
displays closest to-itself that which departs most slowly from
it. And that there might be some clear measure of the relative
swiftness and slowness with which they moved in their eight
revolutions, God kindled a light in the second orbit from the
earth, which we now have named the sun, in order that it might
shine most brightly to the ends of heaven, and that living
things, so many as was meet, should possess number, learning it
from the motion of the same and uniform. Night then and day
have been created in this manner and for these causes; and
this is one revolution of the undivided and most intelligent
circuit; and a month is fulfilled when the moon, after com-
pleting her own orbit, overtakes the sun; a year, when the sun
has completed his own course. But the courses of the others
men have not taken into account, save a few out of many; and
they neither give them names nor measure them against one
another, comparing them by means of numbers—nay I may
say they do not know that time arises from the wanderings of
these, which are incalculable in multitude and marvellously
intricate. None the less however can we observe that the
perfect number of time fulfils the perfect year at the moment

venly bodies could not see their way until cerning time: they do not reflect that the

their orbits were illumined by the Sun.

6. μαθόντα παρὰ τῆς ταὐτοῦ] Day
and night are caused by the diurnal rota-
tion of the universe, which is the motion
of the Same, round the earth: and these,
being smaller than any other divisions of
time produced by the celestial bodies, are
taken as the unit of measurement. Hence
man derived the conception of number:
compare 47 A, and Zpinomis 978 C foll.

8. ἡ τῆς μιᾶς] The circle of the Same,
it will be remembered, was left doxtoros.
The περίοδος is here put for the time con-
sumed in completing the περίοδος, the
νυχθήμερον, as Proklos calls it.

το. ἥλιον ἐπικαταλάβῃ] i.e. the syn-
odic month of 294 days; the sidereal
month, or period in which the moon com-
pletes her own circuit, being about 273.

14. οὐκ ἴσασι χρόνον ὄντα)]Ε Plato
means that men have not generalised con-

Py Es

revolutions of the other celestial bodies
equally afford measurements of time.

17. τὸν τέλεον ἐνιαυτόν] The perfect
year is when all the planets return to one
and the same region of the heavens at
the same time. See Stobaeus ec/. I 264.
σχῇ κεφαλήν, ‘attain their starting-point’;
as Stobaeus /./. puts it, ὅταν ἐπὶ rods ἀφ᾽
ὧν ἤρξαντο τῆς κινήσεως ἀφικνῶνται τόπους.
Alkinoos also says that the perfect number
is complete when all the planets arrive in
thesamesign of the zodiac and are so situate
that a radius drawn from the earth tothe
sphere of the fixed stars passes through the
centres of all. The phrase σχῇ κεφαλὴν
seems like a technical term of astronomy,
but I have found no other example of it,
though Stobaeus speaks of a κεφαλὴ
Κρόνου. As to the duration of the μέγας
ἐνιαυτὸς there is no agreement among the
Tacitus dial. de orat. 16 gives

9

ancients.

σι

το

15

130 MAATONOS [30 D—

τῶν ὀκτὼ περιόδων τὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα ξυμπερανθέντα τάχη σχῇ
κεφαλὴν τῷ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίως ἰόντος ἀναμετρηθέντα κύκλῳ.
κατὰ ταῦτα δὴ καὶ τούτων ἕνεκα ἐγεννήθη τῶν ἄστρων ὅσα δι᾽
οὐρανοῦ πορευόμενα ἔσχε τροπάς, ἵνα τόδ᾽ ὡς ὁμοιότατον ἢ TOE
τελέῳ καὶ νοητῷ ζῴῳ πρὸς τὴν τῆς διαιωνίας μίμησιν φύσεως.

XII. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἤδη μέχρι χρόνου γενέσεως ἀπείρ-
γαστο εἰς ὁμοιότητα ᾧπερ ἀπεικάζξετο, τῷ δὲ μήπω τὰ πάντα
ἕῷα ἐντὸς αὑτοῦ γεγενημένα περιειληφέναι, ταύτῃ ἔτι εἶχεν ἀνο-
μοίως. τοῦτο δὴ τὸ κατάλοιπον ἀπειργάζετο αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν
τοῦ παραδείγματος ἀποτυπούμενος φύσιν. ἧπερ οὖν νοῦς ἐνούσας
ἰδέας τῷ ὃ ἔστι ἕῷον, οἷαί τε ἔνεισι καὶ ὅσαι, καθορᾷ, τοιαύτας
καὶ τοσαύτας διενοήθη δεῖν καὶ τόδε σχεῖν. εἰσὶ δη τέτταρες,
μία μὲν οὐράνιον θεῶν γένος, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνὸν καὶ ἀεροπόρον, 40 A
τρίτη δὲ ἔνυδρον εἶδος, πεζὸν δὲ καὶ χερσαῖον τέταρτον. τοῦ μὲν
οὖν θείου τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἐκ πυρὸς ἀπειργάζετο, ὅπως ὅ τι
λαμπρότατον ἰδεῖν τε κάλλιστον εἴη, τῷ δὲ παντὶ προσεικάζων
εὔκυκλον ἐποίει, τίθησί τε εἰς τὴν τοῦ κρατίστου φρόνησιν ἐκείνῳ
ξυνεπόμενον, νείμας περὶ πάντα κύκλῳ τὸν οὐρανόν, κόσμον
ἀληθινὸν αὐτῷ πεποικιλμένον εἶναι καθ᾽ ὅλον. κινήσεις δὲ δύο

3 ἐγεννήθη : ἐγενήθη Α. 9 ἀπειργάζετο : ἀπήρξατο ΑΖ. 12 δή: δὲ 85,

it on the authority of Cicero at 12954 and he gave them two motions, one a
years; but Cicero himself, de matura uniform rotation on their own axis, the
deorum 11 ὃ 52, expresses no opinion. other a forward revolution about the cen-
1. τὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα ξυμπερανθέντα tre of the universe; but in the other five
τάχη] i.e. when their several periods are motions they had no part. The planets
accomplished simultaneously: τάχη of he set, as aforesaid, in the sphere of the
course refers to the period of aroxard- Other. But the earth he made motionless
στασις, not to the actual velocity. at the centre, fast about the axis of the
2. τῷ ταὐτοῦ] Because the periods universe, to be the measure of day and
are measured by the number of days and _ night, first and most august of divine
nights they contain. beings. Now all the motions of these
39 E—40 Ὁ, ¢. xii. Next God created _ stars and their crossings and conjunctions
four kinds of living creatures in the uni- and occultations it were vain to describe
verse, so many forms as he saw there without an orrery: let this account of
were in the type. One, the race of the them then suffice.
heavenly gods, he fashioned for the most 11. τοιαύτας καὶ τοσαύτας] The in-
part of fire; the second soared in the air; fluence of οἷαί τε καὶ ὅσαι preceding has
the third dwelt in the waters; and the caused these words to be substituted for
fourth went upon dry land. The gods, ταύτῃ, which would regularly correspond
who are the stars of heaven, he placed in _ to ἥπερ.
the sphere of the Same to follow its revo- 13. οὐράνιον θεῶν γένος] i.e. the stars
lution, so many of them as are fixed stars; and planets. The γένη are four in number

40 A] TIMAIOX¥. 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.

to correspond with the four elements. It is
to be observed that only in the first class
does the correspondence depend upon the
structure: the remaining three are classed
according to their place of abode.

15. τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν] cf. Lpinomis
981} τὸ γὰρ πλεῖστον πυρὸς ἔχει, ἔχει μὴν
γῆς τε καὶ ἀέρος, ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἁπάντων τῶν
ἄλλων βραχέα μέρη. The reason for the
qualification is doubtless that were they
constituted solely of fire, they would be
ὁρατά, but not ἁπτά : some admixture of
earth was necessary to give them the
second distinctive property of bodily ex-
istence; cf. 31 B.

ἀπειργάζετο] This reading, which is
that of all mss. except A, seems certainly

And he bestowed two movements upon

preferable to dmjpEaro—an entirely in-
appropriate word. I cannot think that
the authority of A ought to prevail to the
exclusion of sense.

17. εἰς τὴν τοῦ κρατίστου φρόνησιν] A
very bold substitute for εἰς τὴν τοῦ κρατίστου
περιφορὰν φρονιμωτάτην οὖσαν. τὸ κρά-
τιστον evidently signifies the Same, οἵ.
36 6; and the phrase means that the fixed
stars, situate in the outermost sphere,
follow the diurnal rotation of the universe,
but do not change their positions relative
to it.

18. κόσμον ἀληθινόν] The play on the
word κόσμος is obvious, though hardly
capable of being retained in translation.

Q—2

on

132

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[40 A—

προσῆψεν ἑκάστῳ, τὴν μὲν ἐν ταὐτῷ κατὰ ταὐτὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν
ἀεὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἑαυτῷ διανοουμένῳ, τὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν ὑπὸ τῆς Β
ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιφορᾶς κρατουμένῳ' τὰς δὲ πέντε κινήσεις
ἀκίνητον καὶ ἑστός, ἵν᾿ ὅ τι μάλιστα αὐτῶν ἕκαστον γένοιτο ὡς

ἄριστον.

ἐξ ἧς δὴ τῆς αἰτίας γέγονεν ὅσ᾽ ἀπλανῆ τῶν ἄστρων

fal a 7 \ tee > ᾽ al /
ζῷα θεῖα ὄντα καὶ ἀΐδια καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐν ταὐτῷ στρεφόμενα
ἀεὶ μένει: τὰ δὲ τρεπόμενα καὶ πλάνην τοιαύτην ἴσχοντα, κα-
θάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἐρρήθη, κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνα γέγονε. γῆν δὲ τροφὸν
Ν ς ,ὔ ¢. / δὲ \ \ ὃ \ \ /
μὲν ἡμετέραν, elANOmEVHY OE περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς πΌλον τετα-

3 κρατουμένῳ : κρατουμένων Α.

I. τὴν μὲν ἐν ταὐτῷ] No more is
meant than that rotation upon an axis,
being of all motions the most uniform, is
the best symbol of the unerring uniformity
pertaining to the activity of pure reason.
The stars then, being the highest of finite
intelligences, naturally have this motion.
A curious instance of false conclusion from
a true premiss is to be found in Aristotle
de caelo II viii 290% 25, where the rota-
tion of the heavenly bodies is denied on
the ground that the same side of the moon
is always turned towards us.

2. ὑπὸ τῆς ταὐτοῦ] 1.6. the motion
εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν is not an advance in ἃ
straight line, but by the revolution of the
Same is formed into a circular orbit.

7. τρεπόμενα] sc. τροπὰς ἔχοντα, as
above, 39 D.

8. ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν] 38 C foll.: κατ᾽
ἐκεῖνα is merely antecedent to καθάπερ.

9. εἱλλομένην δὲ περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς
πόλον] For an exhaustive and very master-
ly examination of this passage see Bockh’s
essay ‘ Ueber das kosmische System des
Platon’. Béockh 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 Béckh’s
‘Kleine Schriften’ vol. U1 p. 294 foll.
It is indeed evident from one consideration
alone that Plato cannot have intended
the earth to move. The universe, he says,

9 τὴν ante περὶ habet A.

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 εἵλλεσθαι, εἱλεῖσθαι, or ἴλ-
λεσθαι, though it does not necessarily
exclude the idea of motion, in itself in no
wise impliesit. Its signification is forcible
compression or conglobation: the earth
is packed or balled round the centre.
Cicero’s translation is ‘quae traiecto axe
sustinetur’. Various forms of the word
are extremely common in Homer to ex-
press the dense packing of a crowd of
men: e.g. /Zad VIII 215. In passages
where the meaning is extended to include
motion, such as Sophokles Avtigone 340
ἰλλομένων ἀρότρων ἔτος els ἔτος, 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 ἴλλειν 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 τὶ xiii 29330. In the Berlin text
this reads as follows: ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κειμένην

B] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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

ἐπὶ τοῦ κέντρου φασὶν αὐτὴν ἴλλεσθαι περὶ
τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμένον πόλον, ὥσπερ ἐν
τῷ Τιμαίῳ γέγραπται. This (except that
for ἴλλεσθαι they give εἱλεῖσθαι) is the
reading of two mss.; three others add καὶ
κινεῖσθαι. Thus there arise three ἀπορίαι:
(1) are the words καὶ κινεῖσθαι, which
Simplicius had in his text, genuine? (2)
has Aristotle misstated Plato’s view? (3)
if we admit καὶ κινεῖσθαι, can the passage
be so understood as to harmonise with
Plato’s statement? Béockh, adopting the
third hypothesis, interprets Aristotle thus:
φασὶν αὐτὴν ‘tec Oar” καὶ κινεῖσθαι “ περὶ
τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμένον πόλον". 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 Zimaeus, but adding καὶ
κινεῖσθαι 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 καὶ κινεῖσθαι were added by some
unwise annotator, who had in his mind
the sentence which occurs soon afterwards,

2967 26 of δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου θέντες ἴλλεσθαι
καὶ κινεῖσθαί φασι: where the added
words distinguish the theory there stated
from Plato’s.

One argument of Grote’s may briefly
be noticed. The inconsistency, he says,
between the rotation of the earth on her
axis and the diurnal rotation of the uni-
verse escaped Aristotle (since he does not
advert to it), why then should it not have-
escaped Plato? But Aristotle is not
criticising the cosmogony of the 7zmaeus,
but discussing the mobility of the earth ;
therefore he is not concerned to notice
such an inconsistency: moreover Grote is
herein guilty of Jetitio principii respecting
Aristotle’s text. But it is really super-
erogatory to expose the weakness of a
hypothesis which has reduced so able a
reasoner as Grote, in his eagerness to con-
vict Plato of an irrationality, to insist on
importing the ἄτρακτος from the mythical
imagery of Republic Χ into the serious
cosmology of the Zimaeus, to serve as
a solid axis of the universe. Plato was
never guilty of such an absurdity as to
conceive the axis as other than a mathe-
matical line. If we are to find a place in
the Zimaeus for the drpaxros, why not
also for the σφόνδυλοι, for the knees of
Necessity, in short for the whole appara-
tus of the myth?

134

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[40 c—

μένον, φύλακα καὶ δημιουργὸν νυκτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας ἐμηχανήσατο, C
πρώτην καὶ πρεσβυτάτην θεῶν ὅσοι ἐντὸς οὐρανοῦ γεγόνασι.
χορείας δὲ τούτων αὐτῶν καὶ παραβολὰς ἀλλήλων, καὶ «τὰ»
περὶ τὰς τῶν κύκλων πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ἐπανακυκλήσεις καὶ προσ-
χωρήσεις, ἔν τε ταῖς ξυνάψεσιν ὁποῖοι τῶν θεῶν κατ᾽ ἀλλήλους
γιγνόμενοι καὶ ὅσοι καταντικρύ, μεθ᾽ οὕστινάς τε ἐπίπροσθεν
ἀλλήλοις ἡμῖν τε κατὰ χρόνους οὕστινας ἕκαστοι κατακαλύπτον-
ται καὶ πάλιν ἀναφαινόμενοι φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα Ὁ
γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι πέμπουσι, τὸ λέγειν

3 τὰ addidi.

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 uyvxor? 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.
Πα, φύλακα Kal δημιουργόν] 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 μᾶλλον
μὴν ὁ μὲν ἥλιος ἡμέρας, ἡ δὲ νυκτὸς αἰτία.
But day, regarded as the light portion
of the νυχθήμερον, cannot exist unless
night exists wherewith to contrast it;
therefore in that sense earth is its δημιουρ-
yés: without her there would be light,
but not day. Martin puts it thus: ‘[elle]
est ainsi la productrice du jour par sa
résistance au mouvement, en méme temps
qu’elle en est la gardienne par son im-
mobilité’.

2. ὅσοι ἐντὸς οὐρανοῦ] 1.6. she is in-
ferior only to the οὐρανὸς as a whole.

3. χορεία] This is an astronomical
term signifying the revolution of the
planets around a common centre, as it

9 οὐ δυναμένοις : οὐ omittunt SZ.

were in a round dance: see Epinomis
982 Ε πορείαν δὲ καὶ χορείαν πάντων χορῶν
καλλίστην καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτην χορεύ-
οντα.
to denote the position of two planets in
the same longitude, though different lati-
tude, or their rising or setting simul-
taneously: παραβολὰς δὲ τὰς κατὰ μῆκος
αὐτῶν συντάξεις, ὅταν κατὰ πλάτος διαφέ-
ρωσιν, ἢ κατὰ βάθος, Tas συνανατολὰς λέγω
καὶ συγκαταδύσεις.

καὶ <ta> περὶ τάς] The vulgate
καὶ περὶ τὰς cannot be right, nor is the
conjecture of Stephanus, περιττάς, much
more satisfactory than Stallbaum’s ποι-
κίλας. Acting on a suggestion of the
Engelmann translator I have inserted τά;
which at least gives a good sense. From
Republic 617 B τρίτον δὲ φορᾷ ἰέναι, ws
σφίσι φαίνεσθαι, ἐπανακυκλούμενον τὸν
τέταρτον we might infer that ἐπανακύ-
κλησις simply means the planet’s ἀποκα-
τάστασις : the ‘return of the circle upon
itself’ denoting the revolution of the περι-
φορὰ again to a given point. If Proklos
is to be trusted however, it means the
retardation of one heavenly body in re-
lation to another, as προσχώρησις means
the gaining by one upon another. For
προσχωρήσεις it is probable that we ought
to read προχωρήσεις, which is given by
one ms.

5. ἕν τε ταῖς ξυνάψεσιν] This sen-
tence is certainly complex and involved,
but I see no sufficient reason for meddling

παραβολὴ is explained by Proklos’

D} - ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 135

to be the guardian and creator of night and day, the first and
most august of the gods that have been created within the
‘heavens. But the circlings of them and their crossings one of
another, and the manner of the returning of their orbits upon
themselves and their approximations, and which of the deities
meet in their conjunctions and which are in opposition, and how
they pass before and behind each other, and at what times they
are hidden from us and again reappearing send to them who
cannot calculate their motions panics and portents of things to
come—to declare all this without visible illustrations of their

with the text. The chief causes of offence
are (1) the repeated interrogative μεθ᾽
ovorwas—ovorwas, (2) the position of τε
after ἡμῖν. Stallbaum would read κατὰ
χρόνους τινάς. I think however that the ms.
reading may be defended as a double indi-
rect interrogative: a construction which,
though by far less common than the double
direct interrogation, is yet quite a good
one: cf. Sophokles Antigone 1341 οὐδ᾽ ἔχω
ὅπα πρὸς πότερον ἴδω. The literal render-
ing of the clause will then be ‘behind
what stars at what times they pass before
one another and are now severally hidden
from us, now again reappearing &c.’ The
re after ἡμῖν really belongs to κατακρύπ-
rovrat and is answered by the following
kal, quasi ἡμῖν... κατακρύπτονταί τε καὶ
ἀναφαινόμενοι... πέμπουσι. For the irregu-
lar position of τε compare Thukydides
IV 115 of δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἠμύναντό τε ἐκ
φαύλου τειχίσματος καὶ ἀπ᾽ οἰκιῶν ἐπάλ-
ἕξεις ἐχουσῶν. And instances might be
multiplied. So much for the main diffi-
culties: there remain a few lesser points.
ἔν τε ταῖς ξυνάψεσιν (ξύναψις is in tech-
nical language ‘conjunction’) must of
course be taken with kar’ ἀλλήλους γιγνό-
μενοι alone: ὅσοι καταντικρύ denotes the
contrary situation, ‘opposition’. γιγνό-
μενοι must be supplied with ὅσοι καταν-
τικρύ, and again with μεθ᾽ οὕστινάς τε
ἐπίπροσθεν ἀλλήλοις : i.e. when a given
star passes behind a second and before a
third. The whole sentence, as I read it,

is undeniably a very complicated piece
of syntax; and it is possible enough that
some mischief may have befallen the
text; but I have seen no emendation
convincing enough to warrant me in
deserting the mss. And it should be re-
membered that the Zimaeus contains
much more of involved construction than
the earlier dialogues in generaldo. With
μεθ᾽ οὕστινας is to be understood τῶν
θεῶν.

9. τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις] Although the
negative rests on the authority of A
alone, I have yet retained it, under-
standing the sense to be that the celestial
movements are held for signs and por-
tents by those who do not comprehend
the natural laws which govern them.
The οὐ would very readily be omitted
by a copyist living at a time when
astrology had become prevalent, and
recourse was had to the professional
astrologer for interpretation of the signs
of the heavens. If it be objected that
the negative ought to be μή, I should
reply that this is one of many cases where
the negative coheres so closely with the
participle as practically to form one
word: cf. Isokrates de pace ὃ 13 νομίζετε
δημοτικωτέρους εἶναι τοὺς μεθύοντας τῶν
νηφόντων καὶ τοὺς νοῦν οὐκ ἔχοντας τῶν
εὖ φρονούντων. There νοῦν οὐκ ἔχοντας Ξ-
ἀνοήτους, as here οὐ δυναμένοις -- ἀδυνα-
τοῦσιν.

136 TAATONOS [40 p—

v a , ae ; , ᾽ Ὁ / , ΓΝ Μ
ἄνευ «τῶν; δι’ ὄψεως τούτων αὐτῶν μιμημάτων μάταιος ἂν εἴη
a Led ϑ an U
πόνος: ἀλλὰ ταῦτά τε ἱκανῶς ἡμῖν ταύτῃ Kal τὰ περὶ θεῶν
a /
ὁρατῶν καὶ γεννητῶν εἰρημένα φύσεως ἐχέτω τέλος.
ἘΣ XIII. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων δαιμόνων εἰπεῖν καὶ γνῶναι τὴν
ΓΑ tal - tal
Ὡς γένεσιν μεῖζον ἢ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, πειστέον δὲ τοῖς εἰρηκόσιν ἔμπροσθεν,
. a ς Μ Lal -
ἐκγόνοις μὲν θεῶν οὖσιν, ὡς ἔφασαν, σαφῶς δέ που τούς γε αὑτῶν
προγόνους εἰδόσιν" ἀδύνατον οὖν θεῶν παισὶν ἀπιστεῖν, καίπερ E
ΝΜ ree ὁ Ν > / > , , ᾽ ᾽ «
ἄνευ τε εἰκότων καὶ ἀναγκαίων ἀποδείξεων λέγουσιν, GAN ὡς
> a , ᾽ 7 «ς / Ὁ / /
οἰκεῖα φασκόντων ἀπαγγέλλειν ἑπομένους τῷ νόμῳ πιστευτέον.
b ς oa ¢ / \ f a “
10 οὕτως οὖν κατ᾽ ἐκείνους ἡμῖν ἡ γένεσις περὶ τούτων τῶν θεῶν
ἐχέτω καὶ λεγέσθω. Τῆς τε καὶ Οὐρανοῦ παῖδες ᾿Ωκεανός τε
καὶ Τηθὺς ἐγενέσθην, τούτων δὲ Φόρκυς Κρόνος τε καὶ Ῥέα καὶ
ὅσοι μετὰ τούτων, ἐκ δὲ Κρόνου καὶ Ῥέας Ζεὺς Ἥρα τε καὶ 41a
/ LY, »” 3 \ / ᾽ a ” /
πάντες bcous ἴσμεν ἀδελφοὺς λεγομένους αὐτῶν, ἔτι τε τούτων
15 ἄλλους ἐκγόνους.
? \ 5 3 , “ a al \
Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν πάντες, ὅσοι Te περιπολοῦσι φανερῶς Kal ὅσοι
φαίνονται καθ᾽ ὅσον ἂν ἐθέλωσιν, οἱ θεοὶ γένεσιν ἔσχον, λέγει
\ 5 \ ς , \ a / U \ fal - > \
πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ τόδε TO πᾶν γεννήσας τάδε: Θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ

1 ἄνευ τῶν δι ὄψεως scripsi auctore Proclo.

scripsi. αὖ τῶν AHSZ.
κουσιν SZ.

1. ἄνευ - τῶν -- δι ὄψεως] Proklos,
in first citing this passage, gives ἄνευ δι᾽
ὄψεως αὐτῶν τούτων μιμημάτων : presently,
quoting it again, he says ἄνευ τῶν δι᾽
ὄψεως, and this I believe to be what
Plato wrote. The vulgate ἄνευ διόψεως
τούτων αὖ τῶν μιμημάτων is so uncouth a

‘phrase that it surely cannot have pro-

ceeded from him: even the word dloyis
itself seems suspicious ; it occurs nowhere
else before Plutarch. Following the
text of Proklos then I construe ἄνευ τῶν
δι᾽ ὄψεως μιμημάτων αὐτῶν Tobrwy—with-
out ocular representations of precisely
these things: i.e. without a planetarium
to illustrate the movements. Ficinus
seems to have read αὐτών, to judge from
the word ‘ipsorum’ in his rendering.

6. σαφῶς δέ που] The irony of this
passage, though it seems to have gene-
rally escaped the commentators, is evi-
dent; more especially in the opening

4 δαιμόνων : δαιμονίων A,
17 οἱ θεοί : οἱ omittunt SZ.

αὐτῶν

9 φασκόντων : φάσ-

ἄνευ διόψεως AHSZ.

sentence of the next chapter. Plato had
no cause for embroiling himself with
popular religion. To his metaphysical
scheme it is quite immaterial whether
mankind is the highest order of finite
intelligences beneath the stars, or whether
there exist anthropomorphic beings of
superior rank, such as the gods and
daemons of the old mythology.

40 D—4tD, ¢ xiii. Let us then
acquiesce in the account given by chil-
dren of the gods concerning their own
lineage and accept the deities of the
national mythology. ‘When therefore all
the gods of whatsoever nature had come
into being, the Artificer addressed the
work of his hands, and showed them
how that, since they had a beginning,
they were not in their own nature im-
mortal altogether, yet should they never
suffer dissolution, seeing that the sover-
eign will of their creator was a firmer

41 A] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 137

very movements were labour lost. So let thus much suffice on
this head and let our exposition concerning the nature of the
gods visible and created be brought to an end.

XIII. But concerning the other divinities, to declare and
determine their generation were a task too mighty for us:
therefore we must trust in those who have revealed it here-
tofore, seeing that they are offspring, as they said, of gods, and
without doubt know their own forefathers. We cannot then
mistrust the children of gods, though they speak without pro-
bable or inevitable demonstrations ; but since they profess to
announce what pertains to their own kindred, we must conform
to usage and believe them. Let us then accept on their word
this account of the generation of these gods. Of Earth and
Heaven were born children, Okeanos and Tethys; of these
Phorkys and Kronos and Rhea and all their brethren: and of
Kronos and Rhea, Zeus and Hera and all whom we know to be
called their brothers ; and they in their turn had children after
them.

Now when all the gods had come to birth, both those who
revolve before our eyes and those who reveal themselves in so far
as they will, he who begat this universe spake to them these words:
Gods of gods, whose creator am I and father of works, which

surety for their endurance than the vital
bonds wherewith their being was bound
together. But the universe was not yet
complete: three kinds of creatures must
yet be born, which are mortal. Now if
the Artificer created these himself, they
must needs be immortal, since he could
not will the dissolution of his own work ;
they must therefore derive their birth
from the created gods. Receiving then
from him the immortal essence, the gods
should implant it in a mortal frame and
so generate mortal living creatures, that
the universe may be a perfect copy of its
type.

9. ἑπομένους τῷ νόμῳ πιστευτέον]
cf. Laws 904 A οἱ κατὰ νόμον ὄντες θεοί.
Plato indifferently acquiesces in the estab-
lished custom. His theogony is said by
Proklos to be Orphic; it differs from

that of Hesiod. For the construction
compare Phaedrus 272 E πάντως λέγοντα
τὸ δὴ εἰκὸς διωκτέον : the idiom is common
enough.

16. ὅσοι τε περιπολοῦσι φανερῶς]
Those who ‘revolve visibly’ are of course
Plato’s own gods, the stars of heaven;
the others are the deities of popular
belief, who ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν,
παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστῥωφῶσι πόληας.
There seems again to be a quiet irony in
the words φαίνονται καθ᾽ ὅσον ἂν ἐθέ-
λωσιν.

18. θεοὶ θεῶν] The exact sense of these
words has been much disputed. Setting
aside neoplatonic mystifications, which
the curious may find in the commentary
of Proklos, the interpretations which
seem to deserve notice are as follows.
(1) ‘Gods born of gods’. This, though

138 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [41 A—

ὸ / Μ ἃ ὃ > > rn Ν > »“Ἤ
δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἡ ἐμοῦ γενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γε
\ θέ ὲ \ x Ra ὃ δ θὲ a / , \ δ
μὴ ἐθέλοντος" τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν, τό γε μὴν καλῶς
ἁρμοσθὲν καὶ ἔχον εὖ λύειν ἐθέλειν κακοῦ: δι’ ἃ καὶ ἐπείπερ Β
/ > / \ ᾽ > \ 50» Ν' , Μ
γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστὲ οὐδ᾽ ἄλυτοι τὸ πάμπαν, οὔ τι
5 μὲν δὴ λυθήσεσθέ γε οὐδὲ τεύξεσθε θανάτου μοίρας, τῆς ἐμῆς
βουλήσεως μείζονος ἔτι δεσμοῦ καὶ κυριωτέρου λαχόντες ἐκείνων,
οἷς ὅτ᾽ ἐγίγνεσθε ξυνεδεῖσθε. νῦν οὖν ὃ λέγω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνδει-
κνύμενος, μάθετε. θνητὰ ἔτι γένη λοιπὰ τρί᾽ ἀγέννητα' τούτων
δὲ μὴ γενομένων οὐρανὸς ἀτελὴς ἔσται: τὰ γὰρ ἅπαντ᾽ ἐν αὑτῷ
10 γένη ἕῴων οὐχ ἕξει, δεῖ δέ, εἰ μέλλει τέλεος ἱκανῶς εἶναι. δι C
ἐμοῦ δὲ ταῦτα γενόμενα καὶ βίου μετασχόντα θεοῖς ἰσάζοιτ᾽ av

ἐμοῦ γε μὴ ἐθέλοντος : ἐμοῦ γ᾽ ἐθέλοντος SZ. 8 ἀγέννητα: ἀγένητα A.

τούτων δέ: τούτων οὖν 8.

supported by Martin as well as Stall- as the preceding. (1) The clause may

baum, seems to me inadmissible, for the
plain reason that the only source whence
they derived their birth was the δημιουρ-
vos himself; the plural θεῶν then is with-
out propriety or meaning. (2) ‘Gods,
images of gods’, cf. τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν
γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα. But ‘images’ is not in
the Greek, nor can be got out of it: and
even granting that it could, the obscure
words just quoted are far too unstable a
basis for such an interpretation. (3) In
my own judgment the phrase is simply
an instance of rhetorical ὄγκος, well suited
to the stately pomp characterising the
whole passage. ‘Gods of gods’ comesnear-
est, I believe, to the sense of the original,
signifying solely the transcendent dignity
of the οὐράνιοι θεοί, the first-fruits of
creation. Superlatives of this kind, though
not perhaps common in Greek, certainly
exist : compare Sophokles Oed. Col. 1237
ἵνα πρόπαντα κακὰ κακῶν ξυνοικεῖ : also
Oed. Tyr. 465 ἄρρητ᾽ ἀρρήτων τελέσαντα
φοινίαισι χερσίν: Aeschylus Persae 681
ὦ πιστὰ πιστῶν. Plato may have in his
mind a comparison between the highest
gods and δαίμονες of a lower rank, such as
those of Phaedrus 247 A or Epinomis
984 E: but this is not necessary.

1. ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων]
These words are almost as much debated

be taken in apposition with θεοί : sc. ἔργα,
ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε : (2) ὧν may
be governed by ἔργων, as Stallbaum takes
it: (3) or by δημιουργός. It can hardly
be doubted that the interpretation is to
be preferred which best lends itself to the
majestic flow of Plato’s rhythm ; and on
that ground I should give the preference
to the last, making ὧν masculine : ‘ whose
maker am I and father of works which
through me coming into being &c.’
The construction will thus really fol-
low the same principle as the familiar
idiom whereby a demonstrative is sub-
stituted for the relative in the second
member of a relative clause: as for
instance in Zuthydemus 301 E ταῦτα
ἡγεῖ σὰ εἶναι, ὧν ἂν ἄρξῃς καὶ ἐξῇ σοι
αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι ὅ τι ἂν βούλῃ.

Badham (on Philebus 30 Ὁ) proposes
to read the opening clauses thus: θεοί,
ὅσων ἔγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἅτε
δι᾽ ἐμοῦ γενόμενα, ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γ᾽ ἐθέλοντος.
This is grammatically faultless, but, it is
to be feared, sorely inadequate to the
‘large utterance’ of the Artificer. The
omission of μὴ before ἐθέλοντος has the
support of most mss. and gives an equally
good sense : I retain however the reading
of A, which is confirmed by Cicero’s
‘me invito’.

Cc] TIMAIOS. 139

by me coming into being are indissoluble save by my will:
Behold, all which hath been fastened may be loosed, yet to
loose that which is well fitted and in good case were the will of
an evil one. Wherefore, forasmuch as ye have come into being,
immortal ye are not, nor indissoluble altogether; nevertheless
shall ye not be loosed nor meet with the doom of death, having
found in my will a bond yet mightier and more sovereign than
those that ye were bound withal when ye came into being.
Now therefore hearken to the word that I declare unto you.
Three kinds of mortal beings are yet uncreate. And if these
be not created, the heaven will be imperfect; for it will not
have within it all kinds of living things; yet these it must have,
if it is to be perfect. But if these were created by my hands
and from me received their life, they would be equal to gods.

¢

2. τὸ μὲν ody δή] It is impossible not
to admire the serenity with which all the
editors set a full stop after ἐθέλοντος, and
then make a fresh start, as though the
words from θεοὶ to ἐθέλοντος were a sen-
tence ; as though γίγνεται stood in place
of γενόμενα. It were easy to convert this
into a sentence through milder means
than Badham employed, by substituting
τὰ for ἅ. But a certain unpleasing curt-
ness is thereby introduced, which leads
me to shrink from tampering with the
text. I regard then all the words down
to ἐθέλοντος as constituting an appella-
tion. The difficulty then arises however,
that the particles μὲν οὖν δὴ seem to in-
dicate the commencement of a fresh sen-
tence. Yet the objection is not, I think,
fatal: for although the words θεοὶ... ἐθέ-
λοντος are not in form a sentence contain-
ing a statement, they do practically convey
a statement; and the προσηγορία being
somewhat extended, Plato proceeds as if
the information implied in a description
were given in the form of a direct asser-
tion. The massive form of the opening
address seems to justify a stronger combi-
nation of particles at the commencement
of the main sentence than could ordi-
narily be used.

4. οὔ τι μὲν δή] For this strong adver-
sative formula compare 7heaetetus 187 A,
Philebus 46 8, Phaedrus 259 B; and,
without ye, 7heaetetus 148 E.

ἡ. οἷς Or éylyver Qe ξυνεδεῖσθε] Com-
pare 43 A ξυνεκόλλων οὐ τοῖς ἀλύτοις, ols
αὐτοὶ ξυνείχοντο, δεσμοῖς: and 73 Ὁ καθ-
ἅπερ ἐξ ἀγκυρῶν βαλλόμενος ἐκ τούτων
πάσης ψυχῆς δεσμούς.

8. γένη λοιπὰ τρία] i.e. those which
made their habitation in air, in water,
and on land.

11. θεοῖς ἰσάζοιτ᾽ dv] This assertion
of the δημιουργὸς that whatsoever immedi-
ately proceeds from him must be immortal
is, I think, not without its metaphysical
significance. The creation of the universe
by the δημιουργός, we take it, symbolises
the evolution of absolute intelligence into
material nature, i.e. into the perceptions
of finite intelligences. Now this evolution,
the manifestation of supreme thought in
the material world, is fer se eternal—it
is an essential element in the being of
eternal thought. But, the evolution once
given, the things that belong to it as such
areall transitory. Considered as making
up the sum total of phenomenal nature,
the infinite series of phenomena is eternal:
but the phenomena themselves belong not

10

6:8}

a “ 4 / \

iva οὖν θνητά τε ἦ τό τε πᾶν τόδε ὄντως ἅπαν ἦ, τρέπεσθε κατὰ
na “Ὁ , / U \ > s

φύσιν ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν Cowv δημιουργίαν, μιμούμενοι THY ἐμὴν
, , + \ ψδιν ἸΑ͂Ν,
δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν γένεσιν. καὶ Kal’ ὅσον μὲν αὐτῶν

140 MAATONOS

tal ¢ n

ἀθανάτοις ὁμώνυμον εἶναι προσήκει, θεῖον λεγόμενον ἡγεμονοῦν
a a al /

te ἐν αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀεὶ δίκῃ καὶ ὑμῖν ἐθελόντων ἕπεσθαι, σπείρας
Ν «ς U > \ ὃ , \ δὲ \ ς tal 10 ,

καὶ ὑπαρξάμενος ἐγὼ παραδώσω: τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ὑμεῖς, ἀθανάτῳ

Peet ry a a /
θνητὸν προσυφαίνοντες, ἀπεργάζεσθε ζῷα καὶ yevvate τροφὴν τε D
διδόντες αὐξάνετε καὶ φθίνοντα πάλιν δέχεσθε.

a a 2
XIV. Ταῦτ᾽ εἶπε, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον κρατῆρα, ἐν

ᾧ

ἐ

\ a \ \ Cs <a \ n ee ζ΄. ἃ

τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν κεραννὺς ἔμισγε, τὰ τῶν πρόσθεν ὑπό-

- , > “ ᾽

λοίπα κατεχεῖτο μίσγων τρόπον μέν τινα τὸν αὐτόν, ἀκήρατα ὃ
UJ /

οὐκέτι κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως, ἀλλὰ δεύτερα Kal τρίτα. ξυστήσας
\ ." ν \ 2 ta] Ly ” vA ἢ SR

δὲ τὸ πᾶν διεῖλε ψυχὰς ἰσαρίθμους τοῖς ἄστροις, ἔνειμέ θ᾽ ἑκάστην

to eternity, but to γένεσις. In other their present mode of existence as indi-

words, the existence of time and space is
part of the being of absolute intelligence:
the apprehension of things in time and
space pertains to finite intelligences.
Therefore, as phenomena apprehended in
time and space do not directly pertain to
absolute intelligence, so in the allegory
mortal things are not directly the work of
the δημιουργός.

1. ἵνα οὖν θνητά τε ἡ] Mortality is
necessary in this way. The scheme of
existence involves a material counterpart
of the ideal world. To materiality be-
longs becoming and perishing : accord-
ingly αἰσθητὰ ζῷα, the copies of the
νοητὰ ζῷα, must, so far as material,
be mortal. Mortality must correspond
to immortality as inevitably as multi-
plicity to unity. Even the stars, which,
being the handiwork of the Artificer
himself, are immortal, contain within
them the processes of γένεσις and φθορά.

κατὰ φύσιν] In the way of nature:
i.e. βλέποντες πρὸς τὸ ἀίδιον.

3. καθ᾽ ὅσον] It has been proposed
to omit καθ᾽: but I think the text is suffi-
ciently defended by Stallbaum.

4. ἀθανάτοις ὁμώνυμον] The αἰσθητὰ
§@a are ἀθάνατα, in so far as they possess
the indestructible vital essence supplied
by the creator; but only ὁμωνύμως, since

viduals is transitory.

ἡγεμονοῦν] Here seems to be the
first suggestion of a word which after-
wards became a technical term common
in the Stoic philosophy—rd ἡγεμονικόν,
the reason. We have it again similarly
used in 70 C: cf. Laws 963 A νοῦν δέ γε
πάντων τούτων ἡγεμόνα. The genitive τῶν
ἐθελόντων is governed by ἡγεμονοῦν.

6. ὑπαρξάμενος] This transitive use
of the middle of this verb is not quoted in
Liddell and Scott.

7. τροφήν τε διδόντες] How they did
this we learn in 77 A. The gods of course
had no need of sustenance ; for, like the
κόσμος, they αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοῖς τροφὴν τὴν éav-
τῶν φθίσιν παρεῖχον. With φθίνοντα πάλιν
δέχεσθε compare 42 E δανειζόμενοι μόρια
ὡς ἀποδοθησόμενα πάλιν : 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, ¢ 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

D] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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-

|

Ϊ

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. τὰ τῶν πρόσθεν ὑπόλοιπα]
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, ταὐτὸν θάτερον
and οὐσία.

It. ἀκήρατα δ᾽ οὐκέτι] 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 foll. 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. διεῖλε ψυχὰς ἰσαρίθμους τοῖς
ἄστροις] 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 νομὴ of the present passage
and the σπόρος of 42 D. What the
δημιουργὸς did, I conceive to be this.
Having completed the admixture of soul
he divided the whole into portions,
assigning one portion to each star.
These portions, be it understood, are not
particular souls nor aggregates of par-
ticular souls: they are divisions of the
whole quantity of soul, which is not as
yet differentiated into particular souls,

142 MAATONOS [41 E—

πρὸς ἕκαστον, καὶ ἐμβιβάσας ws ἐς ὄχημα THY τοῦ παντὸς φύσιν E
ἔδειξε, νόμους τε τοὺς εἱμαρμένου: εἶπεν αὐταῖς, ὅτι γένεσις πρώτη
μὲν ἔσοιτο τεταγμένη μία πᾶσιν, ἵνα μή τις ἐλαττοῖτο ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ,
δέοι δὲ πόλεσι αὐτὰς εἰς τὰ προσήκοντα ἑκάσταις ἕκαστα
5 ὄργανα χρόνου φῦναι ξῴων τὸ θεοσεβέστατον, διπλῆς δὲ οὔσης 42 A
τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὸ κρεῖττον τοιοῦτον εἴη γένος, ὃ καὶ
ἔπειτα κεκλήσοιτο ἀνήρ. ὁπότε δὴ σώμασιν ἐμφυτευθεῖεν ἐξ
ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὸ μὲν προσίοι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀπίοι τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν,
πρῶτον μὲν αἴσθησιν ἀναγκαῖον εἴη μίαν πᾶσιν ἐκ βιαίων πα-
10 θημάτων ξύμφυτον γίγνεσθαι, δεύτερον δὲ ἡδονῇ καὶ λύπῃ με-
μιγμένον ἔρωτα, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις φόβον καὶ θυμὸν ὅσα τε ἑπό-
μενα αὐτοῖς καὶ ὁπόσα ἐναντίως πέφυκε διεστηκότα' ὧν εἰ μὲν Β

1 és: es 5. 5 χρόνου : χρόνων AHSZ.

_:

It is hardly necessary to observe that
these ψυχαὶ ἰσάριθμοι τοῖς ἄστροις are
quite distinct from the souls of the stars
themselves. Next the δημιουργὸς explains
to these still undifferentiated souls the
laws of nature; after which he redis-
tributes the whole quantity of soul among
the planets (ὄργανα χρόνου, 42 Ὁ) for
incarnation in mortal bodies. From the
language of 42 Ὁ, τοὺς μέν... τοὺς δέ, it
would seem that the differentiating of the
souls into individual beings was done by
the δημιουργὸς himself, before they were
handed over to the created gods: in fact
this is metaphysically necessary.

Martin’s interpretation appears to me
wholly unplatonic, indeed unintelligible.
He regards the ψυχαὶ ἰσάριθμοι as distinct
from the soul that was afterwards to
inform mortal bodies. ‘C’est ἃ ces
grandes Ames confiées aux astres, c’est ἃ
ces vastes dépéts de substance incorporelle
et intelligente, que Dieu révéle ses
desseins.’ This he himself most justly
terms an ‘ étrange doctrine’, and certainly
it is not Plato’s. It is surely indubitable
that what the δημιουργὸς mixed in the
κρατὴρ was the whole substance of soul
intended to be differentiated into par-
ticular souls; that this whole substance
was first distributed in large portions
among the fixed stars, to learn the laws of

existence; and that finally it was redis-
tributed among the planets for division
into separate souls incorporated in bodies.

But what is the purpose and meaning
of this distribution among the fixed stars?
I think the explanation is suggested by
Phaedrus 252 C,D, where different gods are
assigned as patrons for persons of various
temperament. The apportionment to
diverse stars is thus a fanciful way of ac-
counting for innate diversity of character

and disposition ; each individual being in-| °

fluenced by the star to which the division
was assigned of which what was after-
wards his soul formed a part.

1. ὡς ἐς ὄχημα] The same word is
used in 69 D to express the relation
of body to soul in the human being,
although the relation is different to that
here indicated; for these ψυχαὶ do not
inform and vitalise the body of the star,
which is to them solely a ‘vehicle’.

τὴν τοῦ παντὸς φύσιν ἔδειξε] It
is interesting to observe that here in
Plato’s maturest period we have some-
thing closely resembling the ἀνάμνησις of
the Phaedo and Phaedrus. To say that
the laws of the universe were declared to
soul before it became differentiated into

}

individual souls is very much the same |

thing as to say that the soul beheld the

ideas in a previous existence. At the same |

42 B] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 143

each star, and setting them in the stars as though in a chariot,
he shewed them the nature of the universe and declared to
them its fated laws; how that the first incarnation should be
ordained to be the same for all, that none might suffer dis-
advantage at his hands; and how they must be sown into the
instruments of time, each into that which was meet for it, and
be born as the most god-fearing of all living creatures; and
whereas human nature was twofold, the stronger was that race
which should hereafter be called man. When therefore they
should be of necessity implanted in bodily forms, and of their
bodies something should ever be coming in and other passing
away, in the first place they must needs all have innate one and
the same faculty of sense, arising from forcible affections ; next
love mingled with pleasure and pain; and besides these fear
and wrath and all the feelings that accompany these and such

time the tendency to merge the indiyidual
existence of the soul is characteristic of
the Zzmaeus and of Plato’s later thought.

2. γένεσις πρώτη] i.e. their first
embodiment in human form. Stallbaum
is obviously wrong in understanding by
πρώτη γένεσις the distribution among the
stars, since the δευτέρα γένεσις is the

_ incarnation εἰς γυναικὸς φύσιν, 42 B. Here

however a point presents itself in which
the allegory appears Arima facie incon-
sistent. At 39 E Plato says there are
four εἴδη of νοητὰ gpa in the αὐτὸ ζῷον : yet
of αἰσθητὰ ζῷα we only have two εἴδη at the
outset : how then is the sensible world a
faithful image of the intelligible world?
The answer would seem to be that the
δημιουργὸς foresaw that many souls must
necessarily degenerate from the πρώτη
καὶ ἀρίστη ἕξις, and therefore left the
perfect assimilation of the image to the
type to be worked out and completed in
the course of nature, with which he did
not choose arbitrarily to interfere, in
order that no soul might start at a
disadvantage through his doing: wa μή
τις ἐλαττοῖτο ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. It is remarkable
however that the perfection of the copy
should be accomplished through a process
of degeneration.

4. ϑέοι δὲ σπαρείσας] Stallbaum for
some incomprehensible reason would in-
sert μετὰ before omapeloas. The δημι-
ουργὸς is referring to the σπόρος of 42 D,
which must take place before the incar-
nation in mortal bodies can be accom-
plished. ὄργανα χρόνου, a phrase recurring
in 42 D,=the planets: the vulgate xpé-
νων is clearly a copyist’s error. The rea-
son why one planet was more suitable for
some souls than another does not appear.

5. ἵῴων τὸ θεοσεβέστατον)] i.e. man-
kind: cf. Laws 902 Β ἅμα καὶ θεοσεβέσ-
τατον αὐτό ἐστι πάντων ζῴων ἄνθρωπος.

7. ἐξ ἀνάγκης] This phrase expresses
the unwilling conjunction of spirit and
matter, the reluctance of soul to accept
corporeal conditions: cf. 69D ovyxepa-
σάμενοι ταῦτα ἀναγκαίως, and a little
above δεινὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖα παθήματα ἐν
ἑαυτῷ ἔχον. The whole account in 69 C, Ὁ
is full of echoes of the present passage.

8. τὸ μὲν προσίοι τὸ δ᾽ ἀπίοι] i.e.
the body is undergoing a perpetual pro-
cess of waste and reparation: cf. 43A
ἐνέδουν els ἐπίρρυτον σῶμα καὶ ἀπόρρυτον.

9. βιαίων παθημάτων] I take βιαίων
to mean vehement and masterful, though
it might be understood like ἀναγκαῖα in
69 Cc.

ote

144

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[42 B—

κρατήσοιεν, δίκῃ βιώσοιντο, κρατηθέντες δὲ ἀδικίᾳ. καὶ ὁ μὲν εὖ τὸν
προσήκοντα χρόνον βιούς, πάλιν εἰς τὴν τοῦ ξυννόμου πορευθεὶς
οἴκησιν ἄστρου, βίον εὐδαίμονα καὶ συνήθη ἕξοι: σφαλεὶς δὲ
τούτων εἰς γυναικὸς φύσιν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ γενέσει μεταβαλοῖ' μὴ
5 πανόμενος δὲ ἐν τούτοις ἔτι κακίας, τρόπον ὃν ᾿ κακύνοιτο, κατὰ Cone «τι
τὴν ὁμοιότητα τῆς τοῦ τρόπου γενέσεως εἴς τινα τοιαύτην ἀεὶ

-

τῶν AOR.

ae A

SK, ef δ

id _
μεταβαλοῖ θήρειον φύσιν, ἀλλάττων τε οὐ πρότερον πόνων λήξοι, ~~"
πρὶν τῇ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιόδῳ τῇ ἐν αὑτῷ ξυνεπισπόμενος τὸν
πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ ὕστερον πρόσφύντα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ

το ἀέρος καὶ γῆς, θορυβώδη καὶ ἄλογον ὄντα, λόγῳ κρατήσας εἰς τὸ τῆς Ὁ
πρώτης καὶ ἀρίστης ἀφίκοιτο εἶδος ὄξεως.

διαθεσμοθετήσας δὲ

πάντα αὐτοῖς ταῦτα, ἵνα τῆς ἔπειτα εἴη κακίας ἑκάστων ἀναίτιος,

I κρατήσοιεν : κρατήσειαν S, qui mox ἐν δίκῃ dedit.
5 παυόμενος δέ : πανόμενός τε ΑΗΖ.

χρόνον S, nescio an recte.
σπόμενος : ξυνεπισπώμενος AHZ,

1. τὸν προσήκοντα χρόνον] No defi-
nite period is ordained in the 7 γραφές,
as is the case in the myths of the Phaedrus
and Republic.

2. τοῦ ξυννόμου] i.e. the star to
which was distributed the portion of soul
whence his individual soul afterwards
proceeded. ovv%y=congenial: the con-
ditions of life in the σύννομον ἄστρον
would be familiar from the soul’s former
residence in it, though she was not then
differentiated.

4. εἰς γυναικὸς φύσιν] Here, it must
be confessed, we have a piece of ques-
tionable metaphysic. For the distinction
of sex cannot possibly stand on the same
logical footing as the generic differences
between various animals; and in the
other forms of animal life the distinction
is ignored. It is somewhat curious that
Plato, who in his views about woman’s
position was immeasurably in advance of
his age, has here yielded to Athenian
prejudice so far as to introduce a dis-
sonant element into his theory.

peraBadot] After this word the old
editions insert χιλιοστῷ δὲ ἔτει ἀμφό-
τεραι ἀφικνούμεναι ἐπὶ κλήρωσιν καὶ
αἵρεσιν τοῦ δευτέρου βίου αἱροῦνται ὃν ἃν
ἐθέλῃ βίον ἑκάστη" ἔνθα καὶ εἰς θηρίου βίον

2 χρόνον βιούς : βιοὺς
8 ξυνεπι-

ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχὴ ἀφικνεῖται. These words,
which stand in the margin of two mss., are
simply quoted from Phaedrus 249 B.

5. κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα] 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
81 E ἐνδοῦνται δέ, ὥσπερ εἰκός, εἰς τοιαῦτα
ἤθη ὁποῖ᾽ ἄττ᾽ ἂν καὶ μεμελετηκυῖαι τύ-
χωσιν ἐν τῷ βίῳ: and presently we see
that the sensual take the form of asses,
the cruel and rapacious that of hawks
and kites.

8. τῇ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιόδῳ]
Even in the lower forms the principle
of reason is present, only more or less
in abeyance. But once let the soul listen
to its dictates, so far as in that condition
it can make itself heard, and she may
retrieve one step of the lost ground at the
next incarnation.

12. ἵνα τῆς ἔπειτα] Here as in the
Republic Plato absolves God from all re-
sponsibility for evil: cf. Republic 379 Ὁ
οὐδ᾽ dpa ὁ θεός, ἐπειδὴ ἀγαθός, πάντων ἂν
εἴη αἴτιος, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽
ὀλίγων μὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις αἴτιος, πολλῶν
δὲ ἀναίτιος" πολὺ γὰρ ἐλάττω τἀγαθὰ τῶν
κακῶν ἡμῖν. καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν οὐδένα

Ὁ] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 145

as are of a contrary nature: and should they master these
passions, they would live in righteousness ; if otherwise, in un-
righteousness. And he who lived well throughout his allotted
time should be conveyed once more to a habitation in his
kindred star, and there should enjoy a blissful and congenial
life: but failing of this, he should pass in the second incar-
nation into the nature of a woman; and if in this condition he
still would not turn from the evil of his ways, then, according
to the manner of his wickedness, he should ever be changed
into the nature of some beast in such form of incarnation as
fitted his disposition, and should not rest from the weariness of
these transformations, until by following the revolution that is
within him of the same and uniform, he should overcome by
reason all that burden that afterwards clung around him of fire
and water and air and earth, a troublous and senseless mass,
and should return once more to the form of his first and best

nature.

And when he had ordained all these things for them, to the
end that he might be guiltless of all the evil that should be in

ἄλλον αἰτιατέον, τῶν δὲ κακῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἄττα δεῖ
ζητεῖν τὰ αἴτια, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸν θεόν. See too
Republic 617 C, Laws goo E, 904 A—C, and
especially 7heaetetus 176 A ἀλλ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀπο-
λέσθαι τὰ κακὰ δυνατόν, ὦ Θεόδωρε" ὑπεναν-
τίον γάρ τι τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἀεὶ εἶναι ἀνάγκη" οὔτ᾽
ἐν θεοῖς αὐτὰ ἱδρῦσθαι, τὴν δὲ θνητὴν φύσιν
καὶ τόνδε τὸν τόπον περιπολεῖ ἐξ ἀνάγκης.
In other words, to soul, as such, no evil
can attach in any form whatsoever. Ab-
solute spirit then in itself has no part in
evil nor can be the cause of any. With
the evolution of absolute spirit into finite
souls arises evil; it is one of the condi-
tions of limitation as much as space and
time are. Evil then attaches to finite
souls, not gua souls, which were impos-
sible, but gua finite. Yet, seeing that in
the Platonic system the evolution of the
infinite into the finite is a necessary law
of being, can it be said that God, or ab-
solute spirit, is irresponsible for evil,
since that spirit necessarily must mani-
fest itself in a mode of existence to which

P. T.

Plato declares that evil must inevitably
attach? and why is it that evil must a-
rise together with limited existence? To
these questions Plato has returned no
explicit reply: only we may deduce thus
much from his ontological scheme—since
the realm of absolute essence is a stable
unity, the realm of finite existence is a
moving plurality, a process. And if a
process, we can only conceive, on Plato’s
principles, that it is a process towards
good. Therefore imperfection must al-
ways attach to it, since it is ever ap-
proaching but never reaches the good.
Were perfection predicable of it, it would
be the good—the eternal changeless unity :
the two sides of the Platonic antithesis
would coalesce; motion and plurality
would vanish, and we should relapse into
the Eleatic ἔν which has been proved un-
workable. In this sense Plato may say
that evil is necessary and that it belongs
to matter, not to God. At the same time
since the absolute cannot exist without

10

146

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[42 p—

an \ ? >
ἔσπειρε τοὺς μὲν eis γῆν, τοὺς δ᾽ εἰς σελήνην, τοὺς δ᾽ εἰς τἄλλα
Lal /
ὅσα ὄργανα ypovou: τὸ δὲ μετὰ τὸν σπόρον τοῖς νέοις παρέδωκε,
a ΝΜ nd
θεοῖς σώματα πλάττειν θνητά, τό τε ἐπίλοιπον, ὅσον ἔτι ἦν
a > , , ΄ “Ὁ θ᾽ “
ψυχῆς ἀνθρωπίνης δέον προσγενέσθαι, τοῦτο καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα Ἑ
, ΕΣ
5 ἀκόλουθα ἐκείνοις ἀπεργασαμένους ἄρχειν, καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν ὃ τι
a \ a
κάλλιστα καὶ ἄριστα τὸ θνητὸν διακυβερνᾶν ζῷον, 6 Te μὴ κακῶν

a ΜΝ
αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ γίγνοιτο αἴτιον.

XV. Καὶ ὁ μὲν δὴ ἅπαντα ταῦτα διατάξας ἔμενεν ἐν τῷ

rn Lal \

ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ τρόπον ἤθει' μένοντος δὲ νοήσαντες οἱ παῖδες τὴν
a > /

10 ToD πατρὸς διάταξιν ἐπείθοντο αὐτῇ, καὶ λαβόντες ἀθάνατον

“ ‘ \

ἀρχὴν θνητοῦ ἕῴου, μιμούμενοι τὸν σφέτερον δημιουργόν, πυρὸς

καὶ γῆς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου δανειζόμενοι μόρια,

ὡς ἀποδοθησόμενα πάλιν, εἰς ταὐτὸν τὰ λαμβανόμενα συνεκόλλων,

᾽ a ὃ. ἡ > \ , a > om κα \ /

ov τοῖς ἀλύτοις οἷς αὐτοὶ ξυνείχοντο δεσμοῖς, ἀλλὰ διὰ σμικρό-

τι τήτα ἀοράτοις πυκνοῖς γόμφοις ξυντήκοντες, ἕν ἐξ ἁπάντων
ἀπεργαζόμενοι σῶμα ἕκαστον, τὰς τῆς ἀθανάτου ψυχῆς περιόδους

10 διάταξιν : τάξιν A pr. m. 85.

manifesting itself as the finite, and since
to the finite belongs evil, the ultimate
cause of evil is really carried back to the
absolute, though not ga absolute.

2. ὄργανα xpdvov] This sowing
| seems to have been confined to the earth
᾿ and the seven planets; for these alone
appear to be recognised as instruments of
time in 39 Cc, ἢ. It would presumably
committed the formation of the mortal
races.

3. τό τε ἐπίλοιπον] This clearly re-
fers to the θνητὸν εἶδος ψυχῆς of 69D:
i.e. those functions and activities of the
soul which are called into being by her
conjunction with matter.

7. αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ] Evil in some shape
or other is, as we have seen, an inevitable
concomitant of material existence. But
if we follow after pure reason, this evil
is kept at the lowest minimum; if we
perversely forsake her, it is needlessly
aggravated. So that while we are not
answerable for whatsoever of evil is in-
separable from limitation, for all that is

the result of our own folly we are an-
swerable. Compare Laws 904B τῆς δὲ
γενέσεως τοῦ ποίου τινὸς ἀφῆκε ταῖς Bov-
λήσεσιν ἑκάστων τὰς αἰτίας" ὅπῃ γὰρ ἂν
ἐπιθυμῇ καὶ ὁποῖός τις ὧν τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτῃ
σχεδὸν ἑκάστοτε καὶ τοιοῦτος γίγνεται ἅπας
ἡμῶν ὡς τὸ πολύ. A further discussion of
Plato’s position as regards the problem
of free will is to be found in note on
86 D.

42 E—44 Ὁ, ¢c. xv. And the eter-
nal God was abiding in his own unity.
But the created gods, following the
example of their creator, fashioned mor-
tal creatures, fettering the motions of
the soul in a material body, whereof
they borrowed the substance from that of
the universe. And the soul, being im-
prisoned in a body subject to ceaseless
inflowing and outflowing, is at first con-
founded and distracted. For the per-
petual stream of nourishment that enters
in, together with the bewildering effect
of external sensations, throws her into
disorder and tumult: the revolution of
the Same in her is brought to a stand,

43 A

43 A] TIMAIOS. 147

each of them, God sowed some in the earth, some in the moon,
and some in the other instruments of time. And what came
after the sowing he gave into the hands of the young gods, to
mould mortal bodies, and having wrought all the residue of
human soul that needed yet to be added, to govern and guide
as nobly and perfectly as they could the mortal creature, in so
far as it brought not evil upon its own head.

XV. So when he had made all these ordinances for them
God was abiding after the manner of his own nature: and as he
so abode, the children thinking on the command of their father
were obedient to it, and having received the immortal principle
of a mortal creature, imitating their own artificer, they bor-
rowed from the universe portions of fire and of earth and of
water and of air, on condition that they should be returned
again, and they cemented together what they took, not with the
indissoluble bonds wherewithal they themselves were held to-
gether, but welding it with many rivets, invisible for smallness,
and making of all the elements one body for each creature, they
confined the revolutions of the immortal soul in a body in-

while that of the Other is distorted or
reversed: its harmonic proportions cannot 8.
indeed be destroyed, save by the creator [15 significant.

infants and young children.
ἔμενεν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ] This phrase
Plato does not say that

alone, but they are in every way strained
and perturbed. Accordingly, when she
has to judge concerning anything, that it
is same or other, her judgment is wrong,
and she is filled with falsehood and folly :
and reason, which seems to rule, is really
enslaved by sensation. For all these
causes the soul, at her first entrance into
a body, is devoid of reason. But presently,
as the disturbance caused by the require-
ments of nutrition and growth diminishes,
the circles of the Same and the Other
gradually resume their proper functions,
and reason regains her sway. But
careful and rational training is requisite
in order that a man may enjoy his full
intellectual liberty: lacking this, his life
will be maimed, and imperfect and un-
reasonable he will pass beneath the shades.

This chapter supplies a theory to
account for the abeyance of reason in

the δημιουργὸς returned to his own ἦθος,
but that he ‘was abiding’ therein. The
imperfect expresses that not only after
he had given these instructions, but
previously also, he was abiding. The
eternal essence, while manifesting itself
in multiplicity, still abides in unity. The
process of thought-evolution does not
affect the nature of thought as it is in
itself: thought, while many and manifold,
is one and simple still.

13. ὡς ἀποδοθησόμενα] Plato always
insists that the sum of all things, whether
spiritual or material, is a constant quantity.
Accordingly the gods had to borrow from
the store of materials already existing ;
there could be no addition.

15. πὺκνοῖς γόμφοις] 1.6. the law of
cohesion in matter. The word γόμφοι,
as contrasted with δεσμοί, gives the
notion of inferior durability.

19---2

5

10

15

148 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [43 a

ἐνέδουν εἰς ἐπίρρυτον σῶμα καὶ ἀπόρρυτον. ai δ᾽ eis ποταμὸν
ἐνδεθεῖσαι πολὺν οὔτ᾽ ἐκράτουν οὔτ᾽ ἐκρατοῦντο, βίᾳ δ᾽ ἐφέροντο
καὶ ἔφερον, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ὅλον κινεῖσθαι ἕῷον, ἀτάκτως μὴν ὅπη Β
τύχοι προϊέναι καὶ ἀλόγως, τὰς ἕξ ἁπάσας κινήσεις ἔχον" εἴς τε
γὰρ τὸ πρόσθε καὶ ὄπισθεν καὶ πάλιν εἰς δεξιὰ καὶ ἀριστερὰ κάτω
τε καὶ ἄνω καὶ πάντῃ κατὰ τοὺς ἕξ τόπους πλανώμενα προΐειν.
πολλοῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ κατακλύζοντος καὶ ἀπορρέοντος κύματος, ὃ
τὴν τροφὴν παρεῖχεν, ἔτι μείζω θόρυβον ἀπειργάζετο τὰ τῶν
προσπιπτόντων παθήματα ἑκάστοις, ὅτε πυρὶ προσκρούσειε TOC
σῶμά τινος ἔξωθεν ἀλλοτρίῳ περιτυχὸν ἢ καὶ στερεῷ γῆς ὑγροῖς
τε ὀλισθήμασιν ὑδάτων, εἴτε ζάλῃ πνευμάτων ὑπὸ ἀέρος φερομένων
καταληφθείη, καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων τούτων διὰ τοῦ σώματος αἱ κινή-
σεις ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν φερόμεναι προσπίπτοιεν᾽ ai δὴ καὶ ἔπειτα
διὰ ταῦτα ἐκλήθησάν τε καὶ νῦν ἔτι αἰσθήσεις ξυνάπασαι κέ-
κληνται. καὶ δὴ καὶ τότε ἐν τῷ παρόντι πλείστην καὶ μεγίστην
παρεχόμεναι κίνησιν, μετὰ τοῦ ῥέοντος ἐνδελεχῶς ὀχετοῦ κινοῦσαι D
καὶ σφοδρῶς σείουσαι τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς περιόδους, τὴν μὲν ταὐτοῦ
παντάπασιν ἐπέδησαν ἐναντία αὐτῇ ῥέουσαι καὶ ἐπέσχον ἄρ-
χουσαν καὶ ἰοῦσαν, τὴν δ᾽ αὖ θατέρου διέσεισαν, ὥστε τὰς τοῦ
5 πρόσθε: πρόσθεν 8.

4 προϊέναι : προσιέναι A. Il φερομένων : φερομένου A.

1. ἐπίρρυτον σῶμα καὶ ἀπόρρυτον] γένεσις in which she is placed: ὁ μὲν δὴ

ὥων»»

| Plato’s Herakleitean theory of matter

could hardly find stronger expression than
this. Fresh particles are being perpetually
added to the body’s substance to supply
the place of others which are for ever
flying off. Compare Theaetetus 159 B
foll.

ai δ᾽ εἰς ποταμόν] It may be this
expression was suggested by the well-
known words of Herakleitos (fr. 41
Bywater) ποταμοῖσι δὶς τοῖσι αὐτοῖσι οὐκ
dv éuBalns* ἕτερα γὰρ καὶ ἕτερα ἐπιρρέει
ὕδατα: cf. Cratylus 402A. According to
Aristotle metaph. Τὶ ν τοιοῦ 13, Kratylos
found this statement not thorough-going
enough: Ἡρακλείτῳ ἐπετίμα εἰπόντι ὅτι
δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ ποταμῷ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμβῆναι"
αὐτὸς yap ᾧετο οὐδ᾽ ἅπαξ. Proklos is
perhaps right in supposing Plato’s ποταμὸς
to include not the body only in which the
soul resides, but generally the region of

ποταμὸς ov τὸ ἀνθρώπινον δὴ σῶμα on-
μαίνει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν περικει-
μένην ἔξωθεν ἡμῖν γένεσιν, διὰ τὴν
ὀξύρροπον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀδτάθμητον ῥοήν.

2. ἐφέροντο καὶ ἔφερον] The περίοδοι
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. τὰς ἕξ ἁπάσας] 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 κινήσεις is given
in Laws 893 C foll., where τὸ kinds are
enumerated.

7. πολλοῦ γὰρ éyvros] Two chief
causes are assigned by Plato for the
dormant state of the intellect in the case of

97 ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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 (αἰσθήσεις). 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. Sd ταῦτα ἐκλήθησαν] 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
outward sensations, which bewilder and
overwhelm the soul but newly arrived
in the world of becoming and inex-
perienced in its conditions.

10. ἀλλοτρίῳ περιτυχόν] Plato says
‘alien’ fire, because, as we learn in 45 B,
there is a fire, viz. daylight, which is
akin to the fire within our bodies and
therefore harmless to us. All the four
elements are described, each in its own
way, as conspiring to the soul’s confusion.
The poetical tone of this passage is very
noticeable.

13. ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχήν] This theory is
fully set forth in 64 B foll.: see also
Philebus 33 Ὁ.

as Martin says, Plato meant to connect
αἴσθησις with ἀίσσω. Proklos also pro-
poses the Homeric word dlc@w: cf. /liad
XVI 468 ὁ δὲ βράχε θυμὸν ἀΐσθων : but
this suggestion has not very much to
recommend it.

16. μετὰ τοῦ ῥέοντος ἐνδελεχῶς ὀχε-
τοῦ] i.e. combined with the κῦμα τῆς
τροφῆς.

18. παντάπασιν ἐπέδησαν] It should
be observed that the effect on the two
circles is different: that of the Same is
stopped; i.e. the reason does not act:
that of the Other is dislocated and dis-
torted ; i.e. the reports of the senses are
confused and inaccurate,

IIAATONOS [43 D—

διπλασίου καὶ τριπλασίου τρεῖς ἑκατέρας ἀποστάσεις Kal Tas τῶν
ἡμιολίων καὶ ἐπιτρίτων Kal ἐπογδόων μεσότητας καὶ ξυνδέσεις,
ἐπειδὴ παντελῶς λυταὶ οὐκ ἦσαν πλὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ξυνδήσαντος,

150

πάσας μὲν στρέψαι στροφάς, πάσας δὲ κλάσεις καὶ διαφορὰς πὶ

5 τῶν κύκλων ἐμποιεῖν, ὁσαχῇπερ ἦν δυνατόν, ὥστε μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων
, / / / > / \ / \ \
μόγις ξυνεχομένας φέρεσθαι μέν, ἀλόγως δὲ φέρεσθαι, τοτὲ μὲν
> if v δὲ x: / \ δὲ « / ‘ i ὅ “
ἀντίας, ἄλλοτε δὲ πλαγίας, τοτὲ δὲ ὑπτίας" οἷον ὅταν τις ὕπτιος
ἐρείσας τὴν κεφαλὴν μὲν ἐπὶ γῆς, τοὺς δὲ πόδας ἄνω προσβαλὼν
ἔχῃ πρός τινι, τότε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ πάθει τοῦ τε πάσχοντος καὶ τῶν
10 ὁρώντων τά τε δεξιὰ ἀριστερὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ δεξιὰ ἑκατέροις
τὰ ἑκατέρων φαντάζεται. ταὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτο καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα αἱ
περιφοραὶ πάσχουσαι σφοδρῶς, ὅταν γέ τῳ τῶν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ταὐτοῦ
a /
γένους ἢ τοῦ θατέρου περιτύχωσι, τότε ταὐτόν τῳ Kal θάτερόν
του τἀναντία τῶν ἀληθῶν προσαγορεύουσαι ψευδεῖς καὶ ἀνόητοι
15 γεγόνασιν, οὐδεμία τε ἐν αὐταῖς τότε περίοδος ἄρχουσα οὐδ᾽
ς / > ΕῚ » »” > / \ / \
ἡγεμών ἐστιν: αἷς δ᾽ ἂν ἔξωθεν αἰσθήσεις τινὲς φερόμεναι καὶ
προσπεσοῦσαι ξυνεπισπάσωνται καὶ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἅπαν κύτος,
τόθ᾽ αὗται κρατούμεναι κρατεῖν δοκοῦσι. καὶ διὰ δὴ ταῦτα πάντα
τὰ παθήματα νῦν κατ᾽ ἀρχάς τε ἄνους ψυχὴ γίγνεται τὸ πρῶτον,
20 ὅταν εἰς σῶμα ἐνδεθῇ θνητόν. ὅταν δὲ τὸ τῆς αὔξης καὶ τροφῆς
ἐν ἑαυταῖς A. 16 αἷς δ᾽ dv: ἂν δ᾽ αὖ 8.

12 ὅταν ye: ὅταν τε AH. 15 ἐν αὐταῖς:

2. μεσότητας καὶ συνδέσει5] These
words merely signify ‘means and con-
necting links’; they contain no special
reference to the λεῖμμα, as Stallbaum
imagines.

3. Avral οὐκ ἦσαν] The dissolution
of the μεσότητες καὶ συνδέσεις would of
course involve the destruction of the
soul.

ἡ. ἀντίας.. πλαγίας... ὑπτίας] It is
not very clear what is the precise import
of these terms. Perhaps we may under-
stand the meaning to be that the false
report of the senses may be either a
negation of the truth, or diverse from it,

or contrary to it: e.g. fire is not hot, fire ©

is smoke, fire is cold. So far as the
figure is concerned, it would seem im-
possible to draw any distinction between
ἀντίας and ὑπτίας.

10. τά τε δεξιὰ ἀριστερά] The nature
of this inversion is thus expounded by

Proklos. Suppose a man to stand facing
the north; then he will of course have
the east on his right hand, the west on
his left: then let him lie down on his
back, still keeping the east on his right,
and then raise his feet in the air, so that
he stands on his head: he will now be
looking south, while east and west will
still be to right and to left as before.
But a person looking south in the natural
way has east to the left, and west to the
right. Therefore our inverted one, know-
ing that he is looking south, will feel as if
the east were on his left, though it is not
so. Thus along with his inverted position

44,4

his notion of right and left is inverted. ©

It seems to me however that such a
display of athletic skill is unnecessary.
All that Plato’s meaning requires is this :
if A and B stand face to face, B’s right is
of course opposite A’s left. But if A
stand on his head, still facing B, then

44 8] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 151

they displaced, so that the double and triple intervals, being
three of each sort, and the means and junctures of 3 and 4 and 2,
since they could not be utterly undone save by him that joined
them, were forced by them to turn in all kinds of ways and to
admit all manner of breaking and twisting of the circles, in
every possible form, so that they can barely hold to one another,
and though they are in motion, it is motion without law, some-
times reversed, now slanting, and now inverted. It is as though
a man should stand on his head, resting it on the earth and
supporting his feet against something aloft; in this case the man
in such condition and the spectators would reciprocally see right
and left reversed in the persons of each other. The same and
similar effects are produced with great intensity in the soul’s
revolutions: and when from external objects there meets them
anything that belongs to the class of the Same or to that of the
Other, then they declare its relative sameness or difference quite
contrariwise to the truth, and show themselves false and irra-
tional; and no circuit is governor or leader in them at that
time. And whenever sensations from without rushing up and fall-
ing upon them drag along with them the whole vessel of the soul,
then the circuits seem to govern though they really are governed.
On account then of all these experiences the soul is at first
bereft of reason, now as in the beginning, when she is confined in
a mortal body. But when the stream of growth and nutriment

B’s right will be opposite A’s right ; the
normal relation being inverted.

17. ἅπαν κύτος] The soul is, as it
were, an envelope containing the περιφοραί.
Stallbaum compares Laws 964 E, where
the city is compared to a Kiros.

18. αὗται κρατούμεναι κρατεῖν S0-
κοῦσι] Stallbaum, after Proklos, refers
αὗται to αἰσθήσεις, interpreting ‘they (the
sensations) seem to rule the soul, which
by rights rules them’. But this cannot be
admitted, because the important addition
‘by rights’ is not in the Greek and cannot
be dispensed with. Moreover the sensa-
tions do really and not only in appearance
govern the soul under these circumstances.
Martin’s interpretation seems to me
unquestionably right. αὗται refers to

περίοδοι, and is the antecedent to als.
When, Plato says, any sensations rush
upon the περίοδοι and carry the whole
soul along with them, then the περίοδοι
seem to govern, though really they are
governed. That is to say, the motion of
the circles which is imparted to them by
the impulse of the αἰσθήσεις is mistaken
for their own proper motion: their report of
the perception is received as true, though
in fact it is untrustworthy. The notion
in ἅπαν κύτος seems to be that when the
sensations are very overpowering, they
give an impulse to the whole soul: there
is no hesitation nor conflict of opinion.
Since then the soul ratifies without
question the report of the senses, she
seems to be acting regularly and rightly

οι

10

152 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [44 B—

ἔλαττον ἐπίῃ ῥεῦμα, πάλιν δὲ αἱ περίοδοι λαμβανόμεναι γαλήνης
τὴν ἑαυτῶν ὁδὸν ἴωσι καὶ καθιστῶνται μᾶλλον ἐπιόντος τοῦ
χρόνου, τότε ἤδη πρὸς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἰόντων σχῆμα ἑκάστων τῶν
κύκλων αἱ περιφοραὶ κατευθυνόμεναι, τό τε θάτερον καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν
προσαγορεύουσαι κατ᾽ ὀρθόν, ἔμφρονα τὸν ἔχοντα αὐτὰς γυγνό-
3 le) a \ 3 \ \ ‘ /
μενον ἀποτελοῦσιν. ἂν μὲν οὖν δὴ καὶ ξυνεπιλαμβάνηταί τις
3 \ \ U tc, ἢ ¢ , a \
ὀρθὴ τροφὴ παιδεύσεως, ὁλόκληρος ὑγιής τε παντελῶς, τὴν με-
γίστην ἀποφυγὼν νόσον, γίγνεται, καταμελήσας δέ, χωλὴν τοῦ
/ \ / ’ \ \ ΝΟ > [7 ,
βίου διαπορευθεὶς ζωήν, ἀτελὴς καὶ ἀνόητος eis “Avdov πάλιν
” a “Ὁ al
ἔρχεται. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὕστερά ποτε γίγνεται᾽' περὶ δὲ τῶν νῦν
͵ὕ a a > / \ \ \ , \
προτεθέντων δεῖ διελθεῖν ἀκριβέστερον, τὰ δὲ πρὸ τούτων περὶ
σωμάτων κατὰ μέρη τῆς γενέσεως καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς, δι’ ἅς τε αἰτίας
καὶ προνοίας γέγονε θεῶν, τοῦ μάλιστα εἰκότος ἀντεχομένοις
a
οὕτω Kai κατὰ ταῦτα πορευομένοις διεξιτέον.

9. ἀνόητος : ἀνόνητος A pr. m, 5.

apprehending the phenomena, whereas
really she is obeying an external impulse.

1. ἔλαττον ἐπίῃ ῥεῦμα] That is to
say, as the child grows older the im-
perious necessities of nutrition become
less predominant; also the sensations
from without grow less distracting. Ac-
cordingly the intellect has freer play to
exercise its functions.

5- ἔμφρονα...γιγνόμενον᾽͵ῇ͵ Note that
he is only put in the way to become
rational.

7. ὀρθὴ τροφὴ παιδεύσεως) These
words must be taken together, the geni-
tive depending upon τροφή. Stallbaum,
governing παιδεύσεως by ἐπιλαμβάνηται,
wrongly understands ὀρθὴ τροφὴ to refer
to the diminished influx of nutriment.

ὁλόκληρος] This is a technical term
of the Eleusinian ritual. Plato is fond
of borrowing such terms: cf. Phae-
drus 250 C ὁλόκληρα δὲ καὶ ἁπλᾶ καὶ
ἀτρεμῆ καὶ εὐδαίμονα φάσματα μυούμενοί
τε καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ,
καθαροὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀσήμαντοι τούτου ὃ
νῦν σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν, ὀστρέου
τρόπον δεδεσμευμένοι. See too Laws 759
c. Similarly ἀτελὴς isa ritual term. It
is also possible that in τὴν μεγίστην ἀπο-

φυγὼν νόσον we have an echo of the
ejaculation of the initiates, ἔφυγον κακόν,
εὗρον ἄμεινον : cf. Demosthenes de corona
P- 312 ὃ 259.

8. χωλήν] Compare 87 D, where
it is said that if a disproportion exists
between soul and body, the ὅλον ζῷον
is ἀξύμμετρον ταῖς μεγίσταις ξυμμετρίαις.

τοῦ βίου διαπορευθεὶς ζωήν] βίου
ζωὴτε ‘ the conscious existence of his life-
time’, ζωὴ being a more subjective term
than βίος. Compare on the other hand
Euripides Hercules furens 664 ἃ δυσγένεια
δ᾽ ἁπλᾶν ἂν | εἶχε (was βιοτάν.

10. ὕστερά ποτε ylyverat] i.e. be-
long to a later part of our exposition:
the subject is in fact dealt with in chap-
ters 4I—43.

τῶν νῦν προτεθέντων] I concur with
Stallbaum in referring τὰ viv προτεθέντα
to the inquiry into the operation of the
several senses, while τὰ πρὸ τούτων signifies
the investigation περὶ σωμάτων κατὰ μέρη
γενέσεως καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς.

13. τοῦ μάλιστα εἰκότος] We are
now fairly in the region of the physical,
where we must be content with the
‘ probable account’.

σ

p] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 153

flows in with smaller volume, and the revolutions calming down
go their own way and become settled as time passes on, then
the orbits are reduced to the form that belongs to the several
circles in their natural motion, and declaring accurately the
Other and the Same, they set their possessor in the way to
become rational. And if any just discipline of education help
this process, he becomes whole altogether without a blemish,
having made his escape from the most grievous of plagues; but
if he neglect it, he passes the days of his life halt and maimed,
and unhallowed and unreasonable he comes again to Hades.
These things however belong to a later time: we must discuss
more exactly the subject immediately before us. And as to
the matters which are previous to this, concerning the genera-
tion of the body in all its parts and concerning soul, and the
reasons and designs of the gods whereby they have come into
being, we must cling to the most probable theory, and by pro-

ceeding in this way so give an account of all.

44 D—47 E, ¢. xvi. The two revolu-
tions of the soul were enclosed in a sphe-
rical case which we call the head: and
all the rest of the body was framed that
it might minister to the head, aiding
it to move from place to place and pre-
serving it from harm. And to man the
gods assigned a forward progress as his
most natural motion; for this was more
dignified than the contrary. To dis-
tinguish front from rear they set the face
with its organs of sense in one part of
the head; and this they made the for-
ward and leading side. The first organs
they fashioned therein were the eyes that
lighten the body. Now vision comes to
pass on this wise. From the eyes issues
forth a stream of clear and subtle fire,
of the same substance as the sunlight
in the air; with which it mingles, and
the two combined meet the fire pro-
ceeding from the object which is in the
line of vision; and so the united fires,
becoming one body, transmit the vibra-
tions from the object to the eye. But
at night, when there is no more light
in the air, the visual fire on passing

forth into the darkness is quenched; and
when the eyelids are closed, the flow
of it is turned inwards, and calming the
motions that are within, it produces sleep,
more or less dreamless according as the
calm is complete.

Then it is shown how images in mirrors
arise through the reflection of the com-
bined fires when they meet upon a smooth
shining surface; how in plane mirrors
right and left are reversed in the re-
flection; and how in a concave mirror,
when it is held in one position, right and
left are not transposed, but if it be held
in another, the image is inverted,

But we must remember that all these
physical laws are but a means to an end ;
we must learn to distinguish between
spiritual causes, which are primary, and
material: causes, which are only sub-
sidiary: and though both must be ex-
plained, the first alone is the true object
of the wise man’s search. Now the true
motive of the gods in bestowing sight
upon man was the attainment of phi-
losophy by him: for had we never seen
the celestial motions and from them

σι

154

XVI. Τὰς μὲν δὴ θείας περιόδους δύο οὔσας τὸ τοῦ παντὸς
σχῆμα ἀπομιμησάμενοι περιφερὲς ὃν εἰς σφαιροειδὲς σῶμα ἐνέ-
δησαν, τοῦτο ὃ νῦν κεφαλὴν ἐπονομάζομεν, ὃ θειότατόν τ᾽ ἐστὶ
καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν πάντων δεσποτοῦν᾽ ᾧ καὶ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα παρέδοσαν

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [44 D—

a a a
ὑπηρεσίαν αὐτῷ Evvabpoicavtes θεοί, κατανοήσαντες, ὅτε πασῶν
ὅσαι κινήσεις ἔσοιντο μετέχοι. ἵν᾿ οὖν μὴ κυλινδούμενον ἐπὶ γῆς
ὕψη τε καὶ βάθη παντοδαπὰ ἐχούσης ἀποροῖ τὰ μὲν ὑπερβαίνειν,
ἔνθεν δὲ ἐκβαίνειν, dynw αὐτῷ τοῦτο καὶ εὐπορίαν ἔδοσαν᾽ ὅθεν δὴ

, ὄχημ᾽ αὐτᾷ ρ ὴ
a * / n ae 4 ,
μῆκος τὸ σῶμα ἔσχεν, ἐκτατά τε κῶλα καὶ καμπτὰ ἔφυσε τέτταρα
a >
θεοῦ μηχανησαμένου πορείαν, οἷς ἀντιλαμβανόμενον καὶ ἀπερειδό-
μενον διὰ πάντων τόπων πορεύεσθαι δυνατὸν γέγονε, τὴν τοῦ
θειοτάτου καὶ ἱερωτάτου φέρον οἴκησιν ἐπάνωθεν ἡμῶν. σκέλη
9 a , a A a
μὲν οὖν χεῖρές τε ταύτῃ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα προσέφυ πᾶσι" τοῦ δ᾽
ὄπισθεν τὸ πρόσθεν τιμιώτερον καὶ ἀρχικώτερον νομίζοντες θεοὶ
, \ λὺ a 7 ἣν Cc a gS ἔδ δὴ ὃ /
ταύτῃ TO πολὺ τῆς πορείας ἡμῖν ἔδοσαν. ἔδει δὴ διωρισμένον
ἔχειν καὶ ἀνόμοιον τοῦ σώματος τὸ πρόσθεν ἄνθρωπον. διὸ πρῶτον
μὲν περὶ τὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς κύτος, ὑποθέντες αὐτόσε τὸ πρόσωπον,
/ / lal Ὁ an
ὄργανα ἐνέδησαν τούτῳ πάσῃ τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς προνοίᾳ, καὶ διέταξαν
τὸ μετέχον ἡγεμονίας τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ κατὰ φύσιν πρόσθεν. τῶν
δὲ ὀργάνων πρῶτον μὲν φωσφόρα ξυνετεκτήναντο ὄμματα, τοιᾷδε
ἐνδήσαντες αἰτίᾳ. τοῦ πυρὸς ὅσον τὸ μὲν καίειν οὐκ ἔσχε, τὸ δὲ
lal JA a n
παρέχειν Pas ἥμερον, οἰκεῖον ἑκάστης ἡμέρας σῶμα ἐμηχανήσαντο
10 πορείαν : πορεῖα SZ.
μέτοχον SZ.

18 τῇ omittit A. διέταξαν τὸ μετέχον : διετάξαντο
22 post ἡμέρας commate vulgo interpungitur.

learnt number, philosophy could never
have been ours. But now we are able

alcOdveral τε μάλιστα Kal αἱ φρένες. τῆς
μέντοι φρονήσιος οὐδετέρῳ μέτεστιν, ἀλλὰ

to rule and correct the errant movements
of our soul by contemplating the serene
unswerving revolutions of the skies. And
to the same end too they gave sound
and music and harmony and rhythm,
that we might bring order from disorder
in our souls.

I. τὸ τοῦ παντὸς σχῆμα ἀπομιμησά-
pevot] Cf. 73 Ο: see too 81 A, where
the whole human frame is regarded as a
microcosm working on the same princi-
ples as the universe.

3. ὃ νῦν κεφαλήν] Plato, in placing
the ἀρχὴ of consciousness in the head,
agrees with Hippokrates: cf. de morbo
sacro vol. I Ὁ. 614 Kiihn διότι ἡ καρδίη

πάντων τουτέων ὁ ἐγκέφαλος αἴτιός ἐστιν.
This view was afterwards upheld by
Galen against the Peripatetics and Stoics,
who made the heart the sole ἀρχή. With
δεσποτοῦν compare a phrase in one of the
Hippokratean epistles, 111 824 Kiihn:
δεσπότην φύλακα διανοίης καλύπτουσιν
ἐγκέφαλον. :

5. πασῶν] i.e. all the six, excluding
rotation: cf. 43 B.

10. πορείαν] This reading has over-
whelming ms. support, and may very
well signify ‘as means of locomotion’:
there seems no sufficient ground for
changing it to πορεῖα.

13. προσέφυ] With this remarkable

E

45 A

B

45 8] TIMAIOS. 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
stronger case in Symposium 188 B καὶ
yap πάχναι καὶ χάλαζαι καὶ ἐρυσῖβαι ἐκ
πλεονεξίας καὶ ἀκοσμίας περὶ ἄλληλα τῶν
τοιούτων γίγνεται ἐρωτικῶν. The con-
struction is of course distinct from the
so-called ‘schema Pindaricum’, in which
the verb precedes its subject, and which
is not so very uncommon in Attic writers.

15. ἔδει δή] Forward motion is more
dignified than retrograde; and man is
to have the more dignified. But to at-
tain this there must be something to dis-
tinguish front from rear; therefore the
gods placed the sensory organs, eyes

nose and mouth, on the same side of
the head, forming the face; and this side
they called the front.

18. διέταξαν τὸ μετέχον] This read-
ing is distinctly preferable to διετάξαντο
μέτοχον. For μέτοχον ἡγεμονίας must be
the predicate: the meaning however
plainly is that the gods, to distinguish
front from back, ordered that the face,
which held the leading position (because
it contained the ὄργανα τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς
προνοίᾳ), should be τὸ κατὰ φύσιν πρόσ-
θεν.

22. οἰκεῖον ἑκάστης ἡμέρας σῶμα] This
punctuation is due to Madvig, who by

on

10

156 MAATONOS [45 B—

γίγνεσθαι. τὸ yap ἐντὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸν ὃν τούτου πῦρ εἴλικρινὲς
ἐποίησαν διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων ῥεῖν λεῖον καὶ πυκνόν, ὅλον μέν, μά-
Mota δὲ τὸ μέσον ξυμπιλήσαντες τῶν ὀμμάτων, ὥστε τὸ μὲν C
ἄλλο ὅσον παχύτερον στέγειν πᾶν, τὸ τοιοῦτον δὲ μόνον αὐτὸ
καθαρὸν διηθεῖν. ὅταν οὖν μεθημερινὸν ἦ φῶς περὶ τὸ τῆς ὄψεως
ῥεῦμα, τότ᾽ ἐκπῖπτον ὅμοιον πρὸς ὅμοιον, ξυμπαγὲς γενόμενον, ὃν
σώμα οἰκειωθὲν συνέστη κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὀμμάτων εὐθυωρίαν, ὅπῃπερ ᾿
ἂν ἀντερείδῃ τὸ προσπῖπτον ἔνδοθεν πρὸς ὃ τῶν ἔξω συνέπεσεν.
ὁμοιοπαθὲς δη δι’ ὁμοιότητα πᾶν γενόμενον, ὅτου τε ἂν αὐτό ποτε
ἐφάπτηται καὶ ὃ ἂν ἄλλο ἐκείνου, τούτων τὰς κινήσεις διαδιδὸν D
εἰς ἅπαν τὸ σῶμα μέχρι τῆς ψυχῆς αἴσθησιν παρέσχετο ταύτην,
ἡ δὴ ὁρᾶν φαμέν. ἀπελθόντος δὲ εἰς νύκτα τοῦ ξυγγενοῦς πυρὸς
ἀποτέτμηται' πρὸς γὰρ ἀνόμοιον ἐξιὸν ἀλλοιοῦταί τε αὐτὸ καὶ
κατασβέννυται, ξυμφυὲς οὐκέτι τῷ πλησίον ἀέρι γιγνόμενον, ἅτε

7 ὅπῃπερ ἄν: ἂν omittit A.

merely expunging a comma has restored
sense to the passage. Ordinarily acomma
is placed after ἡμέρας, leaving us to face
the inconvenient problem, how could the
gods make into body that which was
body already? For Martin’s attempt to
specialise the use of σῶμα in the sense of
‘definitely formed matter’ is hopeless.
Eschewing the comma however, we get
quite the right sense—they made it into a

substance similar to the daylight, which ,

is a subtle fire pervading the atmosphere.
Thus too the yap immediately following,
to which Stallbaum takes exception, is
justified ; it introduces the explanation
how the gods made the fire within us
similar to the fire without. There is an
obvious play between ἥμερον---ἡμέρας.
For Plato’s etymology of ἡμέρα see Craty-
lus 418 C.

4. τὸ τοιοῦτον] sc. τὸ εἰλικρινὲς καὶ
λεῖον καὶ πυκνόν.

6. ἕν σῶμα οἰκειωθέν] That is to say,
wherever the eye is directed, the stream
of fire from the eye and the fire in the
atmosphere, which is of one and the same
substance with it, combine and form a
ray of homogeneous fire all along the
line of vision.

Q ὅτου τε dy: ὅτου τε ἐὰν A.

το. τούτων Tas κινήσεις διαδιδόν] Pla-
to’s theory may thus be briefly explained.
There are three fires concerned : the fire
that streams from the eye, the fire of day-
light in the air, and the fire in the object
seen, which is the cause of its visibility.
The first two are absolutely homogeneous
one with the other and combine into a
perfectly uniform substance. This sub-
stance, on meeting the rays from the
object, receives their vibrations and trans-
mits them to the eye, whence they are
delivered to the seat of consciousness, at
which point of the process perception
takes place. The problem with which
Plato has to deal is, how is action at a
distance effected? This he ingeniously at-
tempts to explain by the hypothesis of an
extension of the substance of the perci-
pient in the direction of the object: for
the ὄψεως ῥεῦμα is just as much part of
ourselves as the brain or hand: this is
clear from 64 D. If this passage be com-
pared with the statements in Zheaetetus
156 A foll. or 182 A, it will be seen that
the physical theory of the Zimaeus fits in
perfectly well with the metaphysical doc-
trine of perception in the 7heaetetus.

It is plain too that Plato’s theory is

D] TIMAIOS. 157

but not of burning, they contrived to form into a substance akin
to the light of every day. The fire within us, which is akin to
the daylight, they made to flow pure smooth and dense through
the eyes, having made close the whole fabric of the eyes and
especially the pupils, so that they kept back all that was coarser
and suffered only this to filter through unmixed and pure.
Whenever then there is daylight surrounding the current of
vision, then this issues forth as like into like, and coalescing with
the light is formed into one uniform substance in the direct line
of vision, wherever the stream issuing from within strikes upon
some external object that falls in its way. So the whole from
its uniformity becomes sympathetic ; and whenever it comes in
contact with anything else, or anything with it, it passes on the
motions thereof over the whole body until they reach the soul,
and thus causes that sensation which we call seeing. But when
its kindred fire departs into night, the visual current is cut off:
for issuing into an alien element it is itself changed and quenched,
having no longer a common nature with the surrounding air,

peculiar to himself and quite diverse from
the Empedoklean (or Demokritean) doc-
trine of effluences, with which Stallbaum
confuses it; although the two theories
have some points in common, as appears
from the statement of Aristotle de sensu
437> 11 foll. Empedokles, as Aristotle
informs us, wavered in his explanation,
sometimes adopting the dzoppoal afore-
said, sometimes comparing the eye to
a lantern, sending forth its visual ray
through the humours and membranes
which correspond to the frame of the
lantern. But as propounded in the pas-
sage quoted by Aristotle (302—310 Kars-
ten), this notion amounts merely to a
metaphor or analogy and is not worked
up into a physical theory : it agrees how-
ever with Plato in taking fire for the
active force of the eye. The doctrine of
effluences from the object corresponding
to πόροι in the percipient is attributed to
Empedokles in Meno 76 c: see too Ari-
stotle de gen. et corr. 1 viii 324> 25 foll.
Plato himself assumes an effluence of rays

from the object, but this has little resem-
blance to the Empedoklean dzroppoat.
An exposition of the peculiar theory of
Demokritos will be found in Theophrastos
de sensu § 49 foll. Aristotle’s theory of
vision is expounded in de anima 11 vii and

“ fee

11. μέχρι τῆς ψυχῆς] See note on
43 Ὁ.

12. ἢ δή] ‘whereby’ we see. The
physical process is the soul’s instrument :
cf. Theaetetus 184 6.

14. κατασβένννται] Plato explains quite
clearly what he means by ‘extinguished ’.
The visual fire, issuing into air destitute
of light, finds no kindred substance with
which to coalesce: it is thus modified,
and losing its proper nature becomes un-
able to carry on the process of vision.
Aristotle however, catching at the word
κατασβέννὺυται, asks τίς yap ἀπόσβεσις φω-
Tos ἐστιν ; σβέννυται γὰρ ἣ ὑγρῷ ἣ ψυχρῷ
τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ξηρόν, οἷον δοκεῖ τό τ᾽ ἐν τοῖς
ἀνθρακώδεσιν εἶναι πῦρ καὶ ἡ φλόξ, ὧν τῷ
φωτὶ οὐδέτερον φαίνεται ὑπάρχον. It is

-ι

15

158

πῦρ οὐκ ἔχοντι.

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[45 D—

\ 2
mavetat τε οὖν ὁρῶν, ἔτι Te ἐπαγωγὸν ὕπνου

ε' al \
γίγνεται" σωτηρίαν yap ἣν οἱ θεοὶ τῆς ὄψεως ἐμηχανήσαντο, τὴν
τῶν βλεφάρων φύσιν, ὅταν ταῦτα ξυμμύσῃ, καθείργνυσι τὴν E
τοῦ πυρὸς ἐντὸς δύναμιν, ἡ δὲ διαχεῖ τε καὶ ὁμαλύνει τὰς ἐντὸς

, « θ a δὲ ¢ / J [4 δὲ λλῆ
κινήσεις, ὁμαλυνθεισῶν δὲ ἡσυχία γίγνεται, γενομένης δὲ πολλῆς
μὲν ἡσυχίας βραχυόνειρος ὕπνος ἐμπίπτει, καταλειφθεισῶν δέ
τίνων κινήσεων μειζόνων, οἷαι καὶ ἐν οἵοις ἂν τόποις λείπωνται,

rn a / \a ¥
τοιαῦτα Kal τοσαῦτα παρέσχοντο ἀφομοιωθέντα ἐντὸς ἔξω τε

ἐγερθεῖσιν ἀπομνημονευόμενα φαντάσματα.

τὸ δὲ περὶ τὴν τῶν

κατόπτρων εἰδωλοποιίαν, καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐμφανῆ καὶ λεῖα, κατιδεῖν

,
οὐδὲν ἔτι χαλεπόν.

a a \
ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἐντὸς ἐκτός τε TOD πυρὸς ἑκατέρου

, , e
κοινωνίας ἀλλήλοις, ἑνός τε αὖ περὶ τὴν λειότητα ἑκάστοτε γε-

νομένου καὶ πολλαχῇ μεταρρυθμισθέντος, πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐξ B
ἀνάγκης ἐμφαίνεται, τοῦ περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον πυρὸς τῷ περὶ τὴν
ὄψιν πυρὶ περὶ τὸ λεῖον καὶ λαμπρὸν ξυμπαγοῦς γιγνομένου.
δεξιὰ δὲ φαντάζεται τὰ ἀριστερά, ὅτι τοῖς ἐναντίοις μέρεσι τῆς

1 ὕπνου γίγνεται: γίγνεται ὕπνου 8.

impossible to exonerate criticism of this
kind from the charge of ὀνομάτων θήρευ-
ots. The reference in de anima 111 xii
435° 5 is apparently to Empedokles, not
to Plato.

4. ἡ δὲ Staxet] sc. ἡ τοῦ πυρὸς δύ-
ναμις, not, as Stallbaum has it, ἡ τῶν
βλεφάρων φύσις : to say nothing of the
sense, the ἡ δὲ is sufficient to show that
the subject of διαχεῖ is different from that
of καθείργνυσι. Plato’s view is that when
the eyes are closed, the visual stream, un-
able to find an outlet, is directed inwards,
and the smooth and subtle flow of fire
mollifies and calms all the motions within,
thus inducing sleep.

8. ἀφομοιωθέντα ἐντός] 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 κίνησις 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 ἐντὸς ἔξω re. Martin,
construing them with ἀφομοιωθέντα, trans-

16 κατὰ post φαντάζεται habet A.

lates ‘images semblables ἃ des objets soit
intérieurs, soit extérieurs’. But what can
be meant by ‘ objets intérieurs’? I had
thought of substituting ἔξωθεν for ἔξω re,
‘copied within from without’: in which
case ἐγερθεῖσί τ᾽ 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
περὶ ἐνυπνίων.

11. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἐντός] 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 ὄψεως ῥεῦμα
and μεθημερινὸν φῶς 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

a

46 8] TIMAIOS. 159

which has in it no fire. Therefore it ceases from seeing and
moreover becomes an allurement to sleep. For the gods had
devised as a safeguard of the sight the structure of the eyelids ;
and when these are closed, they shut up the force of fire within ;
and this smoothes and calms the motions within; and when
these are calmed, quiet ensues. And if the quiet is profound,
sleep with few dreams falls on us; but if some of the stronger
motions are left, according to their nature and the places where
they remain, they engender visions corresponding in kind and in
number; which are images within us, and when we awake are
remembered as outside us. Now the explanation of reflections
in mirrors and all bright smooth surfaces is no longer hard to
discern. For because of the communion of the internal and
external fire, which again is united on the smooth surface and in
manifold ways deflected, all these reflections take place; the fire
that belongs to the face coalescing with the fire of the visual
current upon the surface of the smooth bright object. And left
appears right and right left, because mutually opposite particles

effected. τοῦ πυρὸς ἑκατέρου signifies not
the visual stream and the daylight, but
the visual stream (combined with the
daylight) and the rays from the object.

hese two fires combine upon the surface
of the mirror (ἐκτός), and the κινήσεις of
his combination are transmitted along
the visual stream and impressed upon the
retina (ἐντός). The foregoing interpreta-
tion gives the best meaning I can put
upon the curious phrase τῆς ἐντὸς ἐκτός
τε κοινωνίας, unless we may suppose that
Plato rather loosely said ‘the internal
and external combination of the two fires’
for ‘ the combination of the internal and
external fires’, But I have strong sus-
picions that ἐντὸς ἐκτός τε is a marginal
gloss upon ἑκατέρου. Seneca natur. guaest.
I v 1 Clearly expresses the distinctive cha-
racteristic of Plato’s theory of reflections:
‘de speculis duae opiniones sunt; alii
enim in illis simulacra cerni putant, id est
corporum nostrorum figuras a nostris cor-
poribus emissas ac separatas, alii non
imagines in speculo, sed ipsa adspict cor-

pora, retorta oculorum acie et in se rursus
reflexa’. The italicised words express
Plato’s opinion. πολλαχῇ μεταρρυθμισ-
θέντος refers, I conceive, to the various
angles at which the rays are reflected,
corresponding to the different angles of
incidence.

14. ἐμφαίνεται} ‘are reflected’. ἐμ-
φαίνεσθαι is the technical term. The
word ἔμφασις, ‘ reflection’, does not occur
in Plato but is frequent in Aristotle and
Theophrastos.

τοῦ περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον πυρός] i.e.
the fire belonging to the face, which is
the object reflected. We must suppose
the case of a person looking at his own
face in a mirror: what happens is that
the ray from the face, τὸ περὶ τὸ πρόσω-
mov, is checked on the surface of the
mirror and is then amalgamated with the
visual stream, τὸ περὶ τὴν ὄψιν, which
meets it at that spot. Plato’s theory of
course applies to all reflections, although
in this sentence he is speaking as of a
particular case,

160

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[46 B—

v ᾽ / 4 > \ \
ὄψεως περὶ τἀναντία μέρη γίγνεται ἐπαφὴ παρὰ τὸ καθεστὸς
ἔθος τῆς προσβολῆς" δεξιὰ δὲ τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ ἀριστερὰ
τοὐναντίον, ὅταν μεταπέσῃ συμπηγνύμενον ᾧ συμπήγνυται φῶς"
a δ 18 ς A / “
τοῦτο δέ, ὅταν ἡ τῶν κατόπτρων λειότης, ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν ὕψη C
5 λαβοῦσα, τὸ δεξιὸν εἰς τὸ ἀριστερὸν μέρος ἀπώσῃ τῆς ὄψεως καὶ

θάτερον ἐπὶ θάτερον.

κατὰ δὲ τὸ μῆκος στραφὲν τοῦ προσώπου

Φ΄.ν a 7 > a \ U \ \ »
ταὐτὸν τοῦτο ὕπτιον ἐποίησε πᾶν φαίνεσθαι, TO κάτω πρὸς TO ἄνω
/ a
τῆς αὐγῆς TOT ἄνω πρὸς TO κάτω πάλιν ἀπῶσαν.
Ταῦτ᾽ οὖν πάντα ἔστι τῶν Evvaitiwv, οἷς θεὸς ὑπηρετοῦσι
a κ᾿ es Pe een δος INP > a, !
10 χρῆται τὴν τοῦ ἀρίστου κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἰδέαν ἀποτελῶν" δοξά-

/ a
ζεται δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν πλείστων οὐ Evvaitia ἀλλ᾽ αἴτια εἶναι τῶν πάν- Ὁ
, “

των, ψύχοντα καὶ θερμαίνοντα πηγνύντα τε καὶ διαχέοντα καὶ ὅσα

a > , ὦ ’ \ γὼ Ζ΄ O\ a > 2O\ \
τοιαῦτα ἀπεργαζόμενα" λόγον δὲ οὐδένα οὐδὲ νοῦν eis οὐδὲν δυνατὰ
ΨΜ φ a , na
ἔχειν ἐστί. τῶν yap ὄντων ᾧ νοῦν μόνῳ κτᾶσθαι προσήκει, λεκτέον

1. περὶ τἀναντία μέρη] Plato’s
meaning will be readily understood by
means of a diagram, which, together with
the explanation, is borrowed from
Martin.

AB isa line in the mirror where it is
cut by a plane which also passes through
the eye of the observer and through the
object reflected. CD is the line where
the plane cuts the eye, ZF the line where
it cuts the object. D/H, CG are two rays
of the visual fire impinging upon the
mirror in the points G, H: EG, FH are
two rays from the objects impinging upon
the mirror and meeting DH, CG in the

A G H B

E F cy Ὁ

same two points. Then it will be seen
that the ray DH, which proceeds from
the right side of the eye, meets the ray
FH, proceeding from the right side of the
object: therefore (the angle of reflection
being equal to the angle of incidence)
the ray from F is reflected along HD
to the right side of the eye. Similarly

the ray ZG, issuing from the left of the
object, is reflected along GC to the left
side of the eye. This is a reversal of
what happens in the case of direct
vision (παρὰ τὸ καθεστὸς ἔθος τῆς προσ-
βολῆς). For if A and B look each other
in the face, A’s right eye will be opposite
B’s left, and so forth : but if 4 look at his
own face in the glass, the eye in the
reflection, which should be the left
relatively to the reflection, will be the
reflection of the right eye: for if A close
his right eye, the eye in the mirror
opposite his right will be closed. Plato’s
theory then is designed to explain why it
is that in a reflection the right side of the
visual current comes in contact with the
rays from the right side of the object,
whereas in direct vision it meets the rays
from the left of the object. Compare
Sophist 266 C διπλοῦν δὲ ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν φῶς.
οἰκεῖόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον περὶ τὰ λαμπρὰ
καὶ λεῖα εἰς ὃν ξυνελθὸν Tis ἔμπροσθεν
εἰωθυίας ὄψεως ἐναντίαν αἴσθησιν παρέχον
εἶδος ἀπεργάζηται.

4. ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν ὕψη λαβοῦσα]
ie. 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

D] TIMAIO¥. 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 cdnverse. 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 48 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 (xara
μῆκος στραφὲν τοῦ προσώπου), 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. Ἴ;

a silver spoon. This case is not noticed
by Plato, nor by Lucretius 7.7, Martin
gives a mathematical explanation of the
phenomena.

9. τῶν ξυναυτίων] 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., νοῦς operating
ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον. 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 νοῦς
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, ἀνάγκη, 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.

Il

5

10

15

162 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [46 υ--

ψυχήν τοῦτο δὲ ἀόρατον, πῦρ δὲ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆ καὶ ἀὴρ σώ-
ματα πάντα ὁρατὰ yéyove’ τὸν δὲ νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐραστὴν
ἀνάγκη τὰς τῆς ἔμφρονος φύσεως αἰτίας πρώτας μεταδιώκειν, ὅσαι
δὲ ὑπ’ ἄλλων μὲν κινουμένων, ἕτερα δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης κινούντων
γίγνονται, δευτέρας. ποιητέον δὴ κατὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡμῖν" λεκτέα
μὲν ἀμφότερα τὰ τῶν αἰτιῶν γένη, χωρὶς δὲ ὅσαι μετὰ νοῦ καλῶν
καὶ ἀγαθῶν δημιουργοὶ καὶ ὅσαι μονωθεῖσαι φρονήσεως τὸ τυχὸν
ἄτακτον ἑκάστοτε ἐξεργάζονται. τὰ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὀμμάτων ξυμμετ-
αἰτια πρὸς τὸ ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν ἣν νῦν εἴληχεν εἰρήσθω" τὸ δὲ
μέγιστον αὐτῶν εἰς ὠφέλειαν ἔργον, δι᾿ ὃ θεὸς αὔθ᾽ ἡμῖν δεδώρηται,
μετὰ τοῦτο ῥητέον. ὄψις δὴ κατὰ τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον αἰτία τῆς μεγί-
στης ὠφελείας γέγονεν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τῶν νῦν λόγων περὶ τοῦ παντὸς
λεγομένων οὐδεὶς ἄν ποτε ἐρρήθη μήτε ἄστρα μήτε ἥλιον μήτε
οὐρανὸν ἰδόντων" νῦν δ᾽ ἡμέρα τε καὶ νὺξ ὀφθεῖσαι μῆνές τε καὶ
ἐνιαυτῶν περίοδοι μεμηχάνηνται μὲν ἀριθμόν, χρόνου δὲ ἔννοιαν
περί τε τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως ζήτησιν ἔδοσαν" ἐξ ὧν ἐπορισάμεθα
φιλοσοφίας γένος, οὗ μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν οὔτ᾽ ἦλθεν οὔτε ἥξει ποτὲ τῷ
θνητῷ γένει δωρηθὲν ἐκ θεῶν. λέγω δὴ τοῦτο ὀμμάτων μέγιστον
ἀγαθόν" τἄλλα δέ, ὅσα ἐλάττω, τί ἂν ὑωνοῖμεν ; ὧν 6 μὴ φιλόσοφος

4 ἄλλων μέν : ἀλλήλων Α. 9 ἔχειν: σχεῖν SZ.

3. τὰς τῆς ἔμφρονος φύσεως αἰτίας]
That is to say the final causes, the design
of Intelligence, as distinguished from the

physical means used to carry out the
design. Thus in the case of vision the

the following chapter. Plato does not
mean that there is a blind force existing
in nature, acting at random and producing
hap-hazard effects. Such a conception is
totally foreign to his system, in which the

δεύτεραι αἰτίαι are the physical laws which
Plato has set forth, the πρώτη αἰτία is
what he is presently about to state. Both
classes of cause are to be investigated by
the lover of truth, but the secondary only
for the sake of the primary: compare
68 E.

ὅσαι δὲ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων κινουμένων] κινου-
μένων, κινούντων are partitive genitives
‘such as are among things which are
moved by others’. ἐξ ἀνάγκης, i.e. with-
out an intelligent purpose (since these
ξυναίτια have λόγον οὐδένα οὐδὲ νοῦν els
οὐδέν), and not of their own free will.

7. ὅσαι μονωθεῖσαι φρονήσεως] The
nature of the two causes is dealt with in
the note on ἀνάγκη at the beginning of

one cause, the one ἀρχὴ κινήσεως, is
ψυχή. What he does mean is this. It
is idle to treat the physical forces of
nature as causes, since in themselves they
have no intelligence or purpose. They
are indeed designed and set in motion by
Intelligence for the best ends; but the
conditions of their action may be such
that sometimes their immediate results
are not good, and they have no power in
themselves to avoid such results; they
must operate inevitably according to the
law of their nature. The point is well
put by Mr D. D. Heath in an able essay
in the Fournal of Philology, vol. vii p.
111, where he is dealing with Aristotle’s
views of causation. ‘Any agent’, he

E

ATA

TIMAIOS. 163

47 8]

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
effects which do not naturally or necessarily
flow from those qualities which give it its
name or constitute its kind, but which
result from properties common to it and
other kinds, or from circumstances which
bring it into casual relation with the
thing it acts upon: a coal may break
your head as well as warm you’. See
Aristotle physica 11 iv 195> 31 foll. In
this sense only is an effect produced which
is τὸ τυχὸν ἄτακτον. The falling of the
coal is the natural effect of its gravity, a
property bestowed upon it by νοῦς : and
if your head happens to be in the line of
the coal’s descent, it is broken in con-

sequence of the ‘casual relation’ which is
thus established between it and the coal.
But this is in complete conformity with
the natural laws which arise solely from
the evolution of νοῦς.

16. ἐξ dv ἐπορισάμεθα] The true
final cause of sight then is the attainment
of philosophy, which is the ultimate result
of the knowledge of number, acquired by
observation of the celestial bodies. The
sciences of number and astronomy were
for Plato a propaedeutic to philosophy,
as we learn from Republic 525 A foll.:
and it is well known that he regarded
geometry as an indispensable part of a
liberal education.

11---2

164 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [47 B—

τυφλωθεὶς ὀδυρόμενος ἂν θρηνοῖ μάτην. ἀλλὰ τούτου λεγέσθω
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν αὕτη ἐπὶ ταῦτα αἰτία, θεὸν ἡμῖν ἀνευρεῖν δωρήσασθαί
τε ὄψιν, ἵνα τὰς ἐν οὐρανῷ κατιδόντες τοῦ νοῦ περιόδους χρησαί-
μεθα ἐπὶ τὰς περιφορᾶς τὰς τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διανοήσεως, ξυγγενεῖς

5 ἐκείναις οὔσας, ἀταράκτοις τεταραγμένας, ἐκμαθόντες δὲ καὶ λο- Ο
γισμῶν κατὰ φύσιν ὀρθότητος μετασχόντες, μιμούμενοι τὰς τοῦ
θεοῦ πάντως ἀπλανεῖς οὔσας, τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν πεπλανημένας καταστη-
σαίμεθα. φωνῆς τε δὴ καὶ ἀκοῆς πέρι πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, ἐπὶ
ταὐτὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἕνεκα παρὰ θεῶν δεδωρῆσθαι. λόγος τε γὰρ ἐπ᾽

ιο αὐτὰ ταῦτα τέτακται, τὴν μεγίστην ξυμβαλλόμενος εἰς αὐτὰ
μοῖραν, ὅσον τ᾽ αὖ μουσικῆς φωνῇ χρήσιμον [πρὸς ἀκοήν], ἕνεκα
ἁρμονίας ἐστὶ δοθέν" ἡ δὲ ἀρμονία, ξυγγενεῖς ἔχουσα φορὰς ταῖς ἐν D
ἡμῖν τῆς ψυχῆς περιόδοις, τῷ μετὰ νοῦ προσχρωμένῳ Μούσαις
οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἄλογον, καθάπερ νῦν εἶναι δοκεῖ χρήσιμος, ἀλλ᾽

15 ἐπὶ τὴν γεγονυῖαν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνάρμοστον ψυχῆς περίοδον εἰς κατα-
κόσμησιν καὶ συμφωνίαν ἑαυτῇ σύμμαχος ὑπὸ Μουσῶν δέδοται"
καὶ ῥυθμὸς αὖ διὰ τὴν ἄμετρον ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ χαρίτων ἐπιδεᾶ yuyvo- E
μένην ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἕξιν ἐπίκουρος ἐπὶ ταὐτὰ ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν
ἐδόθη.

20

XVII. Τὰ μὲν οὖν παρεληλυθότα τῶν εἰρημένων πλὴν βρα-

1 τούτου: τοῦτο SZ.
2 ἀνευρεῖν : εὑρεῖν Α.

1. θρηνοῖ μάτην] This, as Lindau
and Stallbaum have pointed out, is an
echo of Euripides Phoenissae 1762 ἀλλὰ
γὰρ τί ταῦτα θρηνῶ καὶ μάτην ὀδύρομαι ;

3. ἵνα τὰς ἐν οὐρανῷ] Compare
Republic 500 C, where we read of the
philosophers els τεταγμένα ἄττα καὶ κατὰ
ταὐτὰ ἀεὶ ἔχοντα ὁρῶντας καὶ θεωμένους
οὔτ᾽ ἀδικοῦντα οὔτ᾽ ἀδικούμενα vm ἀλ-
λήλων, κόσμῳ δὲ πάντα καὶ κατὰ λόγον
ἔχοντα, ταῦτα μιμεῖσθαί τε καὶ ὅτι μάλιστα
ἀφομοιοῦσθαι.

11. ὅσον τ᾽ αὖ μουσικῆς] The reading
of the text, although I cannot consider it
altogether satisfactory, affords a fairly
good sense. μουσική is a comprehensive
term, including much more than ‘music’
in the modern sense. Plato is therefore
limiting the signification in the present

2 αὕτη ἐπὶ ταῦτα αἰτία : αὐτῇ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίᾳ 8.
10 τὴν ante μεγίστην omittunt SZ.
A pr. m. φωνῆς HSZ. mox inclusi πρὸς ἀκοήν.

Il φωνῇ: φωνῆ
18 ἐπὶ ταὐτά: ἐπὶ ταῦτα Ζ.

case to such μουσικὴ as consists of musical
and vocal sounds, which he says were
given us for the sake of harmony. The
high educational value which Plato set
upon music and harmony is again and
again emphasised in his writings: see for
instance Republic 401 D, Laws 666 D.
Stallbaum’s reading and punctuation are
alike unsatisfactory. The words πρὸς
ἀκοὴν appear to me superfluous and un-
meaning: I conceive them to have been
a marginal gloss on φωνῇ.

12. ξυγγενεῖς ἔχουσα φοράς] Thus
is brought out the significance of the
harmonic ratios in 35 B: the laws of
harmony and the laws of being are the
same ; the former being just one special
aspect of the latter.

47 E—48 E, ¢. xvii. Hitherto our dis-

Ε] 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-
cerned with the works of Intelligence ;
but now we must likewise take account
of the operations of Necessity. For all
the fabric of this universe is the effect of
Intelligence acting upon Necessity and
influencing it to produce the best possible
result. Therefore in our account of crea-
tion we must find room for the Errant
Cause. And first we must set forth the
origin of fire and the other elements,
which no man has yet declared. But in
dealing with things material we cannot
find any infallible first principle where-
upon to base our discourse; we must be
content, as we have always said, with the
probable account. And so with heaven’s

blessing let us set forth on a new and
strange journey of discovery.

20. τὰ μὲν οὖν παρεληλυθότα] Up
to this point Plato has been treating of
the general design and plan of creation,
πλὴν βραχέων, with some small excep-
tions, e.g. the account of the cupperairia
which contribute to the process of vision.
The inquiry into the effects of necessity,
to which a great part of the remainder
of the dialogue is devoted, consists of
physical and physiological speculations
concerning the various properties and
forms of matter and their interaction
one on another. This inquiry is how-
ever introduced by a metaphysical theory
of the first importance, without which it

σι

166

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[47 E—

χέων ἐπιδέδεικται τὰ διὰ νοῦ δεδημιουργημένα᾽ δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ δι᾽
ἀνάγκης γιγνόμενα τῷ λόγῳ παραθέσθαι. μεμυιγμένη γὰρ οὖν ἡ

“Ὁ “Ὁ / / > ᾽ ‘ Ν a / > 48
τοῦδε του κοσμοῦ γένεσις ἐξ αναγκὴς TE καὶ VOU συστάσεως ἐἔγεν- A

a a ᾽ \ n
νήθη" vod δὲ ἀνάγκης ἄρχοντος τῷ πείθειν αὐτὴν τῶν γυγνομένων
a a /
Ta πλεῖστα ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον ἄγειν, ταύτῃ κατὰ ταῦτά τε OV
a > 3 \ ,
ἀνάγκης ἡττωμένης ὑπὸ πειθοῦς ἔμφρονος οὕτω κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ξυνί-

στατο τόδε τὸ πᾶν.

εἴ τις οὖν ἣ γέγονε κατὰ ταῦτα ὄντως ἐρεῖ,

μικτέον καὶ τὸ τῆς πλανωμένης εἶδος αἰτίας, ἧ φέρειν πέφυκεν.

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 7zmaeus is
absolutely essential before we can even
think of beginning to understand Plato.
To this theory the present chapter is
prefatory.

3. ἐξ ἀνάγκης τε kal vod συστάσεως]
The first point which it is indispensable
precisely to determine is the meaning
of ἀνάγκη and ἡ πλανωμένη αἰτία, which
clearly signify one and the same thing.
I have already in the note on 46 £ 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 ἀνάγκη is in any sense what-
soever an independent force external to
νοῦς: this would be totally repugnant, as
I have said, to the cardinal doctrine of
Platonism, that the only ἀρχὴ κινήσεως is
ψυχή. For this reason we must not sup-
pose that there is in matter as such any
resisting power which thwarts the efforts
of νοῦς: this is an absolute misconcep-
tion. Matter, gua matter, being soul-
less, is entirely without any sort of power
of its own: whatever power it has is of
ψυχή. What then is ἀνάγκη or the πλα-
νωμένη αἰτίαὐ It signifies the forces of
matter originated by νοῦς, the sum total
of the physical laws which govern the
material universe: that is to say, the
laws which govern the existence of νοῦς
in the form of plurality. Now these
laws, once set in motion, must needs
act constantly according to their nature;

else would νοῦς be at variance with it-
self. Therefore all nature’s forces must
follow their proper impulse according to
the conditions in which they are for the
time being: if fire and a hayrick come in
collision, it is ἀνάγκη that the rick be
burnt, though fire was not designed to
burn ricks. But this implies no origi-
nating power in matter; it means only
that νοῦς, having once evolved itself in the
pluralised form, the laws of its existence
in that form are constant. Material na-
ture is a machine wound up to go of
itself; νοῦς is not for ever checking or
correcting its action in detail—see Laws
903 B foll. But there is something more
to be said. It is a necessary law for νοῦς,
to exist in the form of material nature:
and within this sphere we see that things
do not always work, at any rate imme-
diately, ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον. It was im- |
possible, we must suppose, for νοῦς 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 ἀνάγκη. It is then
in the final analysis the law by which
νοῦς 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 νοῦς |
by any external cause, for there is none

ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 167

48 A]

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.

such: it is in the very nature of νοῦς itself
in its pluralised form. The problem of the
πλανωμένη αἰτία is the same as the problem
concerning the nature of evil, of which
Plato has offered us no explicit solution.

6. ἡττωμένης ὑπὸ πειθοῦς ἔμφρο-
vos] In these words is indicated the
difference between the ἀνάγκη of Plato
and the ἀνάγκη 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. τὸ τῆς πλανωμένης εἶδος αἰτίας]
The name πλανωμένη αἰτία does not sig-
nify that Plato attributed any degree of
uncertainty or caprice to the operation of

ἀνάγκη. Every effect is the result of a

Thus then

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 ἀνάγκη. Hence Plato calls ἀνάγκη the
πλανωμένη αἰτία, 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 νοῦς, but frequently not
in those which are indirectly due to it
through the action of ἀνάγκη. It is ex-
tremely inaccurate in Stallbaum to say
that the πλανωμένη αἰτία is ‘materia cor-
porum’.

ἡ φέρειν πέφυκεν] Literally ‘how it
is its nature to set in motion’. The
πλανωμένη αἰτία 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.

σι

σι

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [48 a—

168

ὧδε οὖν πάλιν ἀναχωρητέον, καὶ λαβοῦσιν αὐτῶν τούτων προσή- B
κουσαν ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν αὖθις αὖ, καθάπερ περὶ τῶν τότε, νῦν οὕτω
περὶ τούτων πάλιν ἀρκτέον ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. τὴν δὴ πρὸ τῆς οὐρανοῦ
Lol \
γενέσεως πυρὸς ὕδατός τε Kal ἀέρος καὶ γῆς φύσιν θεατέον αὐτὴν
καὶ τὰ πρὸ τούτου πάθη. νῦν γὰρ οὐδείς πω γένεσιν αὐτῶν μεμή-
> > c > / an Ly, Μ \ 4 ᾽ A
νυκεν, GAN ὡς εἰδόσι, πῦρ ὅ τί ποτε ἔστι Kal ἕκαστον αὐτῶν,
λέγομεν ἀρχὰς αὐτὰ τιθέμενοι, "στοιχεῖα τοῦ παντός, προσῆκον
3 a te Δ ς > nr ” , ϑιων «ς Ν -“ \ σ
αὐτοῖς οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὡς ἐν συλλαβῆς εἴδεσι μόνον εἰκότως ὑπὸ τοῦ καὶ
a a c a
βραχὺ φρονοῦντος ἀπεικασθῆναι. νῦν δὲ οὖν τό ye παρ᾽ ἡμῶν
df
ὧδε ἐχέτω" τὴν μὲν περὶ ἁπάντων εἴτε ἀρχὴν εἴτε ἀρχὰς εἴτε ὅπῃ
ὃ aA / / \ le) > 4 / ὃ νΝ \ δέ ὃ \ δὲ ὸ
οκεῖ τούτων πέρι τὸ νῦν οὐ ῥητέον, δι’ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν, διὰ δὲ T
- a \
χαλεπὸν εἶναι κατὰ τὸν παρόντα τρόπον τῆς διεξόδου δηλῶσαι τὰ
ὃ “ ἈΚ) 3 ς a ” lal δ'. ἃ , 4“. > 3 3
οκοῦντα. μήτ᾽ οὖν ὑμεῖς οἴεσθε δεῖν ἐμὲ λέγειν, οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς αὖ
. “Ὁ a Ὁ A
πείθειν ἐμαυτὸν εἴην av δυνατός, ὡς ὀρθῶς ἐγχειροῖμ᾽ ἂν τοσοῦτον
\
ἐπιβαλλόμενος ἔργον" τὸ δὲ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ῥηθὲν διαφυλάττων, τὴν Ὁ
τῶν εἰκότων λόγων δύναμιν, πειράσομαι μηδενὸς ἧττον εἰκότα,
Ὁ" ,ὔ ; ἮΨ . > > 3 lal +.2 / \ /
μᾶλλον δέ, καὶ ἔμπεροσθεν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς περὶ ἑκάστων καὶ ξυμπάντων
λέγειν. θεὸν δὴ καὶ νῦν ἐπ᾽ ἀρχῇ τῶν λεγομένων σωτῆρα ἐξ

2 ἑτέραν ἀρχήν : ἀρχὴν ἑτέραν 8.
8 οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὡς coniecit H. οὐδαμῶς A. οὐδ᾽ ὡς SZ.

2. καθάπερ περὶ τῶν τότε] i.e. as we
began at the beginning in expounding
τὰ διὰ νοῦ δεδημιουργημένα, so we must
begin at the beginning again in our ex-
position of τὰ δι᾽ ἀνάγκης γιγνόμενα.

3. πρὸ τῆς οὐρανοῦ γενέσεως] The
question next arises, what is meant by
the nature of fire, &c before the gene-
ration of the universe, and the conditions
anterior to this? Plato evidently means
that we have to analyse these so-called
elements into their primary constituents.
Earlier thinkers had treated them as if
they were simple primary substances:
Plato, however, justly maintains that
they are complex. Now as these sub-
stances exist in the κόσμος, they are
everywhere more or less complete and
in their finished forms; therefore in ana-
lysing them into their first beginnings,
we are dealing with rudimentary forms
which nowhere exist in the κόσμος, but
which are analytically prior to those

forms which do exist in the κόσμος. 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 στοι-
xeta, it will be apparent that they never
could have an independent existence. mpd
TobTou= mpd Tod γενέσθαι τὸν ovpavov—the
state of fire, air, &c prior (in analysis) to
their complete form.

8. ἐν συλλαβῆς εἴδεσι) This is an
allusion to the common meaning of στοι-
xeta=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 στοιχεῖον 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. εἴτε ἀρχὴν εἴτε ἀρχάς] Plato
says he will not, like the early Ionians,
attempt to find some principle or prin-

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-

D] TIMAIOS.

ciples to serve as an dpx7 for matter,
solely for the reason that in a physical
inquiry (κατὰ τὸν παρόντα τρόπον τῆς
διεξόδου) it is hardly possible to arrive
at such an ἀρχή : a real ἀρχὴ can only be
attained by dialectic. The Ionian ἀρχαὶ
were no dpxal at all. And so we may
analyse matter into the ultimate geo-
metrical forms, which are the law of its
composition, but these are not properly
speaking ἀρχαί. In the following chapter
Plato, treating the subject metaphysically,
does at least propound an ἀρχὴ for matter
by far more recondite than any which had
yet been conceived.

12. τῆς διεξόδου] Cf. Parmenides 136 E
ἄνευ ταύτης τῆς διὰ πάντων διεξόδου τε Kal
πλάνης ἀδύνατον ἐντυχόντα τῷ ἀληθεῖ νοῦν

ἔχειν.

17. καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς] Stall-
baum, who joins μᾶλλον δὲ with what fol-
lows, proposes to read κατὰ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν.
But no change is necessary. ἔμπροσθεν
means ‘where we were before’, viz. at
the starting-point of the inquiry. I think
Martin is justified in his rendering ‘reve-
nant sur mes pas jusqu’au commence-
ment’. Lindau suggests μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἢ Kar’
ἔμπροσθεν, which is not Greek, as I
think.

18. ἐξ ἀτόπου kal ἀήθους διηγήσεως]
The metaphor is evidently taken from
mariners embarking on a voyage of dis-
covery in some new and unexplored
ocean. Plato prays to be delivered from
the perils of the voyage and brought safe

Io

170 TAATONO® [48 D—

> , \ of , ‘ ‘ n > , ὃ

ἀτόπου καὶ ἀήθους διηγήσεως πρὸς τὸ τῶν εἰκότων δόγμα δια-
/ c an > / / > ,

σῴζειν ἡμᾶς ἐπικαλεσάμενοι πάλιν ἀρχώμεθα λέγειν.

XVIII. ἩἫἪ δ᾽ οὖν αὖθις ἀρχὴ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἔστω μειζόνως
τῆς πρόσθεν διῃρημένη. τότε μὲν γὰρ δύο εἴδη διειλόμεθα, νῦν
δὲ τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ἡμῖν δηλωτέον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ δύο ἱκανὰ ἦν
ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν λεχθεῖσιν, ev μὲν ὡς παραδείγματος εἶδος
ὑποτεθέν, νοητὸν καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὄν, μίμημα δὲ παραδείγ-
ματος δεύτερον, γένεσιν ἔχον καὶ ὁρατόν' τρίτον δὲ τότε μὲν οὐ
διειλόμεθα, νομίσαντες τὰ δύο ἕξειν ἱκανῶς, νῦν δὲ 6 λόγος ἔοικεν

» ’ A \ > \ . >, Lal / >

εἰσαναγκάζειν χαλεπὸν καὶ ἀμυδρὸν εἶδος ἐπιχειρεῖν λόγοις ἐμφα-

νίσαι. τίν᾽ οὖν ἔχον δύναμιν κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὸ ὑποληπτέον ;

τοιάνδε μάλιστα, πάσης εἶναι γενέσεως ὑποδοχὴν αὐτήν, οἷον
ΤΙ ἀήθους: ἀληθοῦς A.

to the haven of probability. Martin is
certainly mistaken in translating ‘pour
qu’elle nous préserve de discours inco-
hérents et bizarres’. Plato shows him-
self fully alive to the difficulty of the
subject he is about to treat and the entire
novelty of his speculations. A glimpse
of his theory of matter has been afforded
in the Phzlebus, but here he carries his
analysis far deeper. Compare 53 B, where
he calls his very peculiar corpuscular
theory ἀήθης λόγος.

48 Ε---52 Ὁ, Ζ. xviii. We must extend
the classification of all things which we
formerly made. To the ideal model and
the sensible copy which we then ‘as-
sumed must be added the substrate in
which generation takes place. For con-
sider: the four elements, as men call
them, fire, air, water, earth, are con-
tinually changing places and passing one
into another, so that we can never with
any security say, this is fire, or this is
water. Indeed we should not apply the
word λές to them at all, nor any other
expression which signifies permanency:
the most we can do is to say they are
‘such-like’. To the substrate alone is it
safe to apply the term ‘this’. For it
alone never changes its nature; but is as
it were a matrix receiving all the forms
that enter into it, which forms are the

sensible semblances of the eternal ideas.
So then we must distinguish these three,
the eternal type, the generated copy, and
the substrate wherein it is generated.
This substrate must be without form or
quality, else it would not faithfully ex-
press the images that enter into it, but
would intrude its own attributes. It is
not then fire nor any other of the ele-
ments, but a viewless and formless nature,
which takes on it now the form of fire,
anon the form of water, and all per-
ceptible things. But since we talk of
images entering in, we must ask, is there
a type, an idea of fire and the rest where-
of we behold the images? or are the
visible images themselves the most real
existence which is? We cannot dwell on
this question at length: but we may
briefly answer it thus. If knowledge
differs from true opinion, then the ideas
exist beyond the sensible images; if not,
then sensibles alone are realities. Now
it is a fact that knowledge differs from
true opinion; for one is the result of
teaching, the other of persuasion; one is
the possession of all men, the other of
the gods alone and but a few among man-
kind. Therefore the ideas exist eternally,
neither passing forth of their own nature
nor receiving aught therein, apprehensible
by thought alone: next there are the

49 A

49 A] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ, 171

familiar discourse to the haven of probability; and thus let
us begin once more.

XVIII. Our new exposition of the universe then must be
founded on a fuller classification than the former. Then we
distinguished two forms, but now a third kind must be disclosed.
The two were indeed enough for our former discussion, when
we laid down one form as the pattern, intelligible and change-
less, the second as a copy of the pattern, which comes into
being and is visible. A third we did not then distinguish,
deeming that the two would suffice: but now, it seems, by
constraint of our discourse we must try to express and make
manifest a form obscure and dim. What power then must we
conceive that nature has given it? something like this. It is
the receptacle, and as it were the nurse, of all becoming. This

images called after their names, sensible
and perishable and ever in transition:
thirdly the receptacle of all becoming,
which is space, imperishable and imper-
ceptible, apprehended by a kind of
bastard reasoning. This third is the
cause why, like men in a dream, we de-
clare that everything which exists must be
in some place, and what is nowhere in
heaven or earth is nothing. And this
dream we carry into the region of waking
verity, even the ideas; we do not remem-
ber that, since an image is not its own
type, it must be imaged in something else,
or else be not at all: for true reason de-
clares that, while the type is one, and the
image another, they must be apart; for
they cannot exist one in the other and so
be one and two at once.

3. μειζόνως] i.e. the classification must
be more comprehensive: the former left
no room for one of the most important
principles in nature.

4. τότε μὲν γάρ] The reference is to
28 A, where Timaeus divides the universe
into ὃν and γιγνόμενον.

5. τὰ μὲν γὰρ δύο ἱκανὰ ἦν] 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 ἄπει-
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. μίμημα] 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 piunows: the old
μέθεξις has disappeared never to return.

10. χαλεπὸν kal ἀμυδρὸν εἶδος] 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 χαλεπὸν μὲν yap καὶ ἀμφισβητήσιμον
ὃ κελεύω σε σκοπεῖν. It must be remem-
bered too that Plato’s conception was an
absolute novelty in philosophy. Aristotle
has a curiously perverse reference to the
theory of the Zimaeus in de gen. et corr.
II i 329? 13 foll.

12. ὑποδοχήν] The substrate is the
‘receptacle’ of all things that become,
inasmuch as it provides them with a place

TIAATONOS [49 A—

τιθήνην. εἴρηται μὲν οὖν ἀληθές, Set δὲ ἐναργέστερον εἰπεῖν
a ‘ /
περὶ αὐτοῦ: χαλεπὸν δέ, ἄλλως τε Kal διότι προαπορηθῆναι περὶ B
a \
πυρὸς Kal τῶν μετὰ πυρὸς ἀναγκαῖον τούτου χάριν' τούτων γὰρ
a n \ “ ΩΝ el
εἰπεῖν ἕκαστον, ὁποῖον ὄντως ὕδωρ χρὴ λέγειν μᾶλλον ἢ πῦρ Kal
a n a ἡ
ὁποῖον ὁτιοῦν μᾶλλον ἢ καὶ ἅπαντα καθ᾽ ἕκαστόν τε, οὕτως ὥστε
a a s
τινὶ πιστῷ καὶ βεβαίῳ χρήσασθαι λόγῳ, χαλεπόν. πῶς οὖν δὴ
a a 3 “ , x»
τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ πῇ καὶ τί περὶ αὐτῶν εἰκότως διαπορηθέντες ἂν
a « an ΄ c
λέγοιμεν ; πρῶτον μέν, ὃ δὴ νῦν ὕδωρ ὠνομάκαμεν, πηγνύμενον, ὡς Ὁ
a A Φ' ΠΝ / \
δοκοῦμεν, λίθους Kal γῆν γιγνόμενον ὁρῶμεν, τηκόμενον δὲ καὶ
a a / /
διακρινόμενον ad ταὐτὸν τοῦτο πνεῦμα Kal ἀέρα, ξυγκαυθέντα δὲ
»,. r > / δὲ Lal θὲ ὶ θὲ > ἰδέ
ἀέρα πῦρ, ἀνάπαλιν δὲ πῦρ συγκριθὲν καὶ κατασβεσθὲν εἰς ἰδέαν
,
τε ἀπιὸν αὖθις ἀέρος, καὶ πάλιν ἀέρα ξυνιόντα καὶ πυκνούμενον
νέφος καὶ ὁμίχλην, ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἔτι μᾶλλον ξυμπιλουμένων ῥέον
ὕδωρ, ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ γῆν καὶ λίθους αὖθις, κύκλον τε οὕτω διαδι-
15 δόντα εἰς ἄλληλα, ὡς φαίνεται, τὴν γένεσιν. οὕτω δὴ τούτων D
“Ὁ al > i a
οὐδέποτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἑκάστων φανταζομένων, ποῖον αὐτῶν ὡς ὃν
lel Ὁ“ "»
ὁτιοῦν τοῦτο καὶ οὐκ ἄχλο παγίως διισχυριζόμενος οὐκ αἰσχυ-
. ς ? ” Pe: Le oe , a
veiral τις ἑαυτόν; οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀσφαλέστατα μακρῷ περὶ

172

σι

10

τούτων τιθεμένους ὧδε λέγειν: ἀεὶ ὃ καθορῶμεν ἄλλοτε ἄλλῃ
20 γιγνόμενον, ὡς πῦρ, μὴ τοῦτο ἀλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἑκάστοτε προσ-
1 ἀληθές: τἀληθές SZ. 6 πῶς οὖν δή: πῶς οὖν δή που Α.

to become in: it is their ‘nurse’, because
it fosters them, so to speak, and is the
means of their existence; without it they
could not exist in any way. Stallbaum’s
account of it as a vessel containing sensi-
ble things is most erroneous; indeed his
treatment of the whole subject is as con-
fused as it can well be. It will be con-
venient to defer a fuller discussion of
Plato’s ὑποδοχὴ until this conception re-
ceives its final development at the end of
the chapter.

2. προαπορηθῆναι περὶ πυρός] This
necessity arises because the conception of
the ὑποδοχὴ as an unchanging substrate
involves the conception of fire and the
rest as merely transitory conditions of this
substrate: therefore we must put the
question, what is the real nature of this
appearance which we call fire? And this
in its turn raises the question of the ex-
istence of the ideas. τῶν μετὰ πυρὸς of

course=air, water, earth.

5. ἅπαντα καθ᾽ ἕκαστόν τε] 1.6. to
call it all or (some one) severally. The
slight change of construction in καθ᾽
ἕκαστον is not at all harsh, and certainly
Stallbaum’s plan of joining the words
with the following is not an improvement.
Seeing that the four elements are per-
petually interchanging there can be no
propriety in giving any fixed name to any
one of them: while we apply the term
appropriate to one form, the substance
may have passed into another.

7. εἰκότως should be joined with δια-
πορηθέντες. ‘raising what reasonable
question’.

9. λίθους καὶ γῆν] Plato here speaks
as if all four elements were interchange-
able: this statement is corrected in 54. Ὁ,
where we find that earth, as having a
different base, will not pass into the other
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 ¢zs 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 ¢hzs, but such-like is the

three however are interchangeable. Note αὖθις. κύκλον is perfectly right, being a

however that the present statement is
guarded with the qualification ws doxod-
μεν. Of course this limitation of the in-
terchangeability does not affect Plato’s
argument, which is probably the reason
why it is not mentioned here.

11. ἀνάπαλιν δέ] This is just the ὁδὸς
ἄνω κάτω μία of Herakleitos. Stallbaum
wishes to omit τε after ἰδέαν and after
κύκλον, which he would alter to κύκλῳ.
There is really no occasion for any of
these changes. The main participles in
the sentence γιγνόμενον, συγκριθέν, κατα-
σβεσθέν, ἀπιόν, διαδιδόντα, are governed
by ὁρῶμεν, while the rest are subordinate
to γιγνόμενον, which has to be supplied
again with the clauses καὶ πάλιν... λίθους

predicate to yéveow: ‘handing on their
generation as a circle’: the re is also right,
coupling διαδιδόντα and γιγνόμενον. There
is more to be said for omitting re after
ἰδέαν ; in which case συγκριθὲν and κατα-
σβεσθὲν would be subordinate to ἀπιόν:
but as it is in all the mss. I have not
thought fit to expunge it.

20. μὴ τοῦτο ἀλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον] That
is to say, we must not speak of it as a
substance, but as a quality : in Aristotelian
phrase, it is not ὑποκείμενον, but καθ᾽
ὑποκειμένου. τοῦτο denotes what a thing
is, τοιοῦτον what we predicate of it. Fire
is merely an appearance which the ὑπο-
δοχὴ assumes for the time being: we
must not say then ‘this portion of space

5 μόνιμα ws ὄντα αὐτὰ ἐνδείκνυται φάσις.

10

15

174

TAATONO®

[49 D—

ἀγορεύειν πῦρ, μηδὲ ὕδωρ τοῦτο ἀλλὰ TO τοιοῦτον ἀεί, μηδὲ ἄλλο

ποτὲ μηδὲν ὥς τινα ἔχον βεβαιότητα, ὅσα δεικνύντες τῷ ῥήματι Ἑ

τῷ τόδε καὶ τοῦτο προσχρώμενοι δηλοῦν ἡγούμεθά τι" φεύγει γὰρ
οὐκ ὑπομένον τὴν τοῦ τόδε καὶ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν τῷδε καὶ πᾶσαν ὅση

ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἕκαστα

\ / ἈΝ \ le) ΩΝ" ό ς ί 4 U é
μὴ λέγειν, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἀεὶ περιφερόμενον ὁμοίως ἑκάστου πέρι
a \ fel
καὶ ξυμπάντων οὕτω καλεῖν' καὶ δὴ καὶ πῦρ τὸ διὰ παντὸς τοι-
“ ,
οῦτον καὶ ἅπαν ὅσονπερ ἂν ἔχῃ γένεσιν. ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἐγγυγνόμενα ἀεὶ
“ > Lal / \ U > a 5 /
ἕκαστα αὐτῶν φαντάζεται καὶ πάλιν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπόλλυται, μόνον
> a s / “Ὁ an \ A / /
ἐκεῖνο αὖ προσαγορεύειν τῷ τε τοῦτο Kal τῷ τόδε προσχρωμένους 50 A
ὀνόματι, τὸ δὲ ὁποιονοῦν τι, θερμὸν ἢ λευκὸν ἢ καὶ ὁτιοῦν τῶν
ἐναντίων, καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα ἐκ τούτων, μηδὲν ἐκεῖνο αὖ τούτων κα-
λεῖν. ἔτι δὲ σαφέστερον αὐτοῦ πέρι προθυμητέον αὖθις εἰπεῖν.
εἰ γὰρ πάντα τις σχήματα πλάσας ἐκ χρυσοῦ μηδὲν μεταπλάττων
παύοιτο ἕκαστα εἰς ἅπαντα, δεικνύντος δή τινος αὐτῶν ἕν καὶ
ΕῚ / / 2.97 Lal \ ᾽ / 3 / > a
ἐρομένου Ti ποτ᾽ ἔστι, μακρῷ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀσφαλέστατον εἰπεῖν B
ὅτι χρυσός, τὸ δὲ τρίγωνον ὅσα τε ἄλλα σχήματα ἐνεγίγνετο,

4 τοῦ τόδε καί: τοῦ τόδε καὶ τήν 8.
ceteri ὅμοιον.

6 ὁμοίως scripsi suadente 8.

is fire’, but ‘this portion of space has the
property of fire for its present condition’.
For the same portion of space may
presently assume the appearance of air
and of water; whence we see that the
only permanent thing is the space; fire,
air, water are merely its transitory attri-
butes derived from the ὁμοιώματα im-
pressed upon it.

3. τῷ τόδε Kal τοῦτο] Compare
Theaetetus 157 B τὸ δ᾽ οὐ δεῖ, ws ὁ τῶν
σοφῶν λόγος, οὔτε τι ξυγχωρεῖν οὔτε του
οὔτ᾽ ἐμοῦ οὔτε τόδε οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνο οὔτ᾽ ἄλλο
οὐδὲν ὄνομα, ὅ τι ἂν ἱστῇ. Also 183 A
δεῖ δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο τὸ οὕτω λέγειν" οὐδὲ γὰρ
ἂν ἔτι κινοῖτο τὸ οὕτω" οὐδ᾽ αὖ μὴ οὕτω"
οὐδὲ yap τοῦτο κίνησις ἀλλὰ τιν᾽ ἄλλην
φωνὴν θετέον τοῖς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον λέγου-
σιν, ὡς νῦν γε πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν ὑπόθεσιν οὐκ
ἔχουσι ῥήματα, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸ οὐδ᾽ ὅπως.
Thus we see that what is in the 7heae-
tetus described as the οἰκειοτάτη διάλεκτος
of the Herakleiteans is here expressly a-
dopted by Plato as his own, when he

τοῦτο: τούτου AS.
16 ἐρομένου : προσερομένου 8.

speaks of material phenomena.

6. μὴ λέγειν] The infinitives still de-
pend upon ἀσφαλέστατα in Ὁ.

περιφερόμενον ὁμοίως] On the sug-
gestion of Stallbaum I have adopted
ὁμοίως for ὅμοιον. The meaning is that
the term τοιοῦτον keeping pace with the
elements in their transformations {περι-
φερόμενον) can always be applied to any
of them in the same sense (ὁμοίως), That
is to say τοιοῦτον is a word which does
not denote a permanent substance but a
variable attribute: therefore we can apply
it to fire &c without fear of treating such
qualities as substantial fixities. If ὅμοιον
be retained, it must be regarded as a
predicate, and the sense will still be the
same: but I think the construction is too
awkward to have come from Plato. For
περιφερόμενον compare Theaetetus 202 A
ταῦτα μὲν yap περιτρέχοντα πᾶσι Tpoc-
φέρεσθαι: where ταῦτα Ξε αὐτό, ἐκεῖνο»
ἕκαστον and the like.

7. τὸ διὰ παντός] i.e. fire is the name

Yad?

v

50 8] TIMAIO“‘. 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 ¢hzs and ¢hat and suppose that we signify
something thereby. For it flees and will not abide such
terms as ¢iis and that and relative to this, and every phrase
which represents it as stable. The word ¢kzs we must not
use of any of them; but sack, 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 ¢hat and ¢iis; 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 acombination ¢6o0pd, ἀδύνατον ἐκεῖνο προσαγορεύεσθαι ἐξ

of attributes wheresoever in nature it may
appear.

9. μόνον ἐκεῖνο] To the ὑποδοχή,
on the other hand, we can and must apply
the word τοῦτο, because it is ever un-
changing. The manifold forms it assumes
are merely impressed on it from without ;
underlying them all its own nature is the
same.

11. ὁτιοῦν τῶν ἐναντίων] Not the
opposites to hot and white, but any of
the ἐναντιότητες which are the attributes
predicable of matter. ὅσα ἐκ τούτων sig-
nifies any combination of simple qualities.

14. πλάσας ἐκ χρυσοῦ] Aristotle
gives a strange turn to this, de gen. δέ
corr. 11 i 329? 17. Referring to the
illustration of the golden figures he says,
καίτοι καὶ τοῦτο οὐ καλῶς λέγεται τοῦτον
τὸν τρόπον λεγόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ὧν μὲν ἀλ-
λοίωσις, ἔστιν οὕτως, ὧν δὲ γένεσις καὶ

οὗ γέγονεν. καίτοι γέ φησι μακρῷ ἀληθέσ-
τατον εἶναι χρυσὸν λέγειν ἕκαστον εἶναι.
How this criticism applies I fail to see.
That which suffers γένεσις καὶ φθορὰ is
the shapes, whether in the ὑποδοχὴ or in
the gold. These shapes have not their
γένεσις from the ὑποδοχὴ nor from the
gold: Plato accurately describes the ὑπο-
δοχὴ not as τὸ ἐξ of, which it is not, but
as τὸ ἐν ᾧ γίγνεται, which it is. When
Plato bids us say ‘this is gold’, not ‘this
is a cube’, he does not mean that the
cubic shape is gold, or that a cubic shape
is generated out of gold; but that in
calling it gold we designate the substance,
whereas if we call it a cube, we are desig-
nating an attribute which is accidental
and transitory. In the golden cube the
gold is (or rather serves to illustrate) τοῦ-
το, the substance, the cubic form is ro-
ovrov, the quality.

σι

10

15

176 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [so B—

/

μηδέποτε λέγειν ταῦτα ὡς ὄντα, & ye μεταξὺ τιθεμένου pera-
πίπτει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἄρα καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον μετ᾽ ἀσφαλείας ἐθέλῃ δέ-
χεσθαί τινος, ἀγαπᾶν. ὁ αὐτὸς δὴ λόγος καὶ περὶ τῆς τὰ πάντα

\
δεχομένης σώματα φύσεως: ταὐτὸν αὐτὴν del προσρητέον' ἐκ yap
τῆς ἑαυτῆς τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἐξίσταται δυνάμεως. δέχεταί τε γὰρ
ἀεὶ τὰ πάντα, καὶ μορφὴν οὐδεμίαν ποτὲ οὐδενὶ τῶν εἰσιόντων C
« > a > lel > a \ / \ Ὁ
ὁμοίαν εἴληφεν οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς: ἐκμαγεῖον γὰρ φύσει παντὶ κεῖ-
ται, κινούμενόν τε καὶ διασχηματιζόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰσιόντων,
φαίνεται δὲ δι᾿ ἐκεῖνα ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖον: τὰ δὲ εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα
τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ μιμήματα, τυπωθέντα ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τρόπον τινὰ
δύσφραστον καὶ θαυμαστόν, ὃν εἰσαῦθις μέτιμεν. ἐν δ᾽ οὖν τῷ
παρόντι χρὴ γένη διανοηθῆναι τριττά, τὸ μὲν γυγνόμενον, τό δ᾽ ἐν
ᾧ γί τὸ δ᾽ ὅθεν a j jeTaL TO dmevov καὶ
ᾧ γίγνεται, τὸ ev ἀφομοιούμενον φύεται τὸ yuyvou ὶ
δὴ καὶ προσεικάσαι πρέπει τὸ μὲν δεχόμενον μητρί, τὸ δ᾽ ὅθεν
πατρί, τὴν δὲ μεταξὺ τούτων φύσιν ἐκγόνῳ, νοῆσαί τε, ὡς οὐκ
ἂν ἄλλως, ἐκτυπώματος ἔσεσθαι μέλλοντος ἰδεῖν ποικίλου πάσας
ποικιλίας, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτό, ἐν ᾧ ἐκτυπούμενον ἐνίσταται, γένοιτ᾽ ἂν
παρεσκευασμένον εὖ, πλὴν ἄμορφον ὃν ἐκείνων ἁπασῶν τῶν ἰδεῶν,

10 ὄντα post ἀεί dedit A.

2. ἐὰν dpa καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον] 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. ταὐτὸν αὐτὴν del προσρητέον]
We are not here to take ταὐτὸν in the
technical sense in which it is used in
35 A. For as the ὑποδοχὴ is the home
of γιγνόμενα, as it is the region of thought
as pluralised in material objects, it must
belong to the domain of θάτερον : and
thus ταὐτὸν 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 ταὐτὸν may be
said to inhere in θάτερον.υΌ 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 ὑποδοχὴ may be termed
eternal.

ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἑαυτῆς] Thus we have
two immutable fixities, the ideas and the
ὑποδοχή, between which is the fluctuating
mass of sensible appearances.

7. ἐκμαγεῖον] 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.

9. τὰ δὲ εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα] 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 Zimaeus and that of the Republic and

Dd] TIMAIOS. 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

Phaedo: they are, like the πέρας ἔχοντα
of the Phzlebus, the form, as distinguished
from the substance of material objects,
apart from which they have πὸ inde-
pendent existence; they are in fact (apart
from their relation to the ideas) practi-
cally indistinguishable from Aristotle’s
εἶδος as opposed to ὕλη. These are the
visible semblances of the invisible verities
of the ideal world, whereupon they are
modelled in a mysterious manner hard
to explain: for it*is not easy to under-
stand how the immaterial is expressed
in terms of matter, or the invisible repre-
sented by a visible symbol. The εἰσιόντα
must then be distinguished (logically, for
they are never actually separable) from
the material objects which they inform ;
these objects are εἰσιόντα + ἐκμαγεῖον.

Pe. Be

11. ὃν εἰσαῦθις μέτιμεν] This refers
probably to the conclusion of the chap-
ter, 526.

15. ἐκγόνῳ] The ἔκγονα are the ma-
terial phenomena formed by the impress
of the εἰσιόντα upon the ἐκμαγεῖον.

16. ἰδεῖν ποικίλου] ἐδεῖν follows ποι-
κίλου, to which πάσας ποικιλίας is ἃ cog-
nate accusative. Plato is rather fond of
this construction with ἐδεῖν, cf. Phaedo

84 6, Republic 615 &, Phaedrus 250 B.

18. ἄμορφον ὄν] Aristotle has de-
rived from hence his description of the
thinking faculty, de anima 11 iv 429° 15
ἀπαθὲς dpa δεῖ εἶναι, δεκτικὸν δὲ τοῦ εἴδους
καὶ δυνάμει τοιοῦτον, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦτο...
ἀνάγκη ἄρα, ἐπεὶ πάντα νοεῖ, ἀμιγὴ εἶναι,
ὥσπερ φησὶν ᾿Αναξαγόρας, ἵνα κρατῇ, τοῦτο
δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἵνα γνωρίζῃ---παρεμφαινόμενον yap

12

I

σι

178

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[50 D—

ὅσας μέλλοι δέχεσθαί ποθεν. ὅμοιον yap ὃν τῶν ἐπεισιόντων τινὶ
\ “ > / , a \ “ Μ , ¢ >
τὰ τῆς ἐναντίας TA TE τῆς TO παράπαν ἄλλης φύσεως, ὁπότ᾽ ἔλθοι,
, n a >? a \ ¢ a lal v \
δεχόμενον κακῶς ἂν ἀφομοιοῖ, τὴν αὑτοῦ παρεμφαῖνον ὄψιν. διὸ
καὶ πάντων ἐκτὸς εἰδῶν εἶναι χρεὼν τὸ τὰ πάντα ἐκδεξόμενον ἐν
Ββ αὑτῷ γένη, καθάπερ περὶ τὰ ἀλείμματα, ὁπόσα εὐώδη, τέχνῃ
μηχανῶνται πρῶτον τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ὑπάρχον, ποιοῦσιν ὅ τι μάλιστα
, « “ lal
ἀνώδη τὰ δεξόμενα ὑγρὰ τὰς ὀσμάς" ὅσοι τε ἔν τισι τῶν μαλακῶν
σχήματα ἀπομάττειν ἐπιχειροῦσι, τὸ παράπαν σχῆμα οὐδὲν ἔν-
δηλον ὑπάρχειν ἐῶσι, προομαλύναντες δὲ ὅ τι λειότατον ἀπερ-
a a , \
10 γάζονται. ταὐτὸν οὖν Kal τῷ τὰ τῶν πάντων ἀεί τε ὄντων κατὰ
πᾶν ἑαυτοῦ πολλάκις ἀφομοιώματα καλῶς μέλλοντι δέχεσθαι

\ > fol U . a lol
πάντων ἐκτὸς αὐτῷ προσήκει πεφυκέναι τῶν εἰδῶν.

διὸ δὴ τὴν

τοῦ γεγονότος ὁρατοῦ καὶ πάντως αἰσθητοῦ μητέρα καὶ ὑποδοχὴν
μήτε γῆν μήτε ἀέρα μήτε πῦρ μήτε ὕδωρ λέγωμεν, μήτε ὅσα ἐκ
τούτων μήτε ἐξ ὧν ταῦτα γέγονεν: ἀλλ᾽ ἀνόρατον εἶδός τι καὶ
ἄμορφον, πανδεχές, μεταλαμβάνον δὲ ἀπορώτατά πῃ τοῦ νοητοῦ
καὶ δυσαλωτότατον αὐτὸ λέγοντες οὐ ψευσόμεθα" καθ᾽ ὅσον δ᾽ ἐκ Β
τῶν προειρημένων δυνατὸν ἐφικνεῖσθαι τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ, τῇδ᾽ ἄν

7 ἀνώδη: εὐώδη A.

κωλύει τὸ ἀλλότριον καὶ ἀντιφράττει. It
will be observed that the passage of
Aristotle is full of verbal echoes of the
Timaeus ; and his ἀπαθὲς applied to the
mind is exactly equivalent to Plato’s
ἄμορφον applied to the ὑποδοχή.

18. τῶν ἰδεῶν] Not the ideas, which
do not enter into the ὑποδοχή, but the
shapes which symbolise them—the εἰσ-
ἰόντα Kal ἐξιόντα.

3. τὴν αὑτοῦ παρεμφαῖνον ὄψιν] If
the ὑποδοχὴ had any quality of its own,
this quality would mingle with that im-
pressed upon it by any of the εἰσιόντα
and mar the faithfulness of the μίμημα.
The only condition which the ὑποδοχὴ
imposes upen our sensuous perceptions
is that they shall exist in what we term
space: we can perceive nothing that is
not in space. Sensuous perceptions, as
we have said, are symbols of the ideas ;
now it is quite free to the senses to sym-
bolise an idea by the perception of round
or square or any other shape, without

ἀώδη HZ.

any interference from the ὑποδοχή. The
latter παρεμφαίνει τὴν αὑτῆς ὄψιν just
in so far as round square and the like
are and must be shapes that have ex-
tension.

6. μηχανῶνται... ποιοῦσιν] These two
words are in a kind of apposition. Com-
pare Euripides Heraclidae 181 ἄναξ, ὑπάρ-
χει μὲν τόδ᾽ ἐν τῇ σῇ χθονί, | εἰπεῖν ἀκοῦσαί
T ἐν μέρει πάρεστί μοι. This same simile
of the unguent is used by Lucretius 1
848 to illustrate the necessary absence of
secondary qualities from his atoms.

10. τῶν πάντων del τε ὄντων] Stall-
baum would omit the τε, and νοητῶν has
been proposed instead of πάντων. But
πάντων is indispensable: it is because the
ἐκμαγεῖον has to receive all forms that it
can have no form of its own. Nor is the
omission of τε satisfactory. Plato would
probably have written πάντων τῶν ἀεὶ
ὄντων. I think the text may be defended
as it stands, ἀεί re ὄντων being added to
explain what is meant by τῶν πάντων----

51 A

51 8] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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.
Perhaps however we should read ἀεί ποτε
ὄντων.

12. αὐτῷ προσήκει] Stallbaum er-
roneously considers αὐτῷ to be redun-
dant: it is emphatic—‘ must itself be
destitute of all forms’.

14. μήτε γῆν] It is indeed hard to
conceive how Aristotle would attempt to
justify his assertion in de gen. οἰ corr. 11 i
329° 13 ὡς δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ γέγραπται
οὐδένα ἔχει διορισμόν" οὐ γὰρ εἴρηκε σαφῶς
τὸ πανδεχές, εἰ χωρίζεται τῶν στοιχείων.
If Plato has not most explicitly charac-
terised the relation between the πανδεχὲς
and the στοιχεῖα, then there is no such
thing as precision in language. But the
truth is, as not rarely happens when
Aristotle is at cross purposes with Plato,

that Aristotle is treating from a physical
point of view a subject which Plato
deals with metaphysically.

16. μεταλαμβάνον δὲ ἀπορώτατά πῃ
τοῦ νοητοῦ] Plato’s meaning is more
fully expressed in 52 B. The puzzle
arises from the fact that this ὑποδοχή,
though it does not form part of real ex-
istence, is yet grasped by the reason and
not by the senses. In the metaphysical
scheme represented by the Phaedo we
should find that constituting the test of
reality, the object of reason being a real
existence, the object of sense an un-
reality. But now we have found an
anomalous principle which defies this
test. It is not surprising then that Plato
describes it as δυσαλωτότατον.

12—2

I

I

2

tn

°

5

ο

180 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [51 B—

a ᾽ a \ -
τις ὀρθότατα λέγοι, πῦρ μὲν ἑκάστοτε αὐτοῦ TO πεπυρωμένον μέρος
φαίνεσθαι, τὸ δὲ ὑγρανθὲν ὕδωρ, γῆν δὲ καὶ ἀέρα, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἂν
Ἂ \ “
μιμήματα τούτων δέχηται. λόγῳ δὲ δὴ μᾶλλον τὸ τοιόνδε διο-
a Ψ Μ “
ριζομένους περὶ αὐτῶν διασκεπτέον" ἄρ᾽ ἔστι τι πῦρ αὐτὸ ἐφ᾽
a i ς
ἑαυτοῦ καὶ πάντα, περὶ ὧν ἀεὶ λέγομεν οὕτως αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ
ὄντα ἕκαστα, ἢ ταῦτα, ἅπερ καὶ βλέπομεν ὅσα τε ἄλλα διὰ τοῦ
, > , / > \ ‘ ΝΜ > 16, wv
σώματος αἰσθανόμεθα, μόνα ἐστὶ τοιαύτην ἔχοντα ἀλήθειαν, ἄλλα
fal ἱρὴ \ / Ld
δὲ οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ ταῦτα οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ μάτην ἑκάστοτε
\ \ LAND 3 \
εἶναί τί φαμεν εἶδος ἑκάστου νοητόν, τὸ δὲ οὐδὲν ἄρ᾽ ἦν πλὴν
ἀδίκαστον ἀφέντα ἄξιον
͵ ͵ ” “ δον ee Ye ΄ , ,
φάναι διισχυριζόμενον ἔχειν οὕτως, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ λέγου μήκει πάρερ-
Lal iA ¢ \ / ‘
γον ἄλλο μῆκος ἐπεμβλητέον: εἰ δέ τις ὅρος ὁρισθεὶς μέγας διὰ
- ᾽ Ld
βραχέων φανείη, τοῦτο μάλιστ᾽ ἐγκαιριώτατον γένοιτ᾽ ἄν. ὧδε
a nw , 9 ,
οὖν τήν γ᾽ ἐμὴν αὐτὸς τίθεμαι ψῆφον" εἰ μὲν νοῦς καὶ δόξα ἀληθής
΄ 4 lal ᾽
ἐστον δύο γένη, παντάπασιν εἶναι καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ταῦτα, ἀναίσθητα
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν εἴδη, νοούμενα μόνον" εἰ δ᾽, ὥς τισι φαίνεται, δόξα
a an 4
ἀληθὴς vod διαφέρει τὸ μηδέν, πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσ᾽ αὖ διὰ τοῦ σώματος
αἰσθανόμεθα, θετέον βεβαιότατα. δύο δὴ λεκτέον ἐκείνω, διότι
χωρὶς γεγόνατον ἀνομοίως τε ἔχετον.
ὃ a A » ὡς. Ἃ θ Ἄρει Ἐπ ἀν τὴν τὸ νῷ Ὁ Ὰ \ A \. ze) ᾽
διδαχῆς, τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ πειθοῦς ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεται" καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ μετ
ἀληθοῦς λόγου, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον: καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀκίνητον πειθοῖ, τὸ δὲ

’ Ν
λόγος ; οὔτε οὖν δὴ τὸ παρὸν ἄκριτον καὶ

\ \ \ Lee \
TO μὲν yap αὐτῶν διὰ

* 3 δέχηται : δέχεται H typographi culpa.
διοριζομένους : διοριζομένοις S.

2 γὴν δέ: γῆν τε A.

3. μιμήματα τούτων] i.e. τοῦ ὃ ἔστιν
ἀὴρ and τοῦ ὃ ἔστι γῆ.

11. ϑδιισχυριζόμενον ἔχειν οὕτως] It is
not often that Plato addresses himself to

4. dp ἔστι te wip] When we say
the ὑποδοχὴ receives the μέμημα of fire,
we are assuming the existence of an
essential idea of fire: it is now time to
justify this assumption. The list of ideas
in the Zitmaeus includes, in addition to
ideas of living creatures, only the ideas
of fire air water and earth: see Intro-
duction § 33. Presently in the words
εἶδος ἑκάστου νοητὸν we are to understand
by ἑκάστου only every class naturally
determined, τῶν ὁπόσα φύσει.

9. τὸ δὲ οὐδὲν dp ἦν πλὴν λόγος]
By λόγος Plato means ἃ mental concept, or
universal : the question is in fact between
Sokraticism and Platonism; that is to
say, between conceptualism and idealism.

prove the existence of the ideas; the
mere fact that it is impossible’to find any
stable reality or basis of knowledge in
the material world is sufficient warrant for
affirming the existence of the immaterial.
Here the existence of ideas stands or falls
with the distinction between knowledge
and true opinion. Compare the discus-
sion in Republic 476 E—480 A, also Meno
97 Afoll. In the Phaedo a different line
is taken, the existence of the ideas being
deduced from dvdpryets.

18. θετέον βεβαιότατα] i.e. we must
accept them for the truest realities that
exist, however fleeting and mutable they
may be. For if there are no ideas, par-
ticulars are more real than the λόγοι,

ge ᾿ς ‘TIMAIOS.

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-

18]

which are merely formed from observa-
tion of them: but if the ideas exist, then
λόγοι are more real than particulars, be-
cause the former are the intellectual, the
latter only the sensible images of the
ideas: cf. Phaedo 99 E.

19. Χωρὶς yeydvarov ἀνομοίως τε ἔχε-
tov] They are of diverse origin, because
one springs from instruction and the other
from persuasion; of diverse nature, be-
cause one is immovable by persuasion,
the other yields to it. You may persuade
a man that pinchbeck is gold, but you
never can persuade him that two straight

lines enclosea space. It will be observed
that the difference between knowledge
and opinion rests here upon the same
reasoning as the final rejection of the
claims of ἀληθὴς δόξα in Theaetetus 201
A—cC, where Sokrates, after showing that
a jury may be persuaded by a skilful ad-
vocate to hold a right opinion on a case
the facts of which they do not know,
concludes his argument thus: οὐκ ἂν, ὦ
φίλε, εἴ ye ταὐτὸν ἣν δόξα τε ἀληθὴς καὶ
ἐπιστήμη, ὀρθά mor’ ἂν δικαστὴς ἄκρος
ἐδόξαζεν ἄνευ ἐπιστήμης" νῦν δὲ ἔοικεν ἄλλο
τι ἑκάτερον εἶναι.

182

μεταπειστόν' καὶ τοῦ μὲν πάντα
θεούς, ἀνθρώπων δὲ γένος βραχύ
ὁμολογητέον ἕν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[51 E—

ἄνδρα μετέχειν φατέον, νοῦ δὲ
, > Ld
Tl. τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων

ἀνώλεθρον, οὔτε εἰς ἑαυτὸ εἰσδεχόμενον ἄλλο ἄλλοθεν οὔτε αὐτὸ εἰς
ἄλλο ποι ἰόν, ἀόρατον δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ἀναίσθητον, τοῦτο ὃ δὴ νόησις
-" ] ,
εἴληχεν ἐπισκοπεῖν' TO δ᾽ ὁμώνυμον Ὅμοιόν τε ἐκείνῳ δεύτερον,
3

αἰσθητόν, γεννητόν, πεφορημένον ἀεί, γυγνόμενόν τε ἔν τινε τόπῳ
\ / > a ’ , , ᾽ cd , ’

καὶ πάλιν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπολλύμενον, δίξῃ μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως περιληπτόν"
, \ s [2 ΓΝ \ a /, + ee A ᾽ ,

τρίτον δὲ αὖ γένος ὃν TO τῆς χώρας del, φθορὰν οὐ προσδεχόμενον,

3 ἀγένητον : ἀγέννητον HSZ.
ἡ πεφορημένον :

1. πάντα ἄνδρα μετέχειν] cf. 7 λεαε-
tetus 206 Ὁ.

4. οὔτε αὐτὸ els ἄλλο ποι ἰόν] 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 παρου-
σία and μέθεξις (in connexion with αὐτὰ
καθ᾽ αὑτὰ εἴδη) disappear from Plato’s vo-
cabulary, and μίμησις takes their place.
It may be added that the previous words
οὔτε els ἑαυτὸ εἰσδεχόμενον ἄλλο ἄλλοθεν
would seem enough in themselves to dis-
pose of Zeller’s theory of particulars in-
herent in the ideas.

8. δόξῃ per’ αἰσθήσεως] Cf. 28 a,
where ἀλόγου is added.

9. τὸ τῆς χώρας ἀεί] 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 χώρα to the absolute in-
telligence and to finite intelligences. Ab-
solute νοῦς or Ψυχὴ evolves itself into the
form of a multitude of finite intelligences.
For these it is a necessity of their nature
that they should apprehend, gza finite, un-
der certain unalterable forms, which we
call time and space. Therefore whatever
they perceive, they perceive somewhere.
But this somewhere is relative to them and
purely subjective (for we know that Plato’s

sed cf. Phaedr. 245 Ὁ.
πεφωνημένον 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 ψυχαὶ to apprehend in this mode is
immutable and eternal: hence space must
be eternal; for ψυχὴ 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 θάτερον.
And thus are material phenomena said to
be μιμήματα τῶν ὄντων : 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

ταὐτὰ εἶδος ἔχον, ἀγένητον καὶ 52 A

52 A] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 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 the ὑποδοχὴ with
χώρα arises from the absolute ἀπάθεια 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 plunua
which informs the ὑποδοχή: therefore to
reach the ὑποδοχὴ 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 ὑποδοχὴ 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
χώρα is the eternal law or necessity con-
straining pluralised ψυχὴ to have its per-
ceptions under the form we call space:
since then Ψυχὴ does, and therefore must,
evolve itself under this form and not an-
other, x#pa ultimately represents the law
that ψυχὴ shall pluralise itself.

Between Plato’s χώρα and Aristotle’s
ὕλη 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 ὕλη 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 τν ii 20911. Aristotle there
affirms that Plato identifies the pera-
ληπτικὸν with χώρα, but that he gives one
account of the μεταληπτικὸν in the 77-

184

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[52 Β--

ἕδραν δὲ παρέχον ὅσα ἔχει γένεσιν πᾶσιν, αὐτὸ δὲ μετ᾽ ἀναισθη- B
σίας ἁπτὸν λογισμῷ τινὶ νόθῳ, μόγις πιστόν' πρὸς ὃ δὴ καὶ
ὀνειροπολοῦμεν βλέποντες καί φαμεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί που τὸ ὃν
ἅπαν ἔν τινι τόπῳ καὶ κατέχον χώραν τινά, τὸ δὲ μήτ᾽ ἐν γῇ
5 μήτε που κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν οὐδὲν εἶναι. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα καὶ τούτων
ἄλλα ἀδελφὰ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄυπνον καὶ ἀληθῶς φύσιν ὑπάρχουσαν
ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὀνειρώξεως οὐ δυνατοὶ γιγνόμεθα ἐγερθέντες διο- C
ριζόμενοι τἀληθὲς λέγειν, ὡς εἰκόνι μέν, ἐπείπερ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο,
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γέγονεν, ἑαυτῆς ἐστίν, ἑτέρου δέ τινος ἀεὶ φέρεται φάντασμα,
10 διὰ ταῦτα ἐν ἑτέρῳ προσήκει τινὶ γίγνεσθαι, οὐσίας ἁμῶς γέ πως
ἀντεχομένην, ἢ μηδὲν τὸ παράπαν αὐτὴν εἶναι, τῷ δὲ ὄντως ὄντι
βοηθὸς ὁ δι’ ἀκριβείας ἀληθὴς λόγος, ὡς ἕως ἄν τι τὸ μὲν ἄλλο ἢ,
τὸ δὲ ἄλλο, οὐδέτερον ἐν οὐδετέρῳ ποτὲ γενόμενον ἕν ἅμα ταὐτὸν

καὶ δύο γενήσεσθον.

13 γενόμενον : γεγενημένον HSZ.

maeus, another ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀγρά-
gos δόγμασιν. What the account in the
ἄγραφα δόγματα was, Aristotle does not
tell us; presently however he says, 209>
34, Πλάτωνι μέντοι λεκτέον, εἰ δεῖ παρ-
ἐκβάντας εἰπεῖν, διὰ τί οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ τὰ
εἴδη καὶ οἱ ἀριθμοί, εἴπερ τὸ μεθεκτικὸν ὁ
τόπος, εἴτε τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ τοῦ μικροῦ
ὄντος τοῦ μεθεκτικοῦ εἴτε τῆς ὕλης, ὥσπερ
ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ γέγραφεν. Now as to this
ἀπορία, it may be observed that it does
not affect Plato at all; by the time his
theory of χώρα was worked out, the
doctrine of μέθεξις was abandoned: Aris-
totle has in fact no right to apply to the
ὑποδοχὴ the terms μεθεκτικόν, μεταληπ-
τικόν, 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 τόπος ἢ meaning
by τόπος the place in which any object
is situate, which he ultimately defines
to be τὸ πέρας τοῦ περιέχοντος σώματος.
This has evidently nothing in the world
to do with the metaphysical question of
the Zimaeus: yet Aristotle makes as
though it were the same, Zeller is per-
fectly just in his criticism (platonische
Studien p. 212); ‘wahrend also Platon

im 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. per ἀναισθησίας ἁπτὸν λογισμῷ
τινὶ νόθῳ] 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, λογισμῷ. 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 Zimaeus Locrus
(94 B) seeks to explain νόθῳ by the words
τῷ μήπω Kar’ εὐθυωρίαν νοῆσθαι ἀλλὰ κατ᾽
ἀναλογίαν.

2. μόγις πιστόν] πίστις is the word
used in the sixth book of the Republic
to denote the mental πάθημα which deals
with sensible objects. Space then is μόγις
πιστόν, because, although it is the mode

D] TIMAIOS, 185

affording place for all things that come into being, itself appre-
hensible without sensation by a sort of bastard reasoning, hardly
matter of belief. It is with this in view that dreaming we say
that all which exists must be in some place and filling some
space, and that what is neither on earth nor in heaven anywhere ~
is nought. All these and many kindred fancies have we even
concerning that unsleeping essence and truly existing, for that
by reason of this dreaming state we become impotent to arouse
ourselves and affirm the truth; namely, that to an image it
belongs, seeing that it is not the very model of itself, on which
itself has been created, but is ever the fleeting semblance of
another, in another to come into being, clinging to existence as
best it may, on pain of being nothing at all; but to the really
existent essence reason in all exactness true comes as an ally,
declaring that so long as one thing is one and another thing
is other, neither of them shall come to be in the other, so that
the same becomes at once one and two.

in which sensible things are perceived, it

is not itself an object of sensation: it is
an ambiguous and doubtful form, hard to

has escaped all the editors and translators,
who are consequently in sore straits
what to make of ἑαυτῆς. The construc-

grasp and hard to trust.

πρὸς ὃ δή] It is this that causes
our vague and dreamy state of mind re-
garding existence. Because everything
of which our senses affirm the existence
exists in space, we rashly assume that
all things which exist exist in space, and
that what is not somewhere is nothing.
For we are held fast in the thraldom of
our own subjective perceptions, and sup-
pose, as dreamers do, that the visions
within our own consciousness are ex-
ternal realities. It must be remembered
that Plato was the very first who had any
real conception of immaterial existence.

6. τὴν ἄνυπνον] i.e. the region of
objective truth, which we apprehend
with our waking faculties, that is to say,
by pure reason unhampered by sensa-
tion. We do not conceive of the ideal
world as it really is, independent of all
conditions of time and space.

8. ἐπείπερ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο] I be-
lieve the true construction of these words

tion seems to me to be a very simple and
very Platonic σχῆμα πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον.
What is meant by αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γέ-
γονεν ἢ of course the παράδειγμα, and the
whole phrase governs ἑαυτῆς just as if
παράδειγμα had been written: ‘since it
is not the original-upon-which-it-is-mo-
delled of itself’.

10, ἐν ἑτέρῳ τινί] 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, ov-
clas duwoyérws ἀντεχομένη. It is a
dubious kind of existence that is in space:
but, such as it is, it is owing to space:
for did not space exist, nothing would
remain but the idea: and since the image
cannot be in that, it could not be at all.

13. οὐδέτερον ἐν ovderépw] Here
again we have a distinct repudiation of

186 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [52 D—

XIX. Οὗτος μὲν οὖν δὴ παρὰ τῆς ἐμῆς ψήφου λογισθεὶς ἐν
κεφαλαίῳ δεδόσθω λόγος, ὄν τε καὶ χώραν καὶ γένεσιν εἶναι, τρία
τριχῇ, καὶ πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι: τὴν δὲ δὴ γενέσεως τιθήνην
ὑγραινομένην καὶ πυρουμένην καὶ τὰς γῆς τε καὶ ἀέρος μορφὰς

5 δεχομένην, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τούτοις πάθη ξυνέπεται πάσχουσαν,

παντοδαπὴν μὲν ἰδεῖν φαίνεσθαι, διὰ δὲ τὸ μήθ᾽ ὁμοίων δυνάμεων E

U > , > , ᾽ ον > Ὁ > tal ΕΣ >
μήτε icoppotav ἐμπίπλασθαι Kat’ οὐδὲν αὐτῆς ἰσορροπεῖν, ἀλλ,
Ω »

ἀνωμάλως πάντῃ ταλαντουμένην σείεσθαι μὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων αὐτήν,
κινουμένην δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα σείειν" τὰ δὲ κινούμενα ἄλλα ἄλλοσε
10 ἀεὶ φέρεσθαι διακρινόμενα, ὥσπερ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν πλοκάνων τε καὶ
ὀργάνων τῶν περὶ τὴν τοῦ σίτου κάθαρσιν σειόμενα καὶ ἀναλικ-

, \ \ \ ‘ , ν \ \ \ n on
μώμενα τὰ μὲν πυκνὰ Kai βαρέα ἄλλῃ, τὰ δὲ μανὰ Kal κοῦφα εἰς

3 τὴν δὲ δή : δή omittunt ASZ. 5 ἄλλα τούτοις : τούτοις ἄλλα 8, ἡ ἐμπί-
πλασθαι: ἐμπίμπλασθαι A, τι ἀναλικμώμενα : ἀναλικνώμενα pr. AS. ἀνικμώμενα H.

3A

the old doctrine of παρουσία. 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 μέθεξις
is here based upon a different ground
from that taken up in the Parmenides,
although the criticism in that dialogue
remains perfectly valid.
the truth of Aristotle’s statement in
metaph, 1 vi that Plato was led, in
opposition to the Pythagoreans, to place
the ideas rapa τὰ αἰσθητὰ through his
logical speculations, διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις
σκέψιν.

52 D—53 C, ς. 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

We see then:

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,

I. λογισθεὶς.. λόγος] Compare 34 A
λογισμὸς θεοῦ περὶ τόν ποτε ἐσόμενον θεὸν
λογισθείς.

2. τρία τριχῇ] This seems to mean
no more than ‘three things with three
distinct natures’: cf. 89 E τρία τριχῇ
ψυχῆς ἐν ἡμῖν εἴδη κατῴκισται. Of course
this triad is not in any way to be con-
founded with the former triad of ταὐτὸν
θάτερον and οὐσία.

3. καὶ πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι] This,
it need hardly be said, is again to be
taken logically: these three are prior in
analysis.

6. μήθ᾽ ὁμοίων δυνάμεων] The mani-
fold bodies which are generated in space
have most diverse and unequal forces,
and inequality is the parent of motion, as

53 A] TIMAIOS. 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

σ

we are informed in 58 A. Thus a vi-
bratory motion is set up throughout the
whole extent of the ὑποδοχὴ and commu-
nicated to the objects contained in it,
which are thereby sifted as by a winnow-
ing machine. This vibration of the ὑπο-
δοχὴ and the πίλησις 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. κινουμένην δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα
σείειν] What Plato means by this ac-
tion and reaction existing between the
ὑποδοχὴ and its contents may thus be
explained. If we abstract every sort of
determination from sensuous perception,
the residuum is space pure and simple.
Now this, being without content, can of
course have no motion. But once it is
determined by the εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα,
motion becomes possible ; so that it is
from these that the ὑποδοχὴ receives mo-
tive power. On the other hand the motion
thus initiated has to obey the law of exist-
ence in space: i.e. (1) it is a φορά, or
motion in respect of place, (2) it sifts the
divers objects into different regions. Mo-
tion then begins with the εἰσιόντα καὶ

ἐξιόντα, but once begun it is controlled
by the law of the ὑποδοχή. In starting
motion with the εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα Plato
distinctly intimates that there is no inde-
pendent force in matter: therefore the
πλανωμένη αἰτία cannot be regarded as an
independent principle of causation.

10. πλόκανον] 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. Vil 88 117, 118 καὶ yap ζῷα ὁμο-
γενέσι ζῴοισι ξυναγελάζεται, ὡς περιστεραὶ
περιστερῇσι καὶ γέρανοι γεράνοισι, καὶ ἐπὶ
τῶν ἄλλων ἀλόγων. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ περὶ
τῶν ἀψύχων, κατάπερ ὁρῆν πάρεστι ἐπί τε
τῶν κοσκινευομένων σπερμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν
παρὰ τῇσι κυματωγῇσι ψηφίδων" ὅκου μὲν
γὰρ παρὰ τὸν τοῦ κοσκίνου δῖνον διακριτικῶς
φακοὶ μετὰ φακῶν τάσσονται καὶ κριθαὶ
μετὰ κριθέων καὶ πυροὶ μετὰ πυρῶν" ὅκου
δὲ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κύματος κίνησιν αἱ μὲν
ἐπιμηκέες ψηφῖδες εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον τῇσι
ἐπιμηκέσι ὠθέονται, αἱ δὲ περιφερέες τῇσι
περιφερέσι' ὡς ἂν ξυναγωγόν τι ἐχούσης
τῶν πρηγμάτων τῆς ἐν τούτοισι ὁμοιότητος.
Cf. Diogenes Laertius 1X 88 31, 32. As
Mr Heath observes (Fournal of Philology

188

TIAATONOZ

[53 A=

ἑτέραν ἵζει φερόμενα ἕδραν: τότε οὕτω τὰ τέτταρα γένη. σειόμενα
ὑπὸ τῆς δεξαμένης, κινουμένης αὐτῆς οἷον ὀργάνου σεισμὸν παρέ-
χοντος, τὰ μὲν ἀνομοιότατα πλεῖστον αὐτὰ ad αὑτῶν ὁρίζειν,
τὰ δ᾽ ὁμοιότατα μάλιστα εἰς ταὐτὸν ξυνωθεῖν' διὸ δὴ καὶ χώραν
5 ταῦτα ἄλλα ἄλλην ἴσχειν, πρὶν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐξ αὐτῶν διακοσμηθὲν
γενέσθαι. καὶ τὸ μὲν 5) πρὸ τούτου πάντα ταῦτ᾽ ἔχειν ἀλόγως
καὶ ἀμέτρως" ὅτε δ᾽ ἐπεχειρεῖτο κοσμεῖσθαι τὸ πᾶν, πῦρ πρῶτον Β
καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα, ἴχνη μὲν ἔχοντα αὑτῶν ἄττα, παντά-
πασί γε μὴν διακείμενα ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ἔχειν ἅπαν, ὅταν ἀπῇ τινὸς
10 θεός, οὕτω δὴ τότε πεφυκότα ταῦτα πρῶτον διεσχηματίσατο εἴδεσί
τε καὶ ἀριθμοῖς. τὸ δὲ ἣ δυνατὸν ὡς κάλλιστα ἄριστά τε ἐξ οὐχ
οὕτως ἐχόντων τὸν θεὸν αὐτὰ ξυνιστάναι, παρὰ πάντα ἡμῖν ὡς
ἀεὶ τοῦτο λεγόμενον ὑπαρχέτω" νῦν δ᾽ οὖν τὴν διάταξιν αὐτῶν ἐπι-
χειρητέον ἑκάστων καὶ γένεσιν ἀήθει λόγῳ πρὸς ὑμᾶς δηλοῦν, ἀλλὰ
15 γὰρ ἐπεὶ μετέχετε τῶν κατὰ παίδευσιν ὁδῶν, δι’ ὧν ἐνδείκνυσθαι

τὰ λεγόμενα ἀνάγκη, ξυνέψεσθε.
2 δεξαμένης : δεξαμενῆς Α5Ζ.

αὑτῶν ἄττα : αὐτῶν αὐτά A.

VIII p. 162), ‘it is remarkable that Plato
sees the dynamical reason of the thing;
while Democritus draws the fanciful and
false inference that ‘‘ like seeks its like ”.’

2. ὑπὸ τῆς δεξαμένης] Stallbaum is un-
questionably wrong in reading δεξαμενῆς,
which means a cistern and nothing else:
cf. Critias 117 B.

5. πρὶν καὶ τὸ πᾶν] 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 ina 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 νοῦς as a
motive cause, failed to represent the uni-

8 ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα : γῆν καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ 5.

14 ἀήθει: ἀληθεῖ corr. A.

verse as the orderly evolution of intelli-
gence everywhere working ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτισ-
tov: he confined himself to giving an
account of the physical agencies through
which he supposed νοῦς 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
πρὶν γενέσθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν is matter evolved
on the Demokritean plan as contrasted
with the Platonic. Plato does not mean
that there was atime when matter existed
in this form,

(8. he pete ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 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. αὑτῶν ἄττα] This is an obviously
certain correction of the senseless αὐτῶν
αὐτὰ of the mss. Fire and the rest, be-
fore the universe was framed,—that is in
auniverse framed on the: Demokritean
theory—had some incipient indications of
their present nature, but only in an incho-
ate condition.

9. ὅταν ἀπῇ τινὸς θεός] 1.6. in a
world which is not the evolution of θεός,
but the result of mere chance and coinci-
dence.

το. εἴδεσί τε kal ἀριθμοῖς] ‘with forms

and measures’; i.e. with bodies definitely
qualified and quantified. ἀριθμοὶ has not
the meaning it so frequently bears in
Aristotle, ‘the ideal numbers’; for this
never occurs in the Platonic writings.

14. ἀήθει λόγῳ] Plato’s expression is
fully justified. When we come to exa-
mine his atomic theory (if so it may be
called), we shall find it exceedingly pecu-
liar and totally unlike any other that has

ever been propounded.

15. τῶν κατὰ παίδευσιν ὁδῶν] Pro-
bably with especial reference to geometry,
without some knowledge of which Plato’s
theory could not be comprehended. ὁδῶν
is here practically equivalent to μεθόδων,
a sense in which it is not unfrequently
found; cf. Phaedrus 263 B οὐκοῦν riv
μέλλοντα τέχνην ῥητορικὴν μετιέναι πρῶτον
μὲν δεῖ ταῦτα ὁδῷ διῃρῆσθαι : and Cratylus
425 Β ἄλλως δὲ συνείρειν μὴ φαῦλον ἣ καὶ
οὐ καθ᾽ ὁδόν.

53 C—55 C,¢. xx. This is the genera-
tion of fire air water and earth. All these
are solid bodies, and solid bodies are
bounded by plane surfaces. Every recti-
linear plane surface can be divided into
triangles: the triangle then is the primary
plane figure. The triangles which we
affirm to be the fundamental form of all
matter are two in number, the rectangular
isosceles, and the rectangular scalene
which is obtained by bisecting an equi-

on

1°

δυνατὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀλλήλων αὐτῶν ἄττα διαλυόμενα γίγνεσθαι.
‘Tov γὰρ τυχόντες

15

ΖΝ

190 TIAATONO® [53 c—

a \ Ui
XX. Πρῶτον μὲν δὴ πῦρ καὶ γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ ὕτι σώ-
U > a / \ \ a / n
pata ἐστι, δῆλόν που καὶ παντί: τὸ δὲ τοῦ σώματος εἶδος πᾶν
καὶ βάθος éye τὸ δὲ βάθος αὖ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τὴν ἐπίπεδον περι-
εἰληφέναι φύσιν' ἡ δὲ ὀρθὴ τῆς ἐπιπέδου βάσεως ἐκ τριγώνων
συνέστηκε. τὰ δὲ τρίγωνα πάντα ἐκ δυοῖν ἄρχεται τριγώνοιν,
/ > ‘ ΝΜ ε / / \ > e \
μίαν μὲν ὀρθὴν ἔχοντος ἑκατέρου γωνίαν, τὰς δὲ ὀξείας" ὧν τὸ
μὲν ἕτερον ἑκατέρωθεν ἔχει μέρος γωνίας ὀρθῆς πλευραῖς ἴσαις
διῃρημένης, τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον ἀνίσοις ἄνισα μέρη νενεμημένης. ταύτην
δὴ πυρὸς ἀρχὴν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων ὑποτιθέμεθα κατὰ τὸν
μετ᾽ ἀνάγκης εἰκότα λόγον πορευόμενοι" τὰς δ᾽ ἔτι τούτων ἀρχὰς
ἄνωθεν θεὸς οἶδε καὶ ἀνδρῶν ὃς ἂν ἐκείνῳ φίλος 7. δεῖ δὴ λέγειν,
ποῖα κάλλιστα σώματα γένοιτ᾽ ἂν τέτταρα, ἀνόμοια μὲν ἑαυτοῖς,
τού-
ΝΜ \ > , / / lal
ἔχομεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν γενέσεως πέρι γῆς TE
καὶ πυρὸς τῶν τε ἀνὰ λόγον ἐν μέσῳ" τόδε γὰρ οὐδενὶ συγχω-
ρησόμεθα, καλλίω
γένος ἕκαστον ὄν.
σωμάτων τέτταρα

τούτων ὁρώμενα σώματα εἶναί που καθ᾽ év
n_? Φ / PF | / /

τοῦτ᾽ οὖν προθυμητέον, τὰ διαφέροντα κάλλει

γένη συναρμόσασθαι καὶ φάναι τὴν τούτων

ἡμᾶς φύσιν ἱκανῶς εἰληφέναι. τοῖν δὴ δυοῖν τριγώνοιν τὸ μὲν ὅ4 Α

5 δυοῖν : δυεῖν S. 6 τὰς δέ: τὰς δὲ δύο 8. 15 τόδε: τότε SZ.

lateral triangle. From the latter the
three elements fire air and water. are
framed: from the former earth alone. It

the rectangular scalene. From the rect-
angular isosceles, by placing four to-
gether, is formed a square; and six

follows then that while fire air and water
can interchange and pass one into an-
other, earth cannot pass into any of them
nor they into it, because its base is dif-
ferent. But since the other three are
formed on the same triangle, they can
interchange, when a figure formed of
many triangles breaks up into several
formed of fewer, or vice versa.. The way
in which the figures are formed is as fol-
lows. Six of the primary scalenes placed
together constitute an equilateral triangle ;
and four equilaterals form the sides of a
regular solid, the tetrahedron or pyramid,
which is the constituent particle of fire:
eight such equilaterals are the sides of the

octahedron, which is the particle of air; -

twenty equilaterals are the sides of the
icosahedron, being the particle of water.
These are all the forms constructed on

squares are the sides of a fourth regular
solid called the cube, which is the particle
proper to earth. A fifth regular solid
still exists, namely the dodecahedron,
which does not form. the element of any
substance ; but God used it as a pattern for
dividing the zodiac into its twelve signs.

3. τὴν ἐπίπεδον)ἠ Every solid is
bounded by plane surfaces, Aristotle,
in criticising the Platonic theory (see de
caelo 111 i 298 33; de gen. et corr. 1 ii
315> 30), objects (1) that you cannot
make solid matter out of planes, (2) that
there are no such things as indivisible
magnitudes. To the first objection it is
sufficient to reply that Plato, who was
presumably as well aware as every one
else of the impossibility of forming solids
by an aggregation of mathematical planes,
does not attempt to do anything of the

54 A] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. ΙΟΙ

XX. In the first place, that fire and earth and water and air
are material bodies is evident to all. Every form of body has
depth: and depth must be bounded by plane surfaces. Now
every rectilinear plane is composed of triangles. And all
triangles are derived from two triangles, each having one right
angle and the others acute: and one triangle has on each side a
moiety of a right angle marked off by equal sides, the other
has it divided into unequal parts by unequal sides. These
we conceive to be the basis of fire and the other bodies, follow-
ing up the probable account which is concerned with necessity:
but the principles yet more remote than these are known but to
God and to whatsoever man is a friend of God. Now we must
declare what are the four fairest bodies that could be created,
unlike one another, but capable, some of them, of being gene-
rated out of each other by their dissolution: for if we succeed in
this, we have come at the truth concerning earth and fire
and the intermediate proportionals. For we will concede to
no one that there exist any visible bodies fairer than these, each
after its own kind. We must do our diligence then to put
together these four kinds of bodies most excellent in beauty,
and so we shall say that we have a full comprehension of their
nature.

Now of the two triangles the isosceles has but one kind,

sort: to the second, that Plato’s solids vided into one or other of these by simply

are not indivisible, but are the minutest
forms of organised matter which exist.
When they are broken up, they are either
reformed into another figure, or the mat-
ter of which they are composed goes on
existing in a formless condition. There
is however a real difficulty not noticed
by Aristotle, which will be discussed on
56 Ὁ.

4. ἐκ τριγώνων συνέστηκε! Because
every rectilinear plane of whatever shape
can be divided up into triangles, three
straight lines being the fewest that can
enclose a space.

5. ἐκ δυοῖν ἄρχεται τριγώνοιν] All
triangles are reducible to two, the rect-
angular isosceles and the rectangular
scalene, because any triangle can be di-

drawing a perpendicular from one of the
angles to the opposite side. Of the rect-
angular isosceles there is of course but
one kind; of the rectangular scalene an
endless. variety. Out of these Plato
chooses as best that which is obtained
by bisecting an equilateral triangle; the
reason for this choice becomes presently
obvious.

το. τὰς δ᾽ ἔτι τούτων ἀρχάς] Plato
will not affirm that there is any physical
ἀρχὴ which is absolutely ultimate.

13. αὐτῶν ἄττα] This anticipates the
correction given in 54 B of the statement
in 49 C.

15. τῶν TE ἀνὰ λόγον] i.e. the mean
proportionals, air and water, between fire
and earth; see 32 A.

5

Io

15

192 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [54 A—

ἰσοσκελὲς μίαν εἴληχε φύσιν, τὸ δὲ πρόμηκες ἀπεράντους" προ-
αἱρετέον οὖν αὖ τῶν ἀπείρων τὸ κάλλιστον, εἰ μέλλομεν ἄρξεσθαι
κατὰ τρόπον. ἂν οὖν τις ἔχῃ κάλλιον ἐκλεξάμενος εἰπεῖν εἰς τὴν
τούτων ξύστασιν, ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἐχθρὸς ὧν ἀλλὰ φίλος κρατεῖ" τιθέ-
μεθα δ᾽ οὖν τῶν πολλῶν τριγώνων κάλλιστον ἕν, ὑπερβάντες
τἄλλα, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἰσόπλευρον τρίγωνον ἐκ τρίτου συνέστηκε. διότι Β
δέ, λόγος πλείων: ἀλλὰ τῷ τοῦτο ἐξελέγξαντι καὶ ἀνευρόντι μὴ
οὕτως ἔχον κεῖται φίλια τὰ ἄθλα. προῃρήσθω δὴ δύο τρίγωνα,
ἐξ ὧν τό τε τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων σώματα μεμηχάνηται,
τὸ μὲν ἰσοσκελές, τὸ δὲ τριπλῆν κατὰ δύναμιν ἔχον τῆς ἐλάττονος
τὴν μείζω πλευρὰν ἀεί. τὸ δὴ πρόσθεν ἀσαφῶς ῥηθὲν νῦν μᾶλλον
διοριστέον. τὰ γὰρ τέτταρα γένη δι’ ἀλλήλων εἰς ἄλληλα ἐφαί-
veto πάντα γένεσιν ἔχειν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς φανταζόμενα' γίγνεται μὲν αὶ
γὰρ ἐκ τῶν τριγώνων ὧν προῃρήμεθα γένη τέτταρα, τρία μὲν ἐξ
ἑνὸς τοῦ τὰς πλευρὰς ἀνίσους ἔχοντος, τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ἕν μόνον
ἐκ τοῦ ἰσοσκελοῦς τριγώνου ξυναρμοσθέν. οὔκουν δυνατὰ πάντα
εἰς ἄλληλα διαλυόμενα ἐκ πολλῶν σμικρῶν ὀλίγα μεγάλα καὶ
τοὐναντίον γίγνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ τρία οἷόν τε' ἐκ γὰρ ἑνὸς ἅπαντα

2 μέλλομεν: μέλλοιμεν A. ἡ λόγος: ὁ λόγος SZ. δὲ ὁ erasit A.

μή: δή A. δὴ μή 5Ζ.

1. τὸ δὲ πρόμηκες] i.e. the scalene.
πρόμηκες denotes that one side exceeds
the other in length: the word is applied
to almost any shape which is longer than
it is broad; in 7heaetetus 148 A to a
rectangle which is not a square; there
and in Republic 546 C to a number ex-
pressing such a rectangle; to a long
vault, Zaws 947 Ὁ; to the elongated
heads of beasts, 7imaeus ΟἹ E: στρογγύλα
καὶ mpounkn=cylindrical, said of the spine,
Timaeus 73 Ὁ.

6. ἐκ τρίτου συνέστηκε]

i.e. the two triangles com-
bined form a third, which is
equilateral.

The extreme ἀήθεια of Plato’s theory
will be at once seen by a brief com-
parison with those of his predecessors.
Empedokles limited the primal elements
to four and conceived them as indefinitely
divisible ; and he treats as primary those

8 φίλια : φιλία AHSZ.

which Plato says are οὐδ᾽ ἐν συλλαβῆς
εἴδεσιν. 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
(1) 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] TIMAIOS. 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.

(ACP=4(DC)? ;

A

varieties in the size and shape of the therefore therefore
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 /o¢o caelo on

the subject of gravitation. There is

B D Ὁ

moreover a still more fundamental pecu-
liarity in the Platonic theory, which will
be discussed later: see 56 D.

το. τριπλῆν κατὰ δύναμιν] 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
AC=(AD)?+(Dc/y. But AC=2DC,

Pp. T,

(AD)?=3(DC)?, or AD: DC :: 4/321.
cf. Zimaeus Locrus 98 A.

11. τὸ δὴ πρόσθεν] Referring to the
statement in 49 C that all the elements
are interchangeable. Aristotle makes all
four interchangeable: see for instance
meteorologica 1 iii 339° 37 φαμὲν δὲ πῦρ
καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν γίνεσθαι ἐξ ἀλλή-
λων, καὶ ἕκαστον ἐν ἑκάστῳ ὑπάρχειν τού-
των δυνάμει.

1

194 MAATONOS [54 c—

πεφυκότα λυθέντων Te τῶν μειζόνων πολλὰ σμικρὰ ἐκ τῶν αὖ-
τῶν ξυστήσεται, δεχόμενα τὰ προσήκοντα ἑαυτοῖς σχήματα, καὶ Ὁ
σμικρὰ ὅταν αὖ πολλὰ κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα διασπαρῇ, γενόμενος εἷς
ἀριθμὸς ἑνὸς ὄγκου μέγα ἀποτέλέσειεν ἂν ἄλλο εἶδος ἕν. ταῦτα
5 μὲν οὖν λελέχθω περὶ τῆς εἰς ἄλληλα γενέσεως" οἷον δὲ ἕκαστον
αὐτῶν γέγονεν εἶδος καὶ ἐξ ὅσων συμπεσόντων ἀριθμῶν, λέγειν
ἂν ἑπόμενον. εἴη. ἄρξει δὴ τό τε πρῶτον εἶδος καὶ σμικρότατον
ξυνιστάμενον, στοιχεῖον δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ τὴν ὑποτείνουσαν τῆς ἐλάτ-
τονος πλευρᾶς διπλασίαν ἔχον μήκει' ξύνδυο δὲ τοιούτων κατὰ
διάμετρον ξυντιθεμένων καὶ τρὶς τούτου. γενομένου, τὰς διαμέτρους E
καὶ τὰς βραχείας πλευρὰς εἰς ταὐτὸν ὡς κέντρον ἐρεισάντων, ἕν
ἰσόπλευρον τρίγωνον ἐξ ἕξ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντων γέγονε: τρίγωνα δὲ
ἰσόπλευρα ξυνιστάμενα τέτταρα κατὰ σύντρεις ἐπιπέδους γωνίας
μίαν στερεὰν γωνίαν ποιεῖ, τῆς ἀμβλυτάτης τῶν ἐπιπέδων γωνιῶν 55 A
ἐφεξῆς γεγονυῖαν: τοιούτων δὲ ἀποτελεσθεισῶν τεττάρων πρῶτον
εἶδος στερεόν, ὅλου περιφεροῦς διανεμητικὸν eis ica μέρη καὶ

fe)

σι

3 σμικρά: οὐ σμικρά A, κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα : τὰ omittit A. 6 ὅσων: ὧν 8.

8. τὴν ὑποτείνουσαν] The same tri-
angle given above, having its sides in the
proportion 1, ,/3, 2.

9. ξύνδυο δέ] Take two equal rect-
angular scalenes AOF, AOZ, of the
form aforesaid, and place them so that

their hypotenuses coincide. Thus we
A
Ἐ, E
ο
Β D ς

have a trapezium AFOZ. In the same
way form two other equal and similar
trapeziums BFOD, CEOD, and place
them so that in each of them the two
sides which are the shortest sides of the
triangles coincide severally with a similar
side in each of the two others, FO, ZO,
DO. The juxtaposition of these three
trapeziums gives us an equilateral triangle
ABC formed of six rectangular scalenes
similar in all respects to the triangle ob-

tained by bisecting ABC. For let ABC
be an equilateral triangle, and draw the

_three perpendiculars 4D, BZ, CF, each

bisecting it. Then it is easy to prove
that the three perpendiculars intersect in
the point O: and since in the triangle
AOF the angle 4F0 is a right angle and
the angle “AO is 4 of a right angle,
therefore the angle 4OF must be ὃ of a
right angle; and the triangle AOF is
consequently similar to 4DB, as also are
the other five. Accordingly the juxta-
position of six rectangular scalenes of the
form and in the manner described will
make up a single equilateral triangle.

κατὰ διάμετρον] That is, placed so
that the hypotenuse of one coincides
with that of the other: the common
hypotenuse 4 O of the two triangles 4 OF,
AOE becomes the diagonal of the tra-
pezium AFOZ.

11. εἰς ταὐτὸν ὡς κέντρον] i.e. at the
point O.

12. ἐξ ἕξ τὸν ἀριθμόν] It is notable
that Plato uses six of the primary scalenes
to compose his equilateral triangle, when

55 Al ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ, 195

For since they all arise from one basis, when the larger bodies
are broken up, a number of small ones will be formed from
the same elements, putting on the shapes proper to them;
and again when a number of small bodies are resolved into
their triangles, they will become one in number and constitute a
single large body of a different form. So much for their gene-
ration into one another: the next thing will be to say what
is the form in which each has been created, and by the com-
bination of what numbers. We will begin with the form which
is simplest and smallest in its construction. Its element is the
triangle which has the hypotenuse double of the shorter side
in length. If a pair of these are put together so that their
hypotenuses coincide, and this is done three times, in such
a way that the hypotenuses and the shorter sides meet in
one point as a centre, thus one equilateral triangle has been
formed out of the other six triangles: and if four equilateral
triangles are combined, so that three plane angles meet in
a point, they make at each point one solid angle, that which
comes immediately next to the most obtuse of plane angles;
and when four such angles are produced there is formed the first
solid figure, dividing its whole surface into four equal and similar
he could have done it equally well 12. τρίγωνα δὲ ἰσόπλευρα] Next we

with two. Similarly he uses four rect- take four equilateral triangles thus con-
angular isosceles to compose the square, __ structed each of six elementary scalenes,

whereas he could have formed it of two.
The reason is probably this: the sides
of the primary triangles mark the lines
along which the equilaterals are broken
up in case of dissolution. Now had
Plato formed his equilaterals of two sca-
lenes only, it would have been left in
doubt whether the triangle 4.5.6 would
be broken up along the line AD, or
along BE, or CF. But if they are com-
posed of six, the lines along which dis-
solution takes place is positively deter-
mined; since there is only one way in
which six can be joined so as to form one
equilateral. The same remark applies to
the composition of the square. Also by
taking one-sixth of the equilateral, in-
stead of one-half, we get the smallest
element possible for our primal base.

and place them so as to make a regular
tetrahedron or pyramid; each of whose
solid angles is bounded by three planes
meeting in a point. The pyramid is the
simplest of the regular solids, having
four equilateral triangles for its sides,
and therefore containing 24 of the primal
scalenes. This is the corpuscule com-
posing fire.

14. τῆς ἀμβλυτάτης]) The most
obtuse plane angle (expressed in integral
numbers) is 179 degrees, one degree short
of two right angles, or a straight line,
The solid angle of a pyramid is, as we
have seen, bounded by three equilateral
triangles. The angle of an equilateral
triangle is two-thirds of a right angle,
that is, 60 degrees. Therefore the angle
of the pyramid contains 180 degrees, or

13—2

196

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[55 A—

ὅμοια, Evviorarar. . δεύτερον δὲ ἐκ μὲν τῶν αὐτῶν τριγώνων, κατὰ.
δὲ ἰσόπλευρα τρίγωνα ὀκτὼ ξυστάντων, μίαν ἀπεργασαμένων στε-
pedy γωνίαν ἐκ τεττάρων ἐπιπέδων" καὶ γενομένων ἕξ τοιούτων
τὸ δεύτερον αὖ σῶμα οὕτως ἔσχε τέλος. τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἐκ Sis
5 ἑξήκοντα τῶν στοιχείων ξυμπαγέντων, στερεῶν δὲ γωνιῶν δώ-
δεκα, ὑπὸ πέντε ἐπιπέδων τριγώνων ἰσοπλεύρων περιεχομένης

ε / »Μ , ΒΩ > , , /
EKACTYHS, ELKOCL βάσεις εχον ἰσοπλεύρους τριγώνους yeyove.

᾿
και

τὸ μὲν ἕτερον ἀπήλλακτο τῶν στοιχείων ταῦτα γεννῆσαν" τὸ δὲ
ἰσοσκελὲς τρίγωνον ἐγέννα τὴν τοῦ τετάρτου φύσιν, κατὰ τέτταρα
10 ξυνιστάμενον, εἰς τὸ κέντρον τὰς ὀρθὰς γωνίας ξυνάγον, ἕν ἰσό-
πλευρον τετράγωνον ἀπεργασάμενον: ἕξ δὲ τοιαῦτα ξυμπαγέντα
γωνίας ὀκτὼ στερεὰς ἀπετέλεσε, κατὰ τρεῖς ἐπιπέδους ὀρθὰς Evvap-
μοσθείσης ἑκάστης" τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τοῦ ξυστάντος σώματος γέγονε

κυβικόν, ἐξ ἐπιπέδους τετραγώνους ἰσοπλεύρους βάσεις ἔχον.
15 δὲ οὔσης ξυστάσεως μιᾶς πέμπτης, ἐπὶ τὸ πᾶν ὁ θεὸς αὐτῇ κατε-.

χρήσατο ἐκεῖνο διαζωγραφῶν.

8 ταῦτα γεννῆσαν:

one degree more than the obtusest pos-
sible of plane angles.

2. ἰσόπλευρα τρίγωνα ὀκτώ] The
next figure is the octahedron, the second
regular solid, having eight equilateral
triangular sides, and six angles, each of
them bounded by four planes: this then
contains 48 of the primal scalenes. This
is the constituent corpuscule of air.

4. τὸ δὲ tplrov] The third regular
solid is the icosahedron, which has
twenty sides, of the same shape as the
former, and twelve angles, each bounded
by five of the equilateral planes; this
consequently contains no less than 120
primal scalenes. This forms the element
of water. And now the rectangular
scalene, out of which the equilateral is
formed, has finished its work: since
these three are the only regular solids
whose sides are equilateral triangles.

9. κατὰ τέτταρα ξυνισταμένον] The
corpuscule of which earth is formed is
based upon the other element, the rect-
angular isosceles: four of which, joined
in the manner shewn in the accompany-

"
ετι

γεννῆσαν ταῦτα 8.

ing figure, make a square. Six of these
squares set together form the fourth regu-

A B

lar solid, which is the cube, having eight
solid angles each bounded by three planes:
the cube then contains 24 of the ele-
mentary isosceles. The reason why Plato
forms his square of four instead of two
triangles has been already suggested: it
is obvious however that he might have
constructed it of any number he chose:
for by bisecting the triangle 408 we
should obtain two precisely similar tri-
angles, which again might be bisected into
precisely similar triangles wsgue ad in-
jinitum. Plato however had to stop short
somewhere in the number of triangles
which he assigned to the square; and
naturally enough he stopped short at
the smallest number which gave him

B

Cl ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 197

parts. The second is formed of the same triangles in sets of
eight equilateral triangles, bounding every single solid angle by
four planes; and with the formation of six such solid angles the
second figure is also complete. The third is composed of 120
of the elementary triangles united, and of twelve solid angles,
each contained by five plane equilateral triangles; and it has
twenty equilateral surfaces. And the first element, when it had
generated these figures, had done its part: the isosceles triangle
generated the fourth, combined in sets of four, with the right
angles meeting at the centre, thus forming a single square. Six
of these squares joined together formed eight solid angles, each
produced by three plane right angles: and the shape of the
body thus formed was cubical, having six square planes for its

surfaces.

And whereas a fifth figure yet alone remained, God

used it for the universe in embellishing it with signs.

determinate lines of cleavage.

14. ἔτι 8& οὔσης ξυστάσεως μιᾶς
πέμπτης] There is in existence yet a
fifth regular solid, the dodecahedron.
This has twelve sides, each of which is
an equilateral pentagon; it has twenty
solid angles each contained by three
planes. This is of course not based upon
either of the elementary triangles; nor
is it the corpuscule of any. material sub-
stance. God, says Plato, used it for a
pattern in diversifying the universe with
signs: that is it served as a model for
the twelvefold division of the zodiac.
The writer of the Zimaeus Locrus (see
98 E τὸ δὲ δωδεκάεδρον εἰκόνα τοῦ παντὸς
ἐστάσατο, ἔγγιστα σφαίρας ἐόν) is quite
in error in supposing that the shape of
the dodecahedron has anything to do
with that of the universe: the spherical
shape of the latter is the material symbol
of the αὐτὸ ζῷον. Plato was bound to
find some significance for the only re-
maining regular solid; and he found it
as suggesting the twelve signs of the
heavens. Compare Phaedo 110 B πρῶτον
μὲν εἶναι τοιαύτη ἡ γῆ αὐτὴ ἰδεῖν, εἴ τις
ἄνωθεν θεῷτο, ὥσπερ αἱ δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖ-
pa, where obviously the ‘twelve-patched

ball’ represents the duodenary division.
There is a curious blunder in Plutarch
guaestiones platonicae Vi: συνήρμοσται
δὲ καὶ συμπέπηγεν ἐκ δώδεκα πενταγώνων
ἰσογωνίων καὶ ἰσοπλεύρων, ὧν ἕκαστον ἐκ
τριάκοντα τῶν πρώτων σκαληνῶν τριγώνων
συνέστηκε" διὸ καὶ δοκεῖ τὸν ζωδιακὸν ἅμα
καὶ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπομιμεῖσθαι ταῖς δια-

νομαῖς τῶν μοιρῶν ἰσαρίθμοις οὖσιν. ΑἹ-
kinoos has a similar statement: this

would involve the consequence that every
side of the dodecahedron can be divided
into five equilateral triangles, each con-
sisting of six. primal scalenes; an opinion
which Stallbaum welcomes with joy,
saying that it ‘mirifice convenit’ with
the 360 degrees into which the circle is
divided. It is perhaps strange that neither
Stallbaum Plutarch nor Alkinoos took the
trouble even to draw a regular pentagon
in order to verify this theory, which is
of course geometrically absurd: Martin
goes so far as to give, not without sarcasm,
a mathematical demonstration of its im- -
possibility.

55 C—56 C,c, xxi. Now if the ques-
tion be put, are there more cosmical sys-
tems than one? the reply that there are
an indefinite number would be a very in-

σι

10

198 MAATONOS [Ὁ Ce

XXI. °A δή τις εἰ πάντα λογιζόμενος ἐμμελῶς ἀποροῖ, πότε-
ρον ἀπείρους χρὴ κόσμους εἶναι λέγειν ἢ πέρας ἔχοντας, τὸ μὲν
ἀπείρους ἡγήσαιτ᾽ ἂν ὄντως ἀπείρου τινὸς εἶναι δόγμα ὧν ἔμπει-

= / δὲ τ “Δ / ᾽ ὺ >
pov χρεὼν elvar’ πότερον δὲ ἕνα ἢ πέντε αὐτοὺς ἀληθείᾳ πεφυ-
κότας λέγειν προσήκει, μᾶλλον ἂν ταύτῃ στὰς εἰκότως διαπορήσαι.
3 \ ee a te \ \ ee ὦ ,

τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἕνα αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον πεφυ-
κότα μηνύει, ἄλλος δὲ εἰς ἄλλα πῃ βλέψας ἕτερα δοξάσει. καὶ
τοῦτον μὲν μεθετέον, τὰ δὲ γεγονότα νῦν τῷ λόγῳ γένη διανεί-
μωμεν εἰς πῦρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα. γῇ μὲν δὴ τὸ κυβικὸν
εἶδος δῶμεν: ἀκινητοτάτη γὰρ τῶν τεττάρων γενῶν γῆ καὶ τῶν E
σωμάτων πλαστικωτάτη, μάλιστα δὲ ἀνάγκη γεγονέναι τοιοῦτον

\ \ / 3 , ΝΜ / pwn 4 a δα \
τὸ τὰς βάσεις ἀσφαλεστάτας ἔχον' βάσις δὲ ἥ τε τῶν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς
τρυγώνων ὑποτεθέντων ἀσφαλεστέρα κατὰ φύσιν, ἡ τῶν ἴσων

5 ποτὲ post λέγειν dat A, quod inclusum retinet H.

πᾶς 5. 7 θεὸς post μηνύει addit A.

τοΐτων SZ.

definite answer: but to affirm that there
are five might be more reasonable. We
however in conformity with our principles
assert that there is but one. We must
now assign our elementary solids to the
natural substances which they severally
compose. Earth is the most unyielding
of the four; therefore to it we assign the
cube as its constituent; for this is the
most stable solid, being formed of the
rectangular isosceles. To water, which
next to earth is the most sluggish, we
give the icosahedron; and to fire, which
is of all the most mobile, the pyramid;
while for air there remains the inter-
mediate form of the octahedron. Now
all these corpuscules are separately so
small as to be invisible; it is only when
they are collected in large numbers that
they can be seen by us: but God as-
signed them to the four substances with
due regard to proportion in respect of
multitude and motion and all other
powers,

3: dtrelpovs...dmelpov] For the play
on the word compare Philebus 17 E τὸ δὲ
ἄπειρόν σε ἑκάστων καὶ ἐν ἑκάστοις πλῆθος
ἄπειρον ἑκάστοτε ποιεῖ τοῦ φρονεῖν καὶ οὐκ

uncis inclusum servat H.

στάς:
8 τοῦτον :

cum SZ eieci.

ἐλλόγιμον οὐδ᾽ ἐνάριθμον, ἅτ᾽ οὐκ εἰς ἀριθ-
μὸν οὐδένα ἐν οὐδενὶ πώποτε ἀπιδόντα.
Plato is at issue with Demokritos, who
consistently with his whole physical
theory maintained that the number of
κόσμοι 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 κόσμοι, disposed in the
form of an equilateral triangle. The
eternal fitness of this arrangement is not
explained by Plutarch.

4. πότερον δὲ ἕνα ἢ πέντε] Plato re-
gards as a comparatively reasonable sup-
position the view that there may be five
κόσμοι, because there exist in nature five
regular rectilinear solids. | Compare
Plutarch de εἰ apud Delphos ὃ 11 πολλὰ
δ᾽ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα, ἔφην ἐγώ, παρελθών, τὸν
Πλάτωνα προσάξομαι λέγοντα κόσμον ἕνα,
ὡς εἴπερ εἰσὶ παρὰ τοῦτον ἕτεροι καὶ μὴ
μόνος οὗτος εἷς, πέντε τοὺς πάντας ὄντας
καὶ μὴ πλείονας. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἂν εἷς
οὗτος ἢ μονογενής, ὡς οἴεται καὶ ’Apioro-
τέλης, τρόπον τινὰ καὶ τοῦτον ἐκ πέντε
συγκείμενον κόσμων καὶ συνηρμοσμένον

ΕἸ ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 199 -

XXI. Now if any man, reflecting upon all these things,
should fairly ask himself whether the number of cosmic systems
is indefinite or definite, he would deem that to believe them in-
definite was the opinion of one who thought very indefinitely on
a matter where he ought to be most definitely informed: but
whether we ought to say that there is but one, or that there are
really in nature five, he might, if he stopped short there, with
more justice feel doubtful. Our verdict declares that according
to the probable theory it is by nature one; another however,
looking to some other guide, may have a different view. But
no more of him; let us assign the figures that have come into
being in our theory to fire and earth and water and air. To
earth let us give the cubical form; for earth is least mobile
of the four and most plastic of bodies: and that substance must
possess this nature in the highest degree which has its bases

most stable.

Now. of the triangles which we assumed as our

starting-point that with equal sides is more stable than that

εἶναι" ὧν ὁ μέν ἐστι γῆς, ὁ δ᾽ ὕδατος, τρίτος
δὲ πυρὸς, καὶ τέταρτος ἀέρος" τὸν δὲ πέμπ-
τον, οὐρανόν, οἱ δὲ φώς, οἱ δ᾽ αἰθέρα καλοῦ-
σιν, οἱ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, πέμπτην οὐσίαν, ἣ τὸ
κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι μόνῃ τῶν σωμάτων
κατὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὐδ᾽ ἀλ-
λως συμβεβηκός. 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. ταύτῃ στάς] This is evidently the
true reading. If the inquirer were to
stop short at the number five and declare
that so many κόσμοι existed, he would be
more reasonable, says Plato, than he who
should go on to a larger or indefinite
number. Stallbaum’s πᾶς, which has but
slight support, is quite inappropriate:
Plato could not say that it was reasonable
for every one to doubt whether there are
five κόσμοι or one; it would not be
reasonable in his own case, as we see in
31 B. Ἶ

6. ἕνα αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον]

It will be noted that here, where he is
dealing with physics and the region of
opinion, Plato only pronounces the unity
of the universe to be probable and con-
sonant to his theory of nature. But at
31 B it is authoritatively declared to be
one on the infallible principle of meta-
physical necessity. After μηνύει, θεὸς
cannot possibly be genuine.

7. ἄλλος δὲ εἰς ἄλλα wy] Obviously
aimed αἱ Demokritos: a philosopher who
has no place for νοῦς in his system may
very well maintain an infinity of κόσμοι.

8. τοῦτον] i.e. Demokritos, who is
dismissed with something more like con-
tempt than Plato is wont to show for
other thinkers.

τὰ δὲ γεγονότα viv τῷ λόγῳ] Com-
pare 27 A ἀνθρώπους τῷ λόγῳ γεγονότας.

It, πλαστικωτάτη] The other three
are too subtle to be plastic. Aristotle’s
objections to the present theory will be
found in de caelo 111 viii 306 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

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[55 E—

πλευρῶν, τῆς τῶν ἀνίσων, TO τε ἐξ ἑκατέρου ξυντεθὲν ἐπίπεδον
ἰσόπλευρον ἰσοπλεύρου τετράγωνον τριγώνου κατά τε μέρη καὶ

» ὦ

καθ᾽ ὅλον στασιμωτέρως ἐξ ἀνάγκης βέβηκε. διὸ γῇ μὲν τοῦτο

ἀπονέμοντες τὸν εἰκότα λόγον διασῴζομεν, ὕδατι δ᾽ αὖ τῶν λοιπῶν
5 τὸ δυσκινητότατον εἶδος, τὸ δ᾽ εὐκινητότατον πυρί, τὸ δὲ μέσον

7 \ \ \ / a 7 \ 2 Φ f “
ἀέρι" καὶ τὸ μὲν σμικρότατον σῶμα πυρί, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ μέγιστον ὕδατι,

τὸ δὲ μέσον ἀέρι' καὶ τὸ μὲν ὀξύτατον αὖ πυρί, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον

ἀέρι, τὸ δὲ τρίτον ὕδατι. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δὴ πάντα, τὸ μὲν ἔχον ὀλι-

γίστας βάσεις εὐκινητότατον ἀνάγκη πεφυκέναι, τμητικώτατόν τε

ὅθΑ

| >

10 καὶ ὀξύτατον ὃν πάντῃ πάντων, ἔτι Te ἐλαφρότατον, ἐξ dduyloTwV B
hed a fal ‘ ᾽ \ a?

Evveo tos τῶν αὐτῶν μερῶν' τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δευτέρως Ta αὐτὼ ταῦτ

” iy \ \ / » Re τον τ ae ,

ἔχειν, τρίτως δὲ τὸ τρίτον. ἔστω δὴ κατὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον καὶ

a \ 3
κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα TO μὲν τῆς πυραμίδος στερεὸν γεγονὸς εἶδος
πυρὸς στοιχεῖον καὶ σπέρμα" τὸ δὲ δεύτερον κατὰ γένεσιν εἴπω-

1g μεν ἀέρος, τὸ δὲ τρίτον ὕδατος.

20

πάντα οὖν δὴ ταῦτα δεῖ δια-

a \ ¢ € > Ψ \ a / € /
νοεῖσθαι σμικρὰ οὕτως, ὡς καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον μὲν τοῦ γένους ἑκάστου
ὃ \ , Ἰδὲ ς / €¢ 4? ς [2] θ θέ δὲ

ta σμικρότητα οὐδὲν ὁρώμενον ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, ξυναθροισθέντων δὲ
Ὁ \ Μ > an cn \ A \ A a >
πολλῶν τοὺς ὄγκους αὐτῶν ὁρᾶσθαι Kal 5) καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀναλο-
γιῶν περί τε τὰ πλήθη καὶ τὰς κινήσεις καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δυνάμεις
πανταχῇ τὸν θεόν, ὅπῃπερ ἡ τῆς ἀνάγκης ἑκοῦσα πεισθεῖσά τε

8 ὀλιγίστας : ὀλίγας τὰς Α. ὀλιγοστὰς 8.

10 καὶ ante ὀξύτατον omittit 5,

14 εἴπωμεν : εἴπομεν A, x

bearing of this will be discussed a little
later; see note on 58 A.

2. κατά Te μέρη καὶ καθ᾽ ὅλον] i.e. as
the rectangular isosceles is more stable,
owing to the equality of its sides, than
the rectangular scalene, so the solid based
on the former is more steady than that
based on the latter.

6. τὸ μὲν σμικρότατον] No com-
parison in point of size is made with the
corpuscules of earth, because the latter
has a different base: but in the case of
the other three the size of the figure
varies according to the number of the
radical triangles contained in it.

8. ὀλιγίστας βάσεις] Stallbaumseems
perverse in reading é\vyoords. For even
if ὀλιγοστὰς could mean ‘very small’
(which is quite dubious: see Campbell
on Sophokles Amtigone 625), this is not

the right meaning; the sense requires
‘very few’: for the mobile and penetrat-
ing nature of fire is due to the small num-
ber of its sides and the consequent acute-
ness of its angles. Plato evidently con-
siders that the sharp points of the pyramid
most readily cleave their way through
other bodies; and so Aristotle understood
him to mean, de caelo 111 viii 307 2.
It is curious to observe how the meaning
of πολλοστὸς and of ὀλιγοστὸς sometimes
seems to be inverted: compare the passage
of the Antigone aforesaid, πράσσει δ᾽ ὀλι-
γοστὸν χρόνον ἐκτὸς ἄτας (v. 1. ὀλίγιστον)
with Demosthenes κατὰ Τιμοκράτους ὃ 196
τὸ τὰ τούτων πολλοστῷ χρόνῳ μόλις καὶ
ἄκοντας... κατατιθέναι. In the first case
the meaning will be ‘he is free from woe
for a time which is one of a few (sc. of a
few times when he is free)’; i.e. he is

Cc

56 c] TIMAIOS.

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 οἵ neces-

201

seldom free; the second ‘they paid at a
moment which is one of many moments
(sc. in which they had not paid)’, i.e.
after a long interval. But neither of
these constructions countenances éAvyo-
στὰς here. In assigning the pyramidal
form to fire Plato differs from Demokritos,
who attributed the mobility of fire to the
roundness of its atoms: cf. Aristotle de
caelo 307° τό.

το. ἐλαφρότατον] Not light, but
nimble, mobile. ;

13. στερεὸν γεγονός] For the bearing
of this see note on 56 D. κατὰ γένεσιν,
ie. in order of generation, having the
next fewest sides,

16. σμικρὰ οὕτως] Here Plato is in

agreement with Demokritos, in making
his atoms so small as to be individually
invisible, and only perceptible in masses.

18. τὸ τῶν ἀναλογιῶν] That is to say,
observing the proportional relations pro-
pounded in 32 A, B.

20. πεισθεῖσα] cf. 48 A. ξυνηρμόσθαι
is sometimes regarded as an anacoluthon;
but there can be hardly a doubt that it is
a middle. The middlé of this word is
used twice elsewhere by Plato, each time
in the aorist: see above 53 E σωμάτων
τέτταρα γένη συναρμόσασθαι, and Politicus
309 C θείῳ ξυναρμοσαμένη δεσμῷ.

56 C—57D, c. xxii. When earth then
is resolved by fire, it drifts about until it

can reunite with earthy elements, and so

202 MAATQNOS [56 c—

φύσις ὑπεῖκεν, ταύτῃ πάντῃ δι’ ἀκριβείας ἀποτελεσθεισῶν ὑπ᾽
αὐτοῦ, ξυνηρμόσθαι ταῦτ᾽ ἀνὰ λόγον.
XXII. Ἔκ δὴ πάντων ὧν περὶ τὰ γένη προειρήκαμεν ὧδ᾽ ἂν
κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ἔχοι. γῆ μὲν ξυντυγχάνουσα πυρὶ δια-
5 λυθεῖσά τε ὑπὸ τῆς ὀξύτητος αὐτοῦ φέροιτ᾽ ἄν, εἴτ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ πυρὶ
λυθεῖσα εἴτ᾽ ἐν ἀέρος εἴτ᾽ ἐν ὕδατος ὄγκῳ τύχοι, μέχριπερ ἂν αὐτῆς
πη ξυντυχόντα τὰ μέρη, πάλιν ξυναρμοσθέντα αὐτὰ αὑτοῖς, γῆ
γένοιτο' οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἄλλο γε εἶδος ἔλθοι ποτ᾽ ἄν. ὕδωρ δὲ ὑπὸ
πυρὸς μερισθέν, εἴτε καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος, ἐγχωρεῖ γίγνεσθαι ξυστάντα

I ὑπεῖκεν: ὑπεῖκε HSZ.

4 ἂν post μάλιστ᾽ omittit S,

6 μέχριπερ: ὃ μέχριπερ A,

resume the form of earth; for, owing to
the dissimilarity of base, it cannot be
changed to any of the other three. But
when water is resolved by fire or air, it
can be reformed in the shape of fire and
air. So when air is resolved, one of its
particles make two of fire, or two particles
and a half form one of water. Of fire
also two particles may coalesce into one
of air. And, in general, when a smaller
mass of any of the three is overcome by a
larger mass of any other and resolved, its
resolution ceases the moment it assumes
the form of the victorious element, but
not until then. So the vanquished ele-
ment must either escape away and seek
its own region in space, or else accept
the form of the other. It follows then
that, owing to this incessant conflict be-
tween the elements, perpetual changes of
form are taking place, and perpetual
changes of position in space.

All this has been said in view of the
primary and typical kinds in the four
forms, fire, air, water, earth: but a variety
of kinds are found within the limits of
each form. These are due to a variation
of size in the primal triangles, of which
there are so many sizes as there are kinds
in each form. Such kinds by manifold
intermixture produce an endless number
of varieties in phenomena, which it is our
business to investigate.

5. éporr ἄν] Earth has not the

«ξυστάντα.

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. εἴτ᾽ ἐν ἀέρος] 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. ξυστάντα] Ast and Stallbaum would
read ξυστάν. But ξυστάντα agrees, by an
easy attraction, with ὃν μὲν δύο δὲ follow-
ing. It might be considered however
that, since the single particle of water is
resolved into two of air and one of fire,
διαλυθέντα 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 de caelo 111 i 299% 1
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, ἐπὶ-
πολῆς ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν. The theory of an over-
sight in this respect must therefore be

D] TIMAIO¥. 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
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 ἐπίπεδα are not mathematical
planes at all, but thin laminae of matter,
‘feuilles minces taillées suivant les figures
rectilignes qu’il a décrites.’ 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 κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα,
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-

minates void as far as possible from his
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 568
is quite definite as to this point, τὸ
μὲν τῆς πυραμίδος στερεὸν γεγονὸς εἶδος.
Finally how could hollow particles es-
cape being crushed by the tremendous
constricting force described in 58A? 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-

5

Io

204 MAATONOS [56 D—

e 8

ὃν μὲν πυρὸς σῶμα, δύο δὲ ἀέρος" τὰ δὲ ἀέρος τμήματα ἐξ ἑνὸς
/
μέρους διαλυθέντος δύ᾽ ἂν γενοίσθην σώματα πυρός. καὶ πάλιν,
ὅταν ἀέρι πῦρ ὕδασίν τε ἤ τινι γῇ περιλαμβανόμενον ἐν πολλοῖς
ὀλίγον, κινούμενον ἐν φερομένοις, μαχόμενον καὶ νικηθὲν κατα-
fal , x 4 > ἃ / 5 +7

θραυσθῇ, δύο πυρὸς σώματα eis ἕν ξυνίστασθον εἶδος ἀέρος" καὶ
κρατηθέντος ἀέρος κερματισθέντος τε ἐκ δυοῖν ὅλοιν καὶ ἡμίσεος
ὕδατος εἶδος ἕν ὅλον ἔσται Evytrayés. ὧδε γὰρ δὴ λογισώμεθα
αὐτὰ πάλιν, ὡς ὅταν ἐν πυρὶ λαμβανόμενον τῶν ἄλλων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
τι γένος τῇ τῶν γωνιῶν καὶ κατὰ τὰς πλευρὰς ὀξύτητι τέμνηται,
ξυστὰν μὲν εἰς τὴν ἐκείνου φύσιν πέπαυται τεμνόμενον: τὸ γὰρ
ὅμοιον καὶ ταὐτὸν αὑτῷ γένος ἕκαστον οὔτε τινὰ μεταβολὴν ἐμ-
ποιῆσαι δυνατὸν οὔτε τι παθεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὁμοίως τε
» “ 2 OK ? v 4 Ka Ἃ
ἔχοντος" EWS δ᾽ ἂν εἰς ἄλλο τι γυγνόμενον ἧττον ὃν κρείττονι
μάχηται, λυόμενον οὐ παύεται. τά τε αὖ σμικρότερα ὅταν ἐν

3 ὕδασίν : ὕδασί HSZ.

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 δυοῖν : δυεῖν S.

pyramid. The ἐπίπεδα 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 ξυστάντα 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.

1. ἕν μὲν πυρός] The sides of the

E

57 A

57 A] TIMAIOS.

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

205

icosahedron, being 20 in number, are
equal to the sum of the sides of two
octahedrons and one pyramid.

2. καὶ πάλιν] 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. καταθραυσθῇ] This is the converse
of ξυστάντα above: the pyramids, being
the smallest particle, could not literally be
‘broken up’ into the larger bodies. The
same applies to κατακερματισθέντος ἀέρος
below.

7. Se γὰρ δὴ λογισώμεθα] 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. κατὰ τὰς πλευράς] i.e. cleft by the
sharp edges of the sides.

10. τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον] This view was
universally held, with the sole exception
of Demokritos: οἵ, Aristotle de gen. οἵ

corr. I vii 323° 3 οἱ μὲν γὰρ πλεῖστοι τοῦτό
γε ὁμονοητικῶς λέγουσιν, ws τὸ μὲν ὅμοιον
ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁμοίου πᾶν ἀπαθές ἐστι διὰ τὸ μη-
δὲν μᾶλλον ποιητικὸν ἢ παθητικὸν εἶναι
θάτερον θατέρου (πάντα γὰρ ὁμοίως ὑπάρ-
xew ταὐτὰ τοῖς ὁμοίοι5), τὰ δ᾽ ἀνόμοια καὶ
τὰ διάφορα ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν εἰς ἄλληλα
πέφυκεν. ...Δημόκριτος δὲ παρὰ τοὺς ἄλ-
Nous ἰδίως ἔλεξε μόνος" φησὶ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ
καὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι τό τε ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον"
οὐ γὰρ ἐγχωρεῖν τὰ ἕτερα καὶ διαφέροντα
πάσχειν ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἀλλὰ κἂν ἕτερα ὄντα
ποιῇ τι εἰς ἄλληλα, οὐκ ἣ ἕτερα, GAN’ ἣ Tav-
τόν τι ὑπάρχει, ταύτῃ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν
αὐτοῖς. Theophrastos however considers
that the view of Demokritos is uncertain:
see de sensu ὃ 49. This doctrine of μηδὲν
παθεῖν τὸ ὅμοιον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁμοίου only refers
to physical change, and does not affect
the principle ‘like is known by like’.

14. τά τε αὖ σμικρότερα] There seems
at first sight a good deal of iteration in
this chapter; but there is no real tau-
tology. Plato (1) explains how (a) the
larger figures are dissolved by the smaller,
(8) how the smaller are dissolved by the
larger; (2) he declares that (a) a small
mass of the larger figures, intercepted by

Io

15

206

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[57 Β-

τοῖς μείζοσι πολλοῖς περιλαμβανόμενα ὀλίγα διαθραυόμενα κα- B
τασβεννύηται, ξυνίστασθαι μὲν ἐθέλοντα εἰς τὴν τοῦ κρατοῦντος
ἰδέαν πέπαυται κατασβεννύμενα γίγνεταί τε ἐκ πυρὸς ἀήρ, ἐξ
ἀέρος ὕδωρ' ἐὰν δ᾽ εἰς αὐτὰ in καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τι ξυνιὸν γενῶν
5 μάχηται, λυόμενα οὐ παύεται, πρὶν ἢ παντάπασιν ὠθούμενα καὶ
διαλυθέντα ἐκφύγῃ πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενές, ἢ νικηθέντα, ἕν ἐκ πολλῶν
ὅμοιον τῷ κρατήσαντι γενόμενον, αὐτοῦ ξύνοικον μείνῃ. καὶ δὴ
καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ παθήματα διαμείβεται τὰς χώρας ἅπαντα" C
διέστηκε μὲν γὰρ τοῦ γένους ἑκάστου τὰ πλήθη κατὰ τόπον ἴδιον
διὰ τὴν τῆς δεχομένης κίνησιν, τὰ δὲ ἀνομοιούμενα ἑκάστοτε ἑαυ-
τοῖς, ἄλλοις δὲ ὁμοιούμενα, φέρεται διὰ τὸν σεισμὸν πρὸς τὸν ἐκεί-

x» ς a ,
νων οἷς ἂν ὁμοιωθῇ τόπον.

’O \ 3 Μ \ val t 8 Ν , , > n
σα μὲν οὖν ἄκρατα καὶ πρῶτα σώματα, διὰ τοιούτων αἰτιῶν
a a : ΄ 4 \
γέγονε: τοῦ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς εἴδεσιν αὐτῶν ἕτερα ἐμπεφυκέναι γένη τὴν
Led \ / /
ἑκατέρου τῶν στοιχείων αἰτιατέον σύστασιν, μὴ μόνον ἕν ἑκατέραν
, » \ / fol > > , > ? /
μέγεθος ἔχον τὸ τρίγωνον φυτεῦσαι Kat’ ἀρχάς, GAN ἐλάττω TED
\ / \ > \ ae a “ ΓΝ 3 ? a
καὶ μείζω, τὸν ἀριθμὸν δὲ ἔχοντα τοσοῦτον, ὅσαπερ ἂν ἢ τἂν τοῖς
\
εἴδεσι γένη. διὸ δὴ συμμυιγνύμενα αὐτά τε πρὸς αὑτὰ Kal πρὸς

14 τοῦ: τὸ Α.

a large mass of the smaller, (8) a small
mass of the smaller, intercepted by a
large mass of the larger, can recover a
definite form by becoming assimilated to
the victorious element.

4. ἐὰν δ᾽ εἰς αὐτὰ ty] The case put
here seems to differ from the foregoing in
this. Hitherto we have supposed a small
mass of one kind intercepted by a large
mass of the other: now we take the case
of a prolonged struggle between pretty
equal forces, when the process of dissolu-
tion continues without intermission, until
one side is vanquished and either escapes
away or is assimilated.

6. ἕν ἐκ πολλῶν] This ensues of
course only if the victorious side is the
kind formed of the larger figures.

8. διαμείβεται τὰς χώρας] Any kind
by changing its figure changes the region
of its affinity, as will be explained in the
following chapter.

9. τὰ πλήθη] 1.6. the main bulk of the
substance. Detached portions of every

ἐν : & A,

kind may from various causes be found
scattered everywhere through space, but
the great mass of each is in its own
region: cf. 63 B οὗ καὶ πλεῖστον ἂν
ἠθροισμένον εἴη πρὸς ὃ φέρεται. :

Io. τὴν τῆς δεχομένης κίνησιν] The
vibration of the ὑποδοχὴ described at
52 E.

13. ὅσα μὲν οὖν ἄκρατα Kal πρῶτα
σώματα] 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.

17. ὅσαπερ dv ἢ τὰν τοῖς εἴδεσι γένη]
The εἶδος 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] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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-
stance which is composed entirely from
pyramids of some one size constitutes a
γένος of fire; there are therefore just so
many γένη of fire as there are sizes of
pyramids. But there are also substances
which are composed of pyramids of dif-
ferent sizes: such substances will not be
typical of any γένος, but will approximate
to some γένος according as any special
size of pyramid preponderates in its fabric,
Accordingly we have in nature an in-
definite number of substances belonging
to each εἶδος, graduating from one γένος
to another. The investigation of these
begins in chapter xxiv. It is obvious
that the variation in the size of the
triangles must be confined within definite
limits, for the largest pyramid is always

smaller than the smallest octahedron, and
the largest octahedron than the smallest
icosahedron—for instance we find in 66 ἢ
that the φλέβες of the nostrils are too
wide for the densest form of air and too
narrow for the subtlest form of water.

57 D—58 C, 4. xxiii. Our discourse
now requires that we should set forth the
causes of rest and motion. Motion im-
plies. the mover and the moved, without
which two it cannot be. These two must
be dissimilar; therefore dissimilarity is
an essential condition of motion. And
the cause of dissimilarity is inequality.
Now the reason why all things are not
sifted once for all into their proper regions
and so become at rest is as follows. The
whole globe of the universe is subject to
a mighty constricting centripetal force,

TAATONOS [57 p—

ἃ
ἄλληλα τὴν ποικιλίαν ἐστὶν ἄπειρα: ἧς δὴ δεῖ θεωροὺς γίγνεσθαι
\ f \ , >. ¥ , /
TOUS μέλλοντας περὶ φύσεως εἰκότι λόγῳ χρήσεσθαι.
XXIII. Κινήσεως οὖν στάσεώς τε πέρι, τίνα τρόπον καὶ μεθ᾽
ὧντινων γίγνεσθον, εἰ μή τις διομολογήσεται, πόλλ᾽ av εἴη ἐμπο-
5 δὼν τῷ κατόπισθεν X D. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἢδ ἡ αὐτῶν εἴρηται
ν τῷ κατόπισθεν λογισμῷ. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἤδη περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηται,
πρὸς δ᾽ ἐκείνοις ἔτι τάδε, ἐν μὲν ὁμαλότητι μηδέποτε ἐθέλειν κί-
tal x \
vnow ἐνεῖναι. τὸ yap κινησόμενον ἄνευ τοῦ κινήσοντος ἢ TO
κινῆσον ἄνευ Tod κινησομένου χαλεπόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀδύνατον εἶναι"
κίνησις δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τούτων ἀπόντων' ταῦτα δὲ ὁμαλὰ εἶναί ποτε
tou iA δὴ U \ > ς / / δὲ > >
ἀδύνατον. οὕτω δὴ στάσιν μὲν ἐν ὁμαλότητι, κίνησιν δὲ εἰς ava-
, 3. δ a δ § 5 / 3 a > U ,
μαλότητα ἀεὶ τιθῶμεν: αἰτία δὲ ἀνισότης ad τῆς ἀνωμάλου φύ-
σεως. ἀνισότητος δὲ γένεσιν μὲν διεληλύθαμεν: πῶς δέ ποτε οὐ
κατὰ γένη διαχωρισθέντα ἕκαστα πέπαυται τῆς δι’ ἀλλήλων
κινήσεως καὶ φορᾶς, οὐκ εἴπομεν. ὧδε οὖν πάλιν ἐροῦμεν. ἡ
a \ / > \ , \ / A
τοῦ παντὸς περίοδος, ἐπειδὴ συμπεριέλαβε τὰ γένη, κυκλοτερὴς
> \ \ ¢ \ a , / / U
οὖσα Kai πρὸς αὑτὴν πεφυκυῖα βούλεσθαι ξυνιέναι, σφίγγει πάντα

208

Io

15

11 ἡ ante ἀνισότης dederunt SZ.

which crushes its whole mass together
and will not suffer any vacant space with-
in it. This forces the subtler elements
into the interstices of the coarser; and so
by the admixture of larger and smaller
forms, dilation and compression is every-
where at work; thereupon ensues the
transmutation of one element into an-
other, and by consequence a change of its
proper region to which it tends. Thus a
perpetual shifting of forms ensures a per-
petual shifting of place.

3. κινήσεως οὖν] Concerning motion
Plato sets forth in this chapter (1) whence
it originates, (2) why it never ceases.

6. ἐν μὲν ὁμαλότητι)] We saw above
at 57 A that like could not affect like
nor be affected by it: it follows then
that in a perfectly uniform mass motion
cannot arise, since motion is the effect of
a moving cause upon the object moved.
The κινοῦν then and κινούμενον must be
ἀνώμαλα, heterogeneous.

7. τὸ γὰρ κινησόμενον] cf. Aristotle
physica 111 i 200° 31 τὸ γὰρ κινητικὸν
κινητικὸν τοῦ κινητοῦ Kal TO κινητὸν κινητὸν

ὑπὸ τοῦ κινητικοῦ: and below 2027 13
ἐστὶν ἡ κίνησις ἐν τῷ κινητῷ" ἐντελέχεια
γάρ ἐστι τούτου" καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κινητικοῦ.

9. ταῦτα] sc. τὸ κινῆσον καὶ τὸ κινη-
σόμενον.

10. ἐν ὁμαλότητι.. εἰς ἀνωμαλότητα]
Rest exists in uniformity, motion is attri-
buted to dissimilarity: thus we may ex-
press the change of preposition.

12. ἀνισότητος δὲ γένεσιν] How
inequality originates we have seen in the
account of the structure of matter. It
arises (1) from the dissimilarity of the
two primal triangles, (2) from the diffe-
rent geometrical figures which are based
upon one of the triangles, (3) from in-
equality in size of the triangles them-
selves.

πῶς δέ ποτε ov κατὰ γένη] This sen-
tence is misunderstood by Lindau and
Stallbaum. Plato means to explain how
it is that the four εἴδη have not settled
each in its proper sphere, and thus avoided
interfering with each other and so pro-
ducing irregularity and consequently
motion. For the vibration of the ὑπο-

58 A

58 Al TIMAIOS’. 209

are mixed up with themselves or with one another, an endless
diversity arises, which must be examined by those who would
put forward a probable theory concerning nature.

XXIII. Now concerning rest and motion, how they arise
and under what conditions, we must come to an agreement, else
many difficulties will stand in the way of our argument that is
to follow. This has been already in part set forth, but we have
yet to add that in uniformity no movement will ever exist. For
that what is to be moved should exist without that which is to
move it, or what is to move without that which is to be moved,
is. difficult or rather impossible: but without these there can be
no motion, and for these to be uniform is not possible. So
then let us always assign rest to uniformity and motion to its
opposite. Now the opposite of uniformity is caused by in-
equality ; and of inequality we have discussed the origin. But
how it comes to pass that all bodies are not sorted off into
their several kinds and cease from passing through one another
and changing their place, this we have not explained. Let us
put it again in this way. The revolution of the whole, when it
had embraced the four kinds, being circular, with a natural
tendency to return upon itself, compresses everything and suffers

δοχὴ tends to keep them all assorted and
apart from each other; and this would
actually be the condition of things,
were it not for the πίλησις presently
to be mentioned, Stallbaum supposes
that the elements are κατὰ γένη διαχω-
ρισθέντα: but Plato’s reasoning turns
precisely on the point that they are not:
never completely, that is; for the bulk
of each is to be found in its own home.
16. πρὸς αὑτὴν πεφυκυῖα] The notion
is that the whole universe globes itself
about its centre with a mighty inward
pressure, εἱλεῖται περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς
τεταμένον πόλον, so that everything within
it is packed as tightly as possible. The
force may be compared to that exerted
in winding a hank of string into a round
ball. This is the second of Plato’s two
great dynamic powers: we shall after-
wards see what varied and extensive use

P; ἜΣ

he makes of it.

σφίγγει mdvra] Compare Empe-
dokles 185 (Karsten) Τιτὰν ἠδ᾽ αἰθὴρ
σφίγγων περὶ κύκλον ἅπαντα. This vast
circular constriction squeezes all matter
together with so overpowering force, that
no vacancy is allowed to remain any-
where; but wherever there is room fora
smaller particle to penetrate the inter-
stices between the larger, it is at once
forced in. So that not only are hete-
rogeneous elements forced into combi-
nation, but the subtler and acuter figures
divide the larger κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα and
so change their structure: while they
in turn are themselves compressed by
the larger until they assume the form
of the latter. Consequently we have
side by side perpetually the ὁδὸς κάτω,
fire through air to water, and the ὁδὸς
ἄνω, water through air to fire.

14

210 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [58 a—

καὶ κενὴν χώραν οὐδεμίαν ἐᾷ λείπεσθαι. διὸ δὴ πῦρ μὲν εἰς
ἅπαντα διελήλυθε μάλιστα, ἀὴρ δὲ δεύτερον, ὡς λεπτότητι δεύτερον Β
ἔφυ, καὶ τἄλλα ταύτῃ! τὰ γὰρ ἐκ μεγίστων μερῶν γεγονότα με-
γίστην κενότητα ἐν τῇ ξυστάσει παραλέλοιπε, τὰ δὲ σμικρότατα
5 ἐλαχίστην. ἡ δὴ τῆς πιλήσεως ξύνοδος τὰ σμικρὰ εἰς τὰ τῶν
μεγάλων διάκενα ξυνωθεῖ. σμικρῶν οὖν παρὰ μεγάλα τιθεμένων
καὶ τῶν ἐλαττόνων τὰ μείζονα διακρινόντων, τῶν δὲ μειζόνων ἐκεῖνα
συγκρινόντων, πάντ᾽ ἄνω κάτω μεταφέρεται πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν
τόπους: μεταβάλλον γὰρ τὸ μέγεθος ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν τόπων μετα- C
το βάλλει στάσιν. οὕτω δὴ διὰ ταῦτά τε ἡ τῆς ἀνωμαλότητος δια-
σῳζομένη γένεσις ἀεὶ τὴν ἀεὶ κίνησιν τούτων οὖσαν ἐσομένην τε
ἐνδελεχῶς παρέχεται.
XXIV. Μετὰ &) ταῦτα δεῖ νοεῖν, ὅτι πυρός τε γένη πολλὰ
γέγονεν, οἷον φλὸξ τό τε ἀπὸ τῆς φλογὸς ἀπιόν, ὃ καΐει μὲν οὔ,
15 φῶς δὲ τοῖς ὄμμασι παρέχει, τό τε φλογὸς ἀποσβεσθείσης ἐν τοῖς
διαπύροις καταλειπόμενον αὐτοῦ. κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ ἀέρος τὸ μὲν D

2 δεύτερον. ..δεύτερον : δευτέρως...δεύτερος 8. 9 μεταβάλλον : μεταβαλὸν A pr. m.

14 ἀπιόν: ἁπτὸν Α.

3. μεγίστην κενότητα] 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, πίλησις instantly

καίει: κάει ASZ.

forces one into the vacancy. This is
all Plato means by κενὴν χώραν οὐδεμίαν
ἐᾷ λείπεσθαι: 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 Ὁ, and Aristotle physica
Iv vi 213> 22: it was denied by the
Eleatics, by Empedokles, by Anaxagoras,
and by Aristotle: see physica Iv vii.

5. ἡ τῆς πιλήσεως ξύνοδος] οἵ.
Phaedo 97 A ἡ ξύνοδος τοῦ πλησίον ἀλλή-
λων τεθῆναι.

9. μεταβάλλον γὰρ τὸ μέγεθος] For
example, particles of fire, by being trans-
formed into particles of water, not only
changed their magnitude, but also the
region of space to which they belonged.
Hence any fire in the home of fire which
became water would instantly struggle
to reach the home of water; and similarly.
with air and water; so that a perpetual
flux and reflux is kept up between one
region and another. In this manner the
production of heterogeneity (ἀνωμαλότη-

D] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 211

no vacant space to be left. Therefore fire penetrates most of
all through all things, and in the second degree air, since it is
second in fineness, and the rest in proportion. For the sub-
stances which are formed of the largest parts have the most
void left in their structure, and those made of the smallest have
the least. Now the constriction of this contracting force thrusts
the small particles into the interspaces between the larger: so
that when small are set side by side with great, and the lesser
particles divide the greater, while the greater compress the
smaller, all things keep rushing backwards and forwards to their
own region; since in changing its bulk each changes its proper
position in space. Thus owing to these causes a perpetual dis-
turbance of uniformity is always kept up and so preserves the
perpetual motion of matter now and henceforth without cessation.

XXIV. Next we must remember that of fire there are many
kinds: for instance flame and that effluence from flame, which
burns not but gives light to the eyes, and that which remains in

the embers when the flame is out.

τος yéveots) is maintained, and the per-
petuation of motion secured. Compare
Aristotle de gen. et corr. 11 x 3378 7 ἅμα
δὲ δῆλον ἐκ τούτων ὅ τινες ἀποροῦσιν, διὰ
τί ἑκάστου τῶν σωμάτων εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν
φερομένου χώραν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ χρόνῳ
οὐ διεστᾶσι τὰ σώματα. αἴτιον γὰρ τούτου
ἐστὶν ἡ εἰς ἄλληλα μετάβασις" εἰ γὰρ
ἕκαστον ἔμενεν ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ χώρᾳ καὶ μὴ
μετέβαλλεν ὑπὸ τοῦ πλησίον, ἤδη ἂν διε-
στήκεσαν. μεταβάλλει μὲν οὖν διὰ τὴν
φορὰν διπλῆν οὖσαν" διὰ δὲ τὸ μεταβάλλειν
οὐκ ἐνδέχεται μένειν οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἐν οὐδεμιᾳ
χώρᾳ τεταγμένῃ.

58cC—6oB, ¢. 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-

And so with air: the purest

ticles is gold, an offshoot of which is
adamant. A metal resembling gold, but
harder owing to an admixture of earth, is
bronze. And so we might describe all
the rest, following our theory of proba-
bility, which serves us as a harmless
and rational diversion in the intervals of
more serious speculations. To proceed:
when water is mingled with fire and flows
freely, we call it liquid: but when fire
abandons it and the surrounding air com-
presses and solidifies it, according to the
degree of solidification we call it on the
earth ice or hoar-frost, in the air hail or
snow. ‘The forms of water which circu-
late in the structure of plants we call in
general sap: four only have peculiar
names, wine, oil, honey, and verjuice.

14. τό τε ὁὀπὸ τῆς φλογὸς ἀπιόν] The
reading ἀπιὸν is unquestionably right
although confirmed by only one ms. and
by Galen. Plato then regards light as an
effluence, issuing from the flame ; the third
species of fire being the red glow left in
the embers when the flame has burnt down,

16. αὐτοῦ] sc. πυρός.

14—2

Jee

10

15

20

212 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [58 p—

/ €
εὐαγέστατον ἐπίκλην αἰθὴρ καλούμενος, ἡ δὲ θολερώτατος ὁμίχλη
: f \ a
τε καὶ σκότος, ἕτερά Te ἀνώνυμα εἴδη γεγονότα διὰ τὴν τῶν τρι-
/ > / \ δὲ v8 ὃ an \ an ‘\ ¢ ’
γώνων ἀνισότητα. τὰ δὲ ὕδατος διχῇ μὲν πρῶτον, τὸ μὲν ὑγρον,
/ 8
τὸ δὲ χυτὸν γένος αὐτοῦ. τὸ μὲν οὖν ὑγρὸν διὰ TO μετέχον εἶναι
fal ’
τῶν γενῶν τῶν ὕδατος, ὅσα σμικρά, ἀνίσων ὄντων, κινητὸν αὐτό
\
τε καθ᾽ αὑτὸ καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου διὰ THY ἀνωμαλότητα Kal THY TOD
σχήματος ἰδέαν γέγονε' τὸ δὲ ἐκ μεγάλων καὶ ὁμαλῶν στασιμὼώ-
Ν > / \ Ν \ ee τὰ , / ᾽ ς \ δὲ
τερον μὲν ἐκείνου καὶ βαρὺ πεπηγὸς ὑπὸ ὁμαλότητός ἐστιν, ὑπὸ δὲ
Ε] U
πυρὸς εἰσιόντος καὶ διαλύοντος αὐτὸ τὴν ὁμαλότητα [ἀποβάλλει,
ταύτην δὲ] ἀπολέσαν μετίσχει μᾶλλον κινήσεως, γενόμενον δὲ
“ /
εὐκίνητον, ὑπὸ τοῦ πλησίον ἀέρος ὠθούμενον καὶ κατατεινόμενον
a ’ n \ \
ἐπὶ γῆν, τήκεσθαι μὲν τὴν τῶν ὄγκων καθαίρεσιν, ῥοὴν δὲ τὴν
ἜΑ Εν οἷν , ς , a , NY, ,
κατάτασιν ἐπὶ γῆν ἐπωνυμίαν ἑκατέρου τοῦ πάθους ἔλαβε. πάλιν
δὲ ἐκπίπτοντος αὐτόθεν τοῦ πυρός, ἅτε οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἐξιόντος,
> [2 ς 3" > / ΝΜ 4 \ ¢ \ wv 3
ὠθούμενος ὁ πλησίον ἀὴρ εὐκίνητον ὄντα ἔτι τὸν ὑγρὸν ὄγκον εἰς
\ n A δὸ an φ' \ > Ὁ , Ἶ ες δὲ Ἢ
τὰς τοῦ πυρὸς ἕδρας ξυνωθῶν αὐτὸν αὐτῷ ξυμμίύίγνυσιν' ὁ δὲ ξυνω-
θούμενος ἀπολαμβάνων τε τὴν ὁμαλότητα πάλιν, ἅτε τοῦ τῆς
ἀνωμαλότητος δημιουργοῦ πυρὸς ἀπιόντος, εἰς ταὐτὸν αὑτῷ καθί-
σταται" καὶ τὴν μὲν τοῦ πυρὸς ἀπαλλαγὴν ψῦξιν, τὴν δὲ ξύνοδον
ἀπελθόντος ἐκείνου πεπηγὸς εἶναι γένος προσερρήθη. τούτων δὴ
πάντων, ὅσα χυτὰ προσείπομεν ὕδατα, τὸ μὲν ἐκ λεπτοτάτων καὶ

5 κινητόν : κινητικὸν AH.
13 κατάτασιν : κατάστασιν Α.

1. αἰθὴρ καλούμενος] Hence it is
evident that Plato did not regard aether
as a distinct element: cf. Phaedo 111 A,
where αἰθὴρ is simply the pure air of
which our atmosphere is the sediment.

ὁμίχλη Kal σκότος] This is the ἀὴρ
Bla ξυστὰς of 61 C.

3. τὸ μὲν ὑγρὸν, τὸ δὲ χυτόν] The
ὑγρὸν includes all fluids which are ordi-
narily so regarded by us: that is to say,
all substances which at the normal tem-
perature are liquid and flowing: χυτὸν
comprises metals, which are normally
solid but are liquefied by the application
of strong heat. To rank metals as forms
of water seems no doubt a strange classifi-
cation: it is however adopted by Theo-
phrastos also: see de lapidibus § τ τῶν ἐν

9 ἀποβάλλει, ταύτην δὲ habet corr. A.
19 τὴν μέν : τὸν μὲν H per typographi incuriam.
20 ἀπελθόντος ἐκείνου : ἐκείνου ἀπελθόντος 5.

omittunt SZ.

21 λοιπὸν post τὸ μὲν habet A.

TH γῇ συνισταμένων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ὕδατος,
τὰ δὲ γῆς. ὕδατος μὲν τὰ μεταλλευόμενα
καθάπερ ἄργυρος καὶ χρυσὸς καὶ τἄλλα.

5. τῶν γενῶν τῶν ὕδατος] This
seems a very strange phrase to denote the
corpuscules which constitute water : ought
we perhaps to read τῶν μερῶν ὃ

9. τὴν ὁμαλότητα ἀπολέσαν] Mar-
tin quite mistakes the meaning of this.
He supposes that fire has the power of
dilating the elementary triangles and so
introducing a difference of size in the
corpuscules of water. This can in no
wise be admitted by the theory. Plato’s
meaning is that the particles of fire by
interposing themselves between those of
water, to which they are of course greatly
inferior in size, destroy the homogeneous-

E

59 A

B

ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ, 213

59 8]

is that which is called by the name of aether, and the most
turbid is mist and gloom; and there are other kinds which have
no name, arising from the inequality of the triangles. Of water
there are two primary divisions, the liquid and the fusible kind.
The liquid sort owes its nature to possessing the smaller kinds
of watery atoms, unequal in size; and so it can readily either
move of itself or be moved by something else, owing to its lack
of uniformity and the peculiar shape of its atoms. But that
which consists of larger and uniform particles is more stable
than the former and heavy, being stiffened by its uniformity :
but when fire enters into it and breaks it up, it loses its uni-
formity and gains more power of motion: and as soon as it has
become mobile, it is thrust by the surrounding air and spread
out upon the earth: and it has received names descriptive of
either process, melting of the dissolution of the mass, flowing
of the extension on the ground. But when the fire goes forth
from it again, seeing that it does not issue into empty space, the
neighbouring air receives a thrust, and while the liquid mass is
still mobile, it forces it to fill up the vacant places of the fire and
unites it with itself. And being thus compressed and recovering
its uniformity, seeing that fire the creator of inequality is
quitting it, it settles into its normal state. And the departure of
fire we call cooling, and the contraction that ensues on its with-
drawal we class as solidification. Of all the substances which
we have ranked as fusible kinds of water, that which is densest

ness of the whole mass. At the same
time, by the interposition of the fiery
particles its bulk is expanded, so that
it comes into forcible collision with the
surrounding air, which gives it the
. impulse that sheds it (κατατείνει) on
the ground. It now is subject to the
same conditions as ὑγρὸν ὕδωρ, which
flows owing to the inequality of its own
particles. Thus the fusion and flowing
of molten metal is due to two causes:
(1) the intrusion of particles of fire and
consequent dislocation of the particles of
water, rendering the mass ἀνώμαλον and
therefore evxlynrov—this we call melting ;
(2) the yielding of the now heterogeneous
substance to the pressure of the air, which

we call flowing.

13. πάλιν δ᾽ ἐκπίπτοντος)] Solidifi-
cation is explained thus. The particles
of fire, on quitting their place amid those
of water, thrust against the immediately
surrounding particles of air, since of
course there is no vacant space to receive
them. Now the metal, though the fire
has left it, is still mobile and yielding,
because its particles are dislocated. The
air then, on the impulse of the outgoing
fire, thrusts against the metal and com-
presses it, forcing its particles to fill up
the vacancies left by the fire. Thereby
the particles are restored to their old
places and the metal regains its equi-
librium and solidity.

214

ΠΛΑΤΩΝῸΣ

[59 B—

‘4

ὁμαλωτάτων πυκνότατον γιγνόμενον, μονοειδὲς γένος, στίλβοντι καὶ
“Ὁ »

ξανθῷ χρώματι κοινωθέν, τιμαχφέστατον κτῆμα χρυσὸς ἠθημένος

a 3 a
διὰ πέτρας ἐπάγη" χρυσοῦ δὲ ὄξος, διὰ πυκνότητα σκληρότατον ὃν
καὶ μελανθέν, ἀδάμας ἐκλήθη. τὸ δ᾽ ἐγγὺς μὲν χρυσοῦ τῶν μερῶν,

an ’

5 εἴδη δὲ πλέονα ἑνὸς ἔχον, πυκνότητι δ᾽ ert μὲν χρυσοῦ πυκνότερον
lal ΄ / 7

ὄν, Kal γῆς μόριον ὀλίγον καὶ λεπτὸν μετασχόν, ὥστε σκληρότερον C

. a / > \ « nr / é / -
εἶναι, τῷ δὲ μεγάλα ἐντὸς αὑτοῦ διαλείμματα ἔχειν κουφότερον, τῶν
λαμπρῶν πηκτῶν τε ὃν γένος ὑδάτων χαλκὸς συσταθεὶς γέγονε"
τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ γῆς αὐτῷ μιχθέν, ὅταν παλαιουμένω διαχωρίξζησθον πάλιν
το ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων, ἐκφανὲς καθ᾽ αὑτὸ γιγνόμενον ἰὸς λέγεται. τἄλλα
δὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐδὲν ποικίλον ἔτι διαλογίσασθαι τὴν τῶν εἰκότων
μύθων μεταδιώκοντα ἰδέαν, ἣν ὅταν τις ἀναπαύσεως ἕνεκα τοὺς
περὶ τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ κατατιθέμενος λόγους τοὺς γενέσεως πέρι δια- Ὁ
θεώμενος εἰκότας ἀμεταμέλητον ἡδονὴν κτᾶται, μέτριον ἂν ἐν τῷ

, , a / ‘ \ a > /

15 βίῳ παιδιὰν καὶ φρόνιμον ποιοῖτο. ταύτῃ δὴ καὶ τὰ νῦν ἐφέντες
τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο τῶν αὐτῶν πέρι τὰ ἑξῆς εἰκότα διιμεν τῇδε. τὸ πυρὶ

4 ἐκλήθη omittit A.
καταθέμενος SZ.

1. στίλβοντι καὶ ξανθῷ] ‘infused
with a glittering and yellow hue.’ στίλβον,
as Lindau says, is a χρόα coordinate with
ξανθέν : its γένεσις is described in 68 A.

3. χρυσοῦ δὲ ὄζος] 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 μετὰ
δὲ ταῦτα λείπεται ξυμμεμιγμένα τὰ ξυγγενῆ
τοῦ χρυσοῦ τίμια καὶ πυρὶ μόνον ἀφαιρετά,
χαλκὸς καὶ ἄργυρος, ἔστι δ᾽ ὅτε καὶ ἀδάμας.
In Hesiod Scut. Her. 137, 231, and
Theog. 161 it signifies a hard metal, pro-
bably something like steel, of -which
armour and cutting instruments were
made. This cannot be meant here, far
less a mixture of copper and gold, as
Stallbaum thinks. Pliny mat. hist. xxxvii
15 says maximum in rebus humanis, non
solum inter gemmas, pretium habet ada-
mas, diu non nisi regibus et iis admodum
paucis cognitus; ita appellabatur auri
nodus in metallis repertus perquam raro,

5 δ᾽ ἔτι : δὲ τῇ A.
15 παιδιάν : παιδείαν Α.

omittunt SZ. 13 κατατιθέμενος :
épévres : ἀφέντες ΑΖ.

comes auri, nec nisi in auro nasci vide-
batur. The six kinds he goes on to de-
scribe are evidently all crystals. It is
clear that Plato’s χρυσοῦ ὄζος was not
a crystal: for the term ἀδάμας is not
applied to any precious stone by writers
before Theophrastos ; moreover a crystal
could not be a species of χυτὸν ὕδωρ, all
such being forms of earth. Professor W. |
J. Lewis, who has been kind enough to
make some inquiry into this matter on my }
behalf, formed the opinion, on such data _
as I was able to lay before him, that |
Plato’s ἀδάμας was probably haematite.

5. πυκνότητι δ᾽ ἔτι μέν] This is’
Baiter’s conjecture, followed by Her-
mann. I have adopted it as possibly
accounting for the τῇ μὲν of A.

7. μεγάλα ἐντὸς διαλείμματα] 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 aittri-

ἐ ὦ

D] TIMAIOX¥. © 215

and formed of the finest and most uniform particles, a unique
kind, combining brightness with a yellow hue, is gold, a most
precious treasure, which has filtered through rocks and there |
congealed: and the ‘offspring of gold’, which is extremely hard
owing to its density and has turned black, is called adamant.
Another has particles resembling those of gold, but more than
one kind; in density it even surpasses gold and has a small
admixture of fine earth, so that it is harder, but lighter, because
it has large interstices within; this formation is one of the
shining and solid kinds of water and is called bronze. The
earth which is mingled with it, when the two through age begin
to separate again, becomes visible by itself and is named rust.
And it were no intricate task to explain all the other substances
of this kind, following the outline of our probable account.
For if we pursue this as a recreation, and while laying down the
principles of eternal being’ find in plausible theories of becoming
a pleasure that brings no remorse in its train, we may draw from
it a sober and sensible amusement during our life. Now there-
fore setting out in this way let us go on to discuss the proba-
bilities that lie next on the same subject.

buted the greater hardness of bronze the plainest terms Plato’s opinion of the

partly to its superior density, partly to
the admixture of earth: he was not
aware that hardness does not depend
upon density. As to the διαλείμματα,
compare Theophrastos de sensu § 61,
speaking of Demokritos, σκληρότερον μὲν
εἶναι σίδηρον βαρύτερον δὲ μόλυβδον" τὸν
μὲν γὰρ σίδηρον ἀνωμάλως συγκεῖσθαι καὶ
τὸ κενὸν ἔχειν πολλαχῇ καὶ κατὰ μεγάλα
πεπυκνῶσθαι καὶ κατὰ ἔνια *, ἁπλῶς δὲ
πλέον ἔχειν κενόν᾽ τὸν δὲ μόλυβδον ἔλαττον
ἔχοντα κενὸν ὁμαλῶς συγκεῖσθαι κατὰ πᾶν
ὁμοίως, διὸ βαρύτερον μὲν μαλακώτερον δὲ
τοῦ σιδήρου. This is identical with Plato’s
view, except that Demokritos held the
cavities to be absolutely void.

9. ὅταν παλαιουμένω διαχωρίζησ-
θον] Plato considered that the rust on
bronze, or verdigris, was the intermingled
earth, which in course of time works its
way to the surface.

12. ἣν ὅταν tis] Here we have in

value of physical science. In itself it
is but a harmless recreation, a pleasure
leaving behind it no regrets, with which
a philosopher may reasonably solace him-
self, when wearied with his incessant
struggle after the truth. This passage
should be read in connexion with 68 E
διὸ δὴ χρὴ δύ᾽ αἰτίας εἴδη διορίζεσθαι x.7.X.,
where we learn that the study of ἀναγ-
xatov, that is to say, of the forces of
material nature, is useful just so far as it
bears upon the investigation of θεῖον, that
is, of primary causes. Physical specu-
lations then are profitable only in so far
as they can be made subservient to meta-
physical science; to suppose that they
have any intrinsic merit is an egregious
error: they can only be pursued for their
own sake with a view to recreation. As
regards the construction there is a slight
anacoluthon; ἣν being presently super-
seded by τοὺς γενέσεως πέρι.

216 MAATONOS

[59 D—

μεμιγμένον ὕδωρ, ὅσον λεπτὸν ὑγρόν τε διὰ τὴν κίνησιν καὶ τὴν
ὁδό “Ὁ ὃ U > ὶ a ς \ é + / φ Led
ὁδὸν, ἣν κυλινδούμενον ἐπὶ γῆς ὑγρὸν λέγεται, μαλακὸν TE αὖ TO
τὰς βάσεις ἧττον ἑδραίους οὔσας ἢ τὰς γῆς ὑπείκειν, τοῦτο ὅταν
πυρὸς ἀποχωρισθὲν ἀέρος τε μονωθῇ, γέγονε μὲν ὁμαλώτερον, E
5 ξυνέωσται δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξιόντων εἰς αὑτό, παγέν τε οὕτως τὸ μὲν
ὑπὲρ γῆς μάλιστα παθὸν ταῦτα χάλαζα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς κρύσταλλος,
\ WN. ς έ x ΝΜ \ \ ς \ Lal s / \ δ᾽ > ὶ
τὸ δὲ ἧττον ἡμιπαγές τε ὃν ἔτι, τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ yrs αὖ χιών, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπ
a \ > / / / \ \
γῆς ξυμπαγὲν ἐκ δρόσου γενόμενον πάχνη λέγεται. τὰ δὲ δὴ
πλεῖστα ὑδάτων εἴδη μεμιγμένα ἀλλήλοις, ξύμπαν μὲν τὸ γένος,
10 διὰ τῶν ἐκ γῆς φυτῶν ἠθημένα, χυμοὶ λεγόμενοι" διὰ δὲ τὰς μίξεις 60 A
ἀνομοιότητα ἕκαστοι σχόντες τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πολλὰ ἀνώνυμα γένη
παρέσχοντο, τέτταρα δέ, ὅσα ἔμπυρα εἴδη, διαφανῆ μάλιστα γενό-
μενα εἴληφεν ὀνόματα αὐτῶν, τὸ μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς μετὰ τοῦ σώματος
θερμαντικὸν οἶνος, τὸ δὲ λεῖον καὶ διακριτικὸν ὄψεως διὰ ταῦτά τε
15 ἰδεῖν λαμπρὸν καὶ στίλβον λιπαρόν τε φανταζόμενον ἐχαιηρὸν
Φ / \ / \ ἫΝ »- OE > a 7 A
εἶδος, πίττα καὶ κίκι Kal ἔλαιον αὐτὸ ὅσα T ἄλλα τῆς αὐτῆς
δυνάμεως" ὅσον δὲ διαχυτικὸν μέχρι φύσεως τῶν περὶ τὸ στόμα B

2 αὗ ττῷ: αὐτῷ A.
9 τῶν ante ὑδάτων habet A.

I. ὅσον λεπτὸν ὑγρόν te] Although
Stallbaum asserts that this sentence is
‘turpi labe contaminatus’, I see no ne-
cessity for alteration: his own attempts
are certainly far from fortunate. The
repetition of ὑγρόν, which offends him
so sorely, is, I think, due to the fact
that we have, as Lindau saw, an ety-
mology implied in the words ἥν.. λέγεται
‘the mode of rolling on the earth which
has in fact gained it the name of ὑγρόν᾽:
as if ὑγρὸν -ε ὑπὲρ γῆς ῥέον. Thus under-
stood, the objection to the second ὑγρόν
vanishes. μαλακόν τε is then coordinate
with λεπτὸν ὑγρόν τε, and τῷ... ὑπείκειν
with δια τὴν κίνησιν.

4. πυρὸς ἀποχωρισθέν] Water then
in its pure and unmixed form is in a
state of congelation: the liquid condition
being due to the intermixture of fire
which disturbs the uniformity of the
whole. What we ordinarily term water
then is a compound of fire and water.

dépos te] It is rather hard to see

3 τοῦτο: τοῦτο δ᾽ S.
16 κίκι : τήκει A pr. m.

what air has to do with the matter: no
air entered into the composition of the
ὑγρὸν ὕδωρ, which merely yielded to the
impact of the air which pushed it from
without. May not dépos re be an inter-
polation from the hand of some copyist
who thought it necessary to separate
water from both the kindred elements?
The copyists have an unconquerable de-
sire to drag in all the elements, whether
they are wanted or not: see note on 61 B,
where there is an indisputable interpo-
lation.

5. ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξιόντων͵)]Ἡ That is to
say, by the agency of the outgoing fire
that thrusts the surrounding air, which
in turn communicates the impulse to the
water. Plato classifies the congealed
forms of water according to the intensity
of the compression and to the situation:
when completely condensed it is on the
earth ice, in the air hail; if partially con-
densed, it is on the earth hoar-frost, in
the air snow.

60 B] TIMAIOS.

Water mingled with fire, such as is rare and liquid (owing to
its mobility and its way of rolling along the ground, which gets
it the name of liquid), and is also soft, because its bases give way,
being less stable than those of earth,—when relinquished by fire
and deserted of air, becomes more uniform and is compressed
by the outgoing elements ; thus it is congealed, and when above
the earth this process takes place in an extreme degree, the result
is hail ; if upon the earth, it is ice: but when the process has not
gone so far but leaves it half-congealed, above the earth it is snow,
and when congealed from dew upon the earth, it is called hoar-
frost. Most forms of water, which are intermingled with one
another, filtered through the plants of the earth, are called by the
class-name of saps ; but owing to their intermixture they are all of
diverse natures and the great multitude of them are accordingly
unnamed: four kinds however which are of a fiery nature, being
more conspicuous, have obtained names: one that heats the soul
and body together, namely wine; next a kind which is smooth
and divides the visual current and therefore appears bright and
shining to view and glistening, I mean the class of oils, resin
and castor oil and olive oil itself and all others that have the
same properties; thirdly that which expands the contracted

217

"7. τὸ δὲ ἧττον] sc. παθὸν τοῦτο. Cf.
Aristotle meteorologica 1 x 347716 πάχνη
μὲν ὅταν ἡ ἀτμὶς παγῇ, πρὶν eis ὕδωρ συγ-
κριθῆναι πάλιν.

8. τὰ δὲ δὴ πλεῖστα! A complex
form of water, composed of many sorts
combined, are the juices of plants of
which the general appellation is sap.
Of these Plato distinguishes four kinds,
having peculiar properties and specific
names.

12. ὅσα ἔμπυρα εἴδη] Plato infers
the presence of fire from the brightness
and transparency of these saps, not
from any pungent or burning quality,
which olive oil, for example, does not
possess.

14. διακριτικὸν sews] That is to
say, having a bright and glistening ap-
pearance, see 68Ε, 69 A. We must un-
derstand Plato to mean διακριτικὸν ὄψεως
μέχρι τῶν ὀμμάτων, for what is merely

διακριτικὸν ὄψεως is white.
ὄψεως ῥεῦμα.

16. κίκι] This is castor oil, obtained
from the Ricinus communis. See He-
rodotus 1 94, where he says that the
Egyptians use this oil for anointing them-
selves and for illuminating purposes: it
is said to be still put to the latter use in

ὄψις here =

India, The word κίκι is affirmed by He-
rodotus to be Egyptian. Cf. Pliny naz.
hist. XV ἢ.

17. ὅσον δὲ διαχυτικὸν μέχρι φύσεως]
The construction and meaning of these
words seem to have escaped all the
editors. τῶν περὶ τὸ στόμα ξυνόδων de-
pends upon διαχυτικόν, not upon φύσεως,
and the meaning is ‘that which expands
the contracted pores of the mouth to
their natural condition’. In 64D we
learn that a pleasurable sensation is the
perceptible transition from an abnormal
to a normal state: τὸ δ᾽ els φυσιν ἀπιὸν

5

Io

218 MAATONOS [60 B—

ξυνόδων, ταύτῃ τῇ δυνάμει γλυκύτητα παρεχόμενον, μέλε TO κατὰ
πάντων μάλιστα πρόσρημα ἔσχε' τὸ δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς διαλυτικὸν τῷ
καίειν ἀφρῶδες γένος ἐκ πάντων ἀφορισθὲν τῶν χυμῶν ὀπὸς ἐπω-
νομάσθη.
XXV. Τῆς δὲ εἴδη, τὸ μὲν ἠθημένον διὰ ὕδατος τοιῷδε τρόπῳ
/ lel , \ \ “ ¢ bs lal 7
γίγνεται σῶμα λίθινον. τὸ ξυμμιγὲς ὕδωρ ὅταν ἐν τῇ ξυμμίξει
κοπῇ, μετέβαλεν εἰς ἀέρος ἰδέαν: γενόμενος δὲ ἀὴρ εἰς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ
/ > lal \ ᾽ > “ 3 0.7 \ 3 “
τόπον ἀναθεῖ. κενὸν δ᾽ οὐ περιεῖχεν αὐτὸν οὐδέν' τὸν οὖν πλησίον C
ἔωσεν ἀέρα' ὁ δὲ ἅτε ὧν βαρύς, ὠσθεὶς καὶ περιχυθεὶς τῷ τῆς γῆς
ὄγκῳ, σφόδρα ἔθλιψε ξυνέωσέ τε αὐτὸν εἰς τὰς ἕδρας, ὅθεν ἀνήει 6
νέος ἀήρ' ξυνωσθεῖσα δὲ ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος [ἀλύτως ὕδατῃ γῆ ξυνίσταται
πέτρα, καλλίων μὲν ἡ τῶν ἴσων καὶ ὁμαλῶν διαφανὴς pepe,

αἰσχίων δὲ ἡ ἐναντία. τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ πυρὸς τόχονς τὸ VOTE pov πᾶν
δοῦν. ne: Ue ΄ 4)

ἀρ Fo

8 οὐ περιεῖχεν αὐτόν : sic οοἵτ. A. ὑπερεῖχεν αὐτῶν pr. m.
10 ἀνίει: ἀνήειν SZ.

3 καίειν : κάειν SZ.
ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῶν SZ.

πάλιν ἀθρόον ἡδύ: and in 66 C we find
that this is just the effect produced on
the tongue by a pleasant taste: τὰ δὲ
παρὰ φύσιν ξυνεστῶτα ἢ κεχυμένα, τὰ μὲν
ξυνάγῃ, τὰ δὲ χαλᾷ, καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅ τι μάλιστα
ἱδρύῃ κατὰ φύσιν. For the use οὗ διαχεῖν
compare 45 E, Philebus 46 E; and for
ξυνόδων see 588, 59 A, and 61 A. Com-
pare also Theophrastos de sensu ὃ 84 τὰ
δὲ σὺν τῇ ὑγρότητι TH ἐν TH γλώττῃ Kal
διαχυτικὰ καὶ συστατικὰ εἰς τὴν φύσιν
γλυκέα.

3. ὁπός] This is another substance
which it seems impossible precisely to
identify. Martin understands opium;
but this in no wise agrees with the de-
scription. It rather is some powerful
vegetable acid, perhaps the juice of the
silphium, as in Hippokrates de morbis
acutis vol. 11 p. 92 Kiihn. In Homer
dliad V go2 it is a liquid used for curd-
ling milk, said to be the juice of the
wild fig: see Aristotle historia animalium
ΠΙ xx 5222 πήγνυσι δὲ τὸ γάλα dds τε
συκῆς καὶ πυετία: cf. meteorologica 1V vii
384220: see too Pliny matural history
XVI 72, ΧΧΠῚ 63. The name would
seem to have been applied to vegetable
acids in general, not confined to the sap

of one particular plant: wherefore, al-
though I have acquiesced in the usual
explanation of ἐκ πάντων ἀφορισθὲν τῶν
χυμῶν, 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 ὀπὸς 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—61 C, c. xxv. The chief forms
of earth are as follows: (1) 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,

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

But that

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. κοπῇ] sc. κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα. 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. ἀλύτως ὕδατι] Therecan be little
doubt, I think, that these words are to
be taken together, ‘ insoluble by water’.
Martinjoins ὕδατι with ξυνωσθεῖσα, ‘forced
into indissoluble union with water’. But
Plato does not say that any of the water
is left behind ; and we find that when this
takes place, the substance is fusible by
fire, which is not here the case. Nor is
it easy to see how such an inseparable
conjunction could exist. The phrase seems
pretty clearly contrasted with λυτὼ πάλιν
ὑφ᾽ ὕδατος in Ὁ.

12. ἡ τῶν ἴσων] i.e. precious stones
and crystals. It is clear from this that

σι

220 ILAATONOS [60 c—

ἐξαρπασθὲν καὶ κραυρότερον ἐκείνου ἕυστάν, ᾧ γένει κέραμον ἐπω- Ὁ
νομάκαμεν, τοῦτο γέγονεν' ἔστι δὲ ὅτε νοτίδος ὑπολειφθείσης χυτὴ
γῇ γενομένη διὰ πυρός, ὅταν ψυχθῇ, γίγνεται τὸ μέλαν χρῶμα
ἔχων λίθος: τὼ δ᾽ αὖ κατὰ ταὐτὰ μὲν ταῦτα ἐκ ξυμμίξεως ὕδατος
ἀπομονουμένω πολλοῦ, λεπτοτέρων δὲ ἐκ γῆς μερῶν ἁλμυρώ τε
ὄντε ἡμυπωγῆ γενομένω καὶ λυτὼ πάλιν ὑφ᾽ ὕδατος, τὸ μὲν ἐλαίου
καὶ γῆς καθαρτικὸν γένος λίτρον, τὸ δ᾽ εὐάρμοστον ἐν ταῖς κοι-
νωνίαις ταῖς περὶ τὴν τοῦ στόματος αἴσθησιν ἁλῶν κατὰ λόγον E
νόμου θεοφιλὲς σῶμα ἐγένετο. τὰ δὲ κοινὰ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὕδατι μὲν

3 γίγνεται: γέγονε 8.

4 ἔχων : ἔχον HSZ.
τὼ et cetera dualis numeri scripsi e Schneideri coniectura.

λίθος : εἶδος H e sua coniectura.
τῷ ceteraque con-

cordantia HSZ. τὰ A, qui tamen in sequentibus dativum habet.

ἀδάμας cannot be the diamond or any
other crystal.

1. ἐξαρπασθέν] Theconstruction with
this verb seems unique, though it is of
course common with ἐξαιρεῖσθαι. The
rapid evaporation of the water by fire
and the consequent sudden violence of
the compression causes the pottery to be
hard and brittle. For the rather elaborate
form of expression ᾧ γένει. τοῦτο γέγονεν
cf. 40 B καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἐρρήθη,
κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνα γέγονε. ,

2. χυτὴ γῆ γενομένη] The reason
why the continuance of moisture in the
stone renders it fusible by fire is ex-
plained below at 61 B.

3. τὸ μέλαν χρῶμα ἔχων λίθος] There
is evidently some corruption in the text
of the mss. The vulgate ἔχον cannot be
construed at all: ἔχων is supported by A,
but the article is not wanted with μέλαν
χρῶμα. Hermann restores grammar by
writing εἶδος for λίθος ; yet this is not
convincing. Nor yet can I acquiesce in
the suggestion of the translator in the
Engelmann edition, to read λέθου, sup-
plying γένος from the previous sentence.
Retaining ἔχων, we might perhaps insert
ὁ before τὸ μέλαν χρῶμα. As to the nature
of this μέλας λίθος, it would seem to be
a substance of volcanic origin, probably
lava. Compare Theophrastos de lapidibus
§ 14.6 δὲ λιπαραῖος ἐκφοροῦταί τε τῇ καύσει
καὶ γίνεται κισηροειδής, ὥσθ᾽ ἅμα τε τὴν

χρόαν μεταβάλλειν καὶ τὴν πυκνότητα, μέ-
λας τε γὰρ καὶ λεῖός ἐστι καὶ πυκνὸς ἄκαυστος
ὦν. This λιπαραῖος is a volcanic stone
from the Lipari islands, which Theo-
phrastos classes among the πυρὶ τηκτά:
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 ἄκαυστος seems to
agree very well with Plato’s μέλας λίθος.

“Compare too Aristotle meteorologica Iv vi

383° 5 τήκεται δὲ καὶ o λίθος ὁ πυρίμαχος,
ὥστε στάζειν καὶ ῥεῖν" τὸ δὲ πηγνύμενον
ὅταν ῥυῇ, πάλιν γίγνεται σκληρόν, καὶ αἱ
μύλαι τήκονται ὥστε ῥεῖν" τὸ δὲ ῥέον πηγνύ-
μενον τὸ μὲν χρῶμα μέλαν. The μίλαι
certainly were made of lava: see Strabo
VI ii 3, where he says of the matter ejected
from the Liparaean craters, ὕστερον δὲ
παγῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι τοῖς μυλίταις λίθοις
ἐοικότα τὸν πάγον. It is to be observed
that Theophrastos assigns the same cause
as Plato for the fusibility of some stones:
see de lapidibus § 10 τὸ γὰρ τηκτὸν ἔνικ-
μον εἷναι δεῖ καὶ ὑγρότητ᾽ ἔχειν πλείω.

4. τὼ δ᾽ ad] 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

E] TIMAIOX. 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.

not the case with bodies wherein the
water and earth have been brought into
a complete and stable union.

6. τὸ μὲν ἐλαίου καὶ γῆς] I do not
know that soda is specially applicable to
the elimination of earth, and the words
καὶ γῆς 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
Thucydides would shrink from. By λίτρον
we are to understand natron, or carbonate
of soda.

ἡ. τὸ δ᾽ εὐάρμοστον ἐν ταῖς κοινω-
νίαις] By this Plato means that salt is an
agreeable adjunct to many flavours and
combinations of flavours.

8. κατὰ λόγον νόμου] This seems
plainly to indicate, what would in any
case be a natural supposition, that Plato
quotes the expression θεοφιλὲς σῶμα from
some well-known ordinance relating to
sacrificial ceremonies or from some for-
mula used therein: but I have not been
able to trace the phrase to any such
origin.

9. θεοφιλὲς σῶμα] The application
of the epithet θεοφιλὲς to salt is, as afore-
said, probably due to its use for sacrificial
and ceremonial purposes, though this is

The bodies which are composed of

not suggested by Plutarch in his curious
little disquisition on the subject, gaaest.
conv. V to. Salt was mixed with whole
barley (οὐλοχύται) 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 ΧΧΙΝ 94

καθαρῷ δὲ πυρώσατε δῶμα θεείῳ
πρᾶτον, ἔπειτα δ᾽ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον, ὡς
νενόμισται,
θαλλῷ ἐπιρραίνειν ἐστεμμένῳ ἀβλαβὲς
ὕδωρ.

Homer terms it ‘ divine’, Z/iad 1x 214

,πάσσε δ᾽ ἁλὸς θείοιο. According toa fable

mentioned by Aristotle meteorologica 11
iii 359% 27 it was a gift of Herakles to
the Chaonians. In Tacitus avmals x111 57
we read that a spot where salt is found
was held by the ancient Germans to be
peculiarly sacred and in proximity to
heaven. The passage of Athenion (apud
Athenaeum xIv 79) which Stallbaum
quotes as establishing the sacrificial use
of salt has an opposite tendency :

I

I

mn

ο

σι

222 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [60 E—

ov λυτά, πυρὶ δέ, διὰ τὸ τοιόνδε οὕτω ξυμπήγνυται' γῆς ὄγκους
πῦρ μὲν ἀήρ τε οὐ τήκει' τῆς γὰρ ξυστάσεως τῶν διακένων αὐτῆς
σμικρομερέστερα πεφυκότα, διὰ πολλῆς εὐρυχωρίας ἰόντα, οὐ βια-
ξόμενα, ἄλυτον αὐτὴν ἐάσαντα ἄτηκτον παρέσχε' τὰ δὲ ὕδατος
ἐπειδὴ μείζω πέφυκε μέρη, βίαιον ποιούμενα τὴν διέξοδον, λύοντα

αὐτὴν τήκει. γῆν μὲν γὰρ ιἀξύστατον ὑπὸ βίας οὕτως ὕδωρ μόνον 61 A-

λύει, ξυνεστηκυῖαν δὲ πλὴν πυρὸς οὐδέν: εἴσοδος γὰρ οὐδενὶ πλὴν

τὴν δὲ ὕδατος αὖ ξύνοδον τὴν μὲν βιαιοτάτην
“ / Ἁ Ν > , ᾽ / n Ν de δ

πῦρ μόνον, τὴν δὲ ἀσθενεστέραν ἀμφότερα, πῦρ τε καὶ ἀήρ, δια-

πυρὶ λέλειπται.

a /
χεῖτον, ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὰ διάκενα, τὸ δὲ Kal κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα. βίᾳ δὲ
ἀέρα ξυστάντα οὐδὲν λύει πλὴν κατὰ τὸ στοιχεῖον, ἀβίαστον δὲ
κατατήκει μόνον πῦρ.
“ , ξ x “ > a \ a Lad ὃ , Ν
ὕδατος σωμάτων, μέχριπερ ἂν ὕδωρ αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς γῆς διάκενα καὶ
βίᾳ ξυμπεπιλημένα κατέχῃ, τὰ μὲν ὕδατος ἐπιόντα ἔξωθεν εἴσοδον

2 Cup nh XM μ

. \ \
οὐκ ἔχοντα μέρη περιρρέοντα τὸν ὅλον ὄγκον ἄτηκτον εἴασε, τὰ δὲ

τὰ δὲ δὴ τῶν ξυμμίκτων ἐκ γῆς τε καὶ

1 ξυμπήγνυται : ξυμπηγνύναι A.

3 φαίνεται ante πεφυκότα habet A.

7 πυρός: πυρί A.

ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῶν προτέρων μεμνη-
μένοι

τὰ σπλάγχνα τοῖς θεοῖσιν ὀπτῶσιν φλογὶ

ἅλας οὐ προσάγοντες" οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν οὐ-
δέπω

εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην χρῆσιν ἐξευρημένοι.

Originally, says the author, men both
ate and sacrificed without salt ; and even
after they discovered that salt was good
to eat, they went on sacrificing in the old
way. Among some other nafions, e. g.
the Jews, salt was very extensively used
for sacrificial purposes.

τὰ δὲ κοινὰ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν], We now
come to compounds of earth and water.
We have indeed had already one such
combination, which is λυτὸν ὑφ᾽ ὕδατος:
but there the water is hardly a constituent
of the solidified mass; the substance has
parted with nearly all its moisture, but
still remains ἡμιπαγές. 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

dilatation alone are treated here, not the
transmutation of one element into an-
other.

I. γῆς ὄγκους] Earth in its normal
condition, ἀξύστατος ὑπὸ Blas, 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, ξυνε-
ornkvia, the interstices are so small that
only fire can find an entrance.

8. τὴν μὲν βιαιοτάτην] Clearly metals
are meant.

9. τὴν δὲ ἀσθενεστέραν] Ice, snow,
hail, and hoar-frost: cf. 59 E. Air dis-
solves these κατὰ τὰ διάκενα, 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 8] TIMAIOS. 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-
solution κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα.

το. βίᾳ δὲ ἀέρα Everdvra} Air in its
highest condensation can only be resolved
κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα, that is by transmuta-
tion into another element. Stallbaum,
not understanding this sentence, desires
to corrupt it by altering πλὴν to πάλιν.
But the text is perfectly sound and has
been rightly explained by Martin. Con-
densed air means cloud: and cloud is
ordinarily dissolved into a shower of
rain; or, in the case of a thundercloud,
lightning issues from it. Plato therefore,
holding as he does that the cloud is a form
of air, conceives it to be resolved κατὰ
τὰ τρίγωνα, in the one case into water,
in the other into fire. The agent which
produces the metamorphosis is not speci-
fied in this instance.

11. ἀβίαστον δὲ κατατήκει] In its
normal state air is subject to the influence
of fire alone, which dilates it by insinu-
ating its own particles between those of

air. Plato must have observed the fact
that air expands when heated. Of course
it is κατὰ τὰ διάκενα that air yields to the _
influence of fire alone; for it may be
resolved κατὰ τὰ τρίγωνα by either fire or
water, on the principles laid down in
56 E.

12. τὰ δὲ δὴ τῶν ξυμμίκτων] Now we
come to the reason why substances com-

‘pounded by earth and water are fused by

fire alone. So long as the interspaces
between the earthy particles are occupied
by the particles of water belonging to the
ξύστασις, the particles of water external
to it, supposing the body to be plunged
in water, can find no entrance; conse-
quently they can produce no effect upon
it. But the particles of fire, finding their
way in, force themselves between the
particles of water and disturb them: and
these in their turn, being thrust against
the particles of earth, dislocate the latter,
and so the structure of the whole mass is
broken up and fused,

224

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ Mua

{61 B—

dens ἴω]

πυρὸς εἰς τὰ τῶν ὑδάτων διάκενα εἰσιόντα, ὅπερ ὕδωρ γῆν, τοῦτο
ἀπεργαζόμενα, τηχθέντι τῷ κοινῷ σώματι ῥεῖν μόνα αἴτια ξυμ-

βέβηκε.

τυγχάνει δὲ ταῦτα ὄντα, τὰ μὲν ἔλαττον ἔχοντα ὕδατος

, ¢ \
ἢ γῆς τό τε περὶ τὴν ὕαλον γένος ἅπαν boa τε λίθων χυτὰ εἴδη
a A Ν \
καλεῖται, τὰ δὲ πλέον ὕδατος αὖ πάντα ὅσα κηροειδῆ Kal θυμιατικὰ

σώματα ξυμπήγνυται.

XXVI.

Kal τὰ μὲν δὴ σχήμασι κοινωνίαις τε καὶ μεταλλα-

γαῖς εἰς ἄλληλα πεποικιλμένα εἴδη σχεδὸν ἐπιδέδεικται τὰ δὲ
παθήματα αὐτῶν δι᾽ ἃς αἰτίας γέγονε πειρατέον ἐμφανίζειν. πρῶτον
μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχειν αἴσθησιν δεῖ τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀεί: σαρκὸς δὲ καὶ
τῶν περὶ σάρκα γένεσιν, ψυχῆς τε ὅσον θνητόν, οὔπω διεληλύ-

I post τοῦτο delevi πῦρ ἀέρα, quae dant codices omnes et HSZ.
7 σχήμασι: σχήματα HSZ.

I. ὅπερ ὕδωρ γῆν, τοῦτο ἀπεργαζόμενα]
The words πῦρ ἀέρα, which in the mss.
follow τοῦτο, I have rejected for more
than one reason; the chief of which is
that they are-absolute nonsense. We
have seen above that water acts upon
earth by thrusting its particles between
those of earth and forcing them asunder:
likewise we have just seen that fire acts
upon water by thrusting its particles be-
tween those of water and forcing them
asunder. Therefore, as Plato says, fire has
precisely the same action upon water that
water has upon earth. But what con-
ceivable sense is there in introducing
air? Air neither is any constituent of
the compound nor plays any part in its
fusion : it is altogether beside the ques-
tion. A minor, though still substantial,
reason for rejecting the words is the
grammar. If we retain πῦρ ἀέρα, not
only is πῦρ out of all construction, but
ἀπεργαζόμενα is left forlorn of any sub-
stantive wherewith to agree. On the
other hand the rejection of those two
words, which I conceive to have been
inserted by a copyist in an over antitheti-
cal frame of mind, restores both sense
and grammar. I suspect however that
Plato’s original words were τοῦθ᾽ ὕδωρ
ἀπεργαζόμενα and that ὕδωρ was expelled

τοῦτο δέ ὃ.

8 εἴδη : ἤδη Α.

by the two intruding elements, πῦρ ἀέρα:
its insertion would be a gain to the sense.

4. λίθων χυτὰ εἴδη] For example the
μέλαν χρῶμα ἔχων λίθος mentioned above,
which we saw to have an admixture of
water in its composition.

61 C—64 A, c. xxvi. In order to set
forth thoroughly the properties of matter,
we ought to explain the nature of their
action upon our bodies and the nature of
the bodies that are so affected. As both
these subjects cannot be dealt with at
once, let us first examine the sensible
qualities of things. The sensation of
heat is due to the penetrating power of
fire, which enters and divides the flesh:
cold is a contraction of the flesh under
the influence of moisture. Hardness
and softness depend on the form of the
constituent corpuscule, the cube being
most stable and therefore most resisting.
Concerning heavy and light, it is neces-
sary to clear away some popular mis-
conceptions. It is common to speak as
if the universe were divided into two
regions, upper and lower, to the latter
of which all heavy bodies naturally tend.
But the truth is that, the universe being
a sphere, there is no such thing as an
upper and a lower region in it. For if
one were to travel round the universe he

᾿ ‘
hich. wallA ites

ΟἿ ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 225

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

So be

substance, smoothness to regularity and
density.

7. Kal τὰ μὲν δὴ σχήμασι] Having
explained the structure of the various
forms in which the four εἴδη appear and
their combinations, our next task is to
set forth the causes of the sensations
they produce in us. For σχήμασι the
editors from Stallbaum onwards, with
the exception of Martin, read σχήματα
sub stlentio. 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 ἐρήμην ὀφλεῖν and revert-
ed tothe old reading. Ficinus translates
‘eas species, quae figuris commutationi-
busque invicem variantur.’

8. τὰ δὲ παθήματαὶ The word
πάθημα 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 πάθημα signifies a quality per-
taining to the object which produces this
impression on the subject. We have a
similar unusual significance in ὑπάρχειν
αἴσθησιν below; where αἴσθησις denotes
the property of exciting sensation.

11. Ψυχῆς τε ὅσον θνητόν] See 69 Ὁ,

where the term is explained.

15

10

I

on

on

226 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [61 c—

θαμεν. τυγχάνει δὲ οὔτε ταῦτα χωρὶς τῶν περὶ τὰ παθήματα boa
> \ w29:.'9 a wv , « [2] a \ \
αἰσθητὰ οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνα ἄνευ τούτων δυνατὰ ἱκανῶς λεχθῆναι, τὸ δὲ
ἅμα σχεδὸν οὐ δυνατόν" ὑποθετέον δὴ πρότερον θάτερα, τὰ δ᾽
« / b] , 5 t/ 4 ‘er \ / /
ὑποτεθέντα ἐπάνιμεν αὖθις. ἵνα οὖν ἑξῆς τὰ παθήματα λέγηται
a a a \
τοῖς γένεσιν, ἔστω πρότερα ἡμῖν τὰ περὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ὄντα.
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἣ πῦρ θερμὸν λέγομεν, ἴδωμεν ὧδε σκοποῦντες, τὴν
διάκρισιν καὶ τομὴν αὐτοῦ περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν γιγνομένην ἐννοη-
/
θέντες. ὅτι μὲν yap ὀξύ τι τὸ πάθος, πάντες σχεδὸν αἰσθανόμεθα"
τὴν δὲ λεπτότητα τῶν πλευρῶν καὶ γωνιῶν ὀξύτητα τῶν τε μορίων
lol a “ \ \
σμικρότητα Kal τῆς φορᾶς τὸ τάχος, οἷς πᾶσι σφοδρὸν ὃν Kai
τομὸν ὀξέως τὸ προστυχὸν ἀεὶ τέμνει, λογιστέον ἀναμιμνῃσκο-
μένοις τὴν τοῦ σχήματος αὐτοῦ γένεσιν, ὅτι μάλιστα ἐκείνη καὶ
οὐκ ἄλλη φύσις διακρίνουσα ἡμῶν κατὰ σμικρά τε τὰ σώματα
κερματίζουσα τοῦτο ὃ νῦν θερμὸν λέγομεν εἰκύτως τὸ πάθημα καὶ
7
τοὔνομα παρέσχε. τὸ δ᾽ ἐναντίον τούτων κατάδηλον μέν, ὅμως δὲ
\ > \ BA , \ \ \ -“ \ \ a € a
μηδὲν ἐπιδεὲς ἔστω λόγου. τὰ yap δὴ τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑγρῶν
μεγαλομερέστερα εἰσιόντα, τὰ σμικρότερα ἐξωθοῦντα, εἰς τὰς ἐκεί-
a a n \
νων ov δυνάμενα ἕδρας ἐνδῦναι, ξυνωθοῦντα ἡμῶν τὸ νοτερὸν ἐξ
2 αἰσθητά: αἰσθητικὰ AHSZ. 4 ὕστερα ante ὑποτεθέντα dat 8.
15 τούτων : τούτῳ SZ.

I. οὔτε ταῦτα χωρίς] To explain 5. ἔστω πρότερα ἡμῖν] That is to

the action of external objects upon the
human body involves a description of the
structure of the said body. But as two
subjects cannot be expounded at once,
we must assume (ὑποθετέον) one, and
afterwards examine what we have as-
sumed.

ὅσα αἰσθητά] I have taken upon me
to make this correction of the ms. aic-
θητικά, which appears to me unmeaning.
The two subjects to be handled are (1)
the structure of flesh &c, how it is capable
of receiving impressions, (2) the proper-
ties of objects, how they are capable of
producing impressions. But this latter
is expressed by αἰσθητά, not αἰσθητικά :
how can the objects in this relation be
termed sentient? The corruption has
arisen, I doubt not, from failure to ap-
prehend the peculiar significance of πα-
θήματα. A similar confusion is found in
58 D, κινητικὸν for κινητόν.

say, let us first assume their nature and
construction; not let us first examine
them. Plato, for the sake of continuity
in his exposition, takes the παθήματα
first, postponing the account of capxds
γένεσις.

6. ἢ πῦρ θερμόν] So then θερμὸν is
the πάθημα of πῦρ: we have to inquire
how fire acts, so as to possess this πά-
θημα.

τὴν διάκρισιν] Aristotle demurs to
this explanation: see de gen. et corr.
II ii 329> 26 θερμὸν γάρ ἐστι τὸ συγκρῖνον
τὰ ὁμογενῆ (τὸ γὰρ διακρίνειν, ὅπερ φασὶ
ποιεῖν τὸ πῦρ, συγκρίνειν ἐστὶ τὰ ὁμόφυλα"
συμβαίνει γὰρ ἐξαιρεῖν τὰ ἀλλότρια), ψυ-
χρὸν δὲ τὸ συνάγον καὶ συγκρῖνον ὁμοίως τά
τε συγγενῆ καὶ τὰ μὴ ὁμόφυλα. Theo-
phrastos also complains that Plato does
not explain heat and cold on the same
principle: de sensu ὃ 87 ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ
τούτου πρῶτον μὲν τὸ μὴ πάντα ὁμοίως

D

E

62A

B

62 B] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 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

ἀποδοῦναι, μηδὲ ὅσα τοῦ αὐτοῦ yévous* the word was originally κερμόν, ‘cutting’.

ὁρίσας γὰρ τὸ θερμὸν σχήματι τὸ ψυχρὸν
οὐχ ὡσαύτως ἀπέδωκεν. But it seems to
me that the action of moisture in pro-
ducing cold does, in Plato’s account, de-
pend on the form of the particles. It
must at any rate be allowed that Plato’s
explanation has over Aristotle’s, as pro-
pounded in the passage above cited, the
advantage of clearness and simplicity.

11. λογιστέον ἀναμιμνῃσκομένοις]
i.e. if we call to mind the form of its
constituent particles, we cannot fail to
see that fire must necessarily have a
highly penetrating power.

14. ὃ viv θερμὸν λέγομεν] Asis clearly
indicated by viv, an etymology is in-
tended; and the cnly possible reference
is to κερματίζουσα. Plato would say that

πάθημα is again used as in 6rc.

16. τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑγρῶν] Water
then is for Plato the preeminently cold
element: this view was shared by Aris-
totle; see meteorclogica IV xi 389» 15.
Chrysippos said air: Plutarch in his trea-
tise de primo frigido argues fantastically
in favour of earth. Plato’s theory of cold
is this. The larger particles of moisture
surrounding the body displace the small-
er moist particles in the body, but
owing to their size cannot occupy the
place of the latter. Hence by the περίω-
σις the substance of the body is com-
pressed to fill up the vacant spaces. This,
in its extremest form, is freezing; and
the mutual repulsion of the corporeal
particles thus forced into unnatural con-

15—2

σι

Ιο

228 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [62 B—

ἀνωμάλου κεκινημένου τε ἀκίνητον δι’ ὁμαλότητα καὶ τὴν ξύνωσιν
ἀπεργαζόμενα πήγνυσι. τὸ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν ξυναγόμενον μάχεται
κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ εἰς τοὐναντίον ἀπωθοῦν. τῇ δὴ μάχῃ
καὶ τῷ σεισμῷ τούτῳ τρόμος καὶ piyos ἐτέθη, ψυχρόν τε τὸ πάθος
ἅπαν τοῦτο καὶ τὸ δρῶν αὐτὸ ἔσχεν ὄνομα. σκληρὸν δέ, ὅσοις ἂν
ἡμῶν ἡ σὰρξ ὑπείκῃ" μαλακὸν δέ, ὅσα ἂν τῇ σαρκί: πρὸς ἄλληλά
τε οὕτως. ὑπείκει δὲ ὅσον ἐπὶ σμικροῦ βαίνει τὸ δὲ ἐκ τετραγώ-

νων ὃν βάσεων, ἅτε βεβηκὸς σφόδρα, ἀντιτυπώτατον εἶδος, 6 τί τε C

“ 3
ἂν εἰς πυκνότητα ξυνιὸν πλείστην ἀντίτονον ἦ μάλιστα. βαρὺ δὲ
a an a / /
καὶ κοῦφον μετὰ THs τοῦ κάτω φύσεως ἄνω τε λεγομένης ἐξεταζό-
ΕῚ μ , ἊΨ ͵ \ ὃ , ’ ὃ ,
μενον av δηλωθείη σαφέστατα. φύσει yap δή Twas τόπους δύο
εἶναι διειληφότας διχῇ τὸ πᾶν ἐναντίους, τὸν μὲν κάτω, πρὸς ὃν
φέρεται πάνθ᾽ ὅσα τινὰ ὄγκον σώματος ἔχει, τὸν δ᾽ ἄνω, πρὸς ὃν
A ? a a
ἀκουσίως ἔρχεται πᾶν, οὐκ ὀρθὸν οὐδαμῇ νομίζειν" τοῦ γὰρ παντὸς

7 Te: ye A. Io τοῦ ante κάτω omittunt SZ.

tiguity is trembling and shivering. Cf.
Philebus 32 A.

2. μάχεται κατὰ φύσιν] Plutarch
gives a somewhat different account of
shivering: de primo frigido vi ὑφ᾽ ὧν οὐκ
del φεύγει καὶ ἀπολείπει TO θερμόν, ἀλλὰ
πολλάκις ἐγκαταλαμβανόμενον ἀνθίσταται
καὶ μάχεται, τῇ μάχῃ δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὄνομα φρίκη
καὶ τρόμος. ᾿

4. τὸ πάθος.. καὶ τὸ δρῶν] i.e. we
apply the term cold both to ice and to
the sensation it produces in us.

6. πρὸς ἄλληλά τε οὕτως] 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 ἐπεὶ δὲ
μαλακὸν τὸ ὑπεῖκον, φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ ὕδωρ
καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ μαλακά; φησὶ γὰρ
ὑπείκειν τὸ μικρὰν ἔχων βάσιν, ὥστε τὸ
πῦρ ἂν εἴη μαλακώτατον. δοκεῖ δὲ τού-
των οὐθὲν οὐδ᾽ ὅλως τὸ μὴ μένον ἀλλὰ
μεθιστάμενον εἶναι μαλακόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἰς
τὸ βάθος ὑπεῖκον ἄνευ μεταστάσεως. Here-
in he follows Aristotle meteorologica Iv iv
3824 12 μαλακὸν δὲ τὸ ὑπεῖκον τῷ μὴ ἀντι-

περιίστασθαι" τὸ γὰρ ὕδωρ οὐ μαλακόν" οὐ
γὰρ ὑπείκει τῇ θλίψει τὸ ἐπίπεδον εἰς βάθος
ἀλλ᾽ ἀντιπεριίσταται. This is of course
merely a question of names.

9. βαρὺ δὲ Kal κοῦφον] 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 κάτω, and that above our heads
ἄνω: βαρὺ is that which has a tendency
to move κάτω, κοῦφον that which has a
tendency to move ἄνω, or at least a
slighter tendency κάτω. 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 ὑποδοχὴ tends to sift
the four elements into separate regions in
space; but owing to the πίλησις 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 itis just this endeavour which
constitutes its gravity: attraction is the
effort of all matter to obey the sifting

Cc] TIMAIOS‘. 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.

force which is in nature. So when we
raise any substance of an earthy nature,
the earthward impulse which we observe
in it is not due to the fact that the earth
is the downward region whither all heavy
bodies tend to fall, but to this sifting force
which causes the mass of earth to strive
towards its own sphere.

Aristotle in his criticism of Plato’s
theory (de caelo 1V ii 308% 34 foll.) sim-
ply ignores the whole point of it from
beginning to end. The extent to which
he has done so may be gathered from the
following citation: ὥστε οὐ δι᾿ ὀλιγότητα
τῶν τριγώνων ἐξ ὧν συνεστάναι φασὶν
ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, τὸ πῦρ ἄνω φέρεσθαι πέφυ-
κεν" τό τε γὰρ πλεῖον ἧττον ἂν ἐφέρετο
καὶ βαρύτερον ay ἦν ἐκ πλειόνων ὃν τριγώ-
νῦν δὲ φαίνεται τοὐναντίον" ὅσῳ yap
ἂν ἢ πλεῖον, κουφότερόν ἐστι καὶ ἄνω φέρε-
ται θᾶττον. That is to say, Aristotle
actually urges the fact that a larger body

νων,

For

of flame has a stronger upward tendency
than’a smaller as an objection to Plato’s
theory; whereas it is precisely what
Plato affirms must on his principles in-
evitably be the case. Aristotle’s own
doctrine differed but little from the vulgar
notion on the subject: see physica IV v
212% 24 ὥστ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν κοῦφον τὸ ἄνω
φερόμενόν ἐστι φύσει, τὸ δὲ βαρὺ τὸ κάτω,
τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὸ μέσον περιέχον πέρας κάτω
ἐστί, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ μέσον, τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὸ
ἔσχατον ἄνω, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἔσχατον. Theo-
phrastos in his statement of the Platonic
theory (de sensu § 88) shows a clearer
comprehension of it, though marred by a
hankering after a ἁπλῶς βαρὺ καὶ κοῦφον.
Anaxagoras divided space into ἄνω and
κάτω : see Diogenes Laertius 11 § 8: but
Aristotle says neither he nor Empedokles
gave any definition of βαρὺ and κοῦφον:
de caelo 1V ii 309" 20.

σι

1ο

15

20

230 MAATONO® [62 c—

᾽ fal -“ ΝΜ a . 3 r yv a ,
οὐρανοῦ σφαιροειδοῦς ὄντος, ὅσα μὲν ἀφεστῶτα ἴσον τοῦ μέσου
γέγονεν ἔσχατα, ὁμοίως αὐτὰ χρὴ ἔσχατα πεφυκέναι, τὸ δὲ μέσον

“ -“ ᾽ὔ
τὰ αὐτὰ μέτρα τῶν ἐσχάτων ἀφεστηκὸς ἐν τῷ καταντικρὺ νομίζειν

a a a /
δεῖ πάντων εἶναι. τοῦ δὴ κόσμου ταύτῃ πεφυκότος τί τῶν εἰρημέ-
νων ἄνω τις ἢ κάτω τιθέμενος οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ δόξει τὸ μηδὲν προσῆκον

a \
ὄνομα λέγειν; ὁ μὲν γὰρ μέσος ἐν αὐτῷ τόπος οὔτε κάτω πεφυκὼς

" " L , κι Arar ρα. ὡς τὰ , > “Ὁ ΣΝ , v δὴ
οὔτε ἄνω λέγεσθαι δίκαιος, GAN αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ᾽ ὁ δὲ πέριξ οὔτε δὴ

/ a Φ' Ἢ , ¢ fal / “ ,ὔ “ \
μέσος οὔτ᾽ ἔχων διάφορον αὑτοῦ μέρος ἕτερον θατέρου μᾶλλον πρὸς

-“ ral A at

TO μέσον ἢ τι τῶν καταντικρύ. TOD δὲ ὁμοίως πάντῃ πεφυκότος ποῖά
> / 3 ’ ’ ree , \ n fal x ¢ “ / %
τις ἐπιφέρων ὀνόματα αὐτῷ ἐναντία καὶ πῇ καλῶς ἂν ἡγοῖτο λέγειν;
εἰ γάρ τι καὶ στερεὸν εἴη κατὰ μέσον τοῦ παντὸς ἰσοπαλές, εἰς
οὐδὲν ἄν ποτε τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐνεχθείη διὰ τὴν πάντῃ ὁμοιότητα

, lal 5 > > Ν \ ? \ ͵ la > , ’ a
αὐτῶν" AXA εἰ καὶ TEPL AUTO πορεύοιτο TLS EV κύκλῳ, πολλάκις ἂν

fal \
στὰς ἀντίπους ταὐτὸν αὐτοῦ κάτω καὶ ἄνω προσείποι. TO μὲν γὰρ
a , » a , \ » , \ /
ὅλον, καθάπερ εἴρηται viv δή, σφαιροειδὲς ὄν, τόπον τινὰ κάτω,

\ \ bd / » 3 ” v4 \ ’ ’ rn
τὸν δὲ ἄνω λέγειν ἔχειν οὐκ ἔμφρονος" ὅθεν δὲ ὠνομάσθη ταῦτα

ὙΠ] ” 247 Ee es \ \ ’ \ “ “
καὶ ἐν οἷς ὄντα εἰθίσμεθα δι’ ἐκεῖνα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ὅλον οὕτω
διαιρούμενοι λέγειν, ταῦτα διομολογητέον ὑποθεμένοις τάδε ἡμῖν.
εἴ τις ἐν τῷ τοῦ παντὸς τόπῳ, καθ᾽ ὃν ἡ τοῦ πυρὰς εἴληχε μάλιστα
φύσις, οὗ καὶ πλεῖστον ἂν ἠθροισμένον εἴη. 'πρὸς ὃ φέρεται, ἐπεμβὰς

10 ἂν omittit A.

3. ἐν τῷ καταντικρύ] The universe
being a sphere, every point on the cir-
cumference (ἔσχατα) 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 ἄνω and the other κάτω. Nor
yet will Plato allow the correctness of
terming the centre κάτω, as Aristotle
subsequently did, nor ἄνω either: it is
just ‘the centre’—atro ἐν μέσῳ. How-
ever in Phaedo 112 the centre of the
earth is regarded as the lowest point: but
in that passage physics are largely tem-
pered with mythology.

8. μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸ μέσον] That is,
no part of the circumference has any
difference in its relations towards the
centre, as compared with any part on the

20 ἐπεμβάς: ἐπαναβὰς SZ.

opposite side.

11. εἰ γάρ τι καὶ στερεὸν εἴη] If
there were a solid body at the centre
of the universe (such as the earth in the
Platonic cosmology actually was), such
is the uniformity of the sphere in which
it is, that it would have no tendency
towards any one point in the circum-
ference rather than any other: therefore
for it there would be no ἄνω nor κάτω in
any direction. Compare Phaedo 109 A
ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ
τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἡττον οὐδα-
μόσε κλιθῆναι, ὁμοίως δ᾽ ἔχον ἀκλινὲς
μενεῖ.

13. εἰ καὶ περὶ αὐτὸ πορεύοιτό τις]
A second illustration of the want of. signi-
ficance in the terms ἄνω and κάτω is this.
If one were to travel round the circum-
ference, he would be forced, if he used
the words in the popular way, to call

D .

638A

63 5] TIMAIOS.

since the form of the universe is spherical, all the extreme points,
being equally distant from the centre, are by their very nature
equally extreme; and the centre, being equally distant from
all the extremes, ought to be regarded as opposite to all such
points. This being the nature of the universe, how can one |
describe any of the said points as upper or lower, without justly —
being censured for using irrelevant terms? For the centre
cannot properly be described as being above or below, but
simply at the centre; while the circumference is neither itself
central nor has any difference between the points on its sur-
face, so that one has a different relation to the centre from
an opposite point. Since then it is everywhere uniform, how
and in what sense can we suppose we are speaking correctly
if we use terms which imply opposition? For suppose in the
midst of the universe there were a solid body in equilibrium,
it would have no tendency towards any point in the circum-
ference, owing to the absolute uniformity of the whole: indeed
if we were to walk round the sphere, frequently, as we stood
at the antipodes of our former position, we should call the
same point on its surface successively ‘above’ and ‘below’. For
this universe being spherical, as we just now said, no rational
man can speak of one region as upper, of another as lower: how-
ever whence these names were derived and under what conditions
we use them to express this division of the entire universe,
we may explain on the following hypothesis. In that region
of the universe which is specially allotted to the element of
fire, where indeed the greatest mass would be collected of that
to which it is attracted, if one should attain to this place, and,

231

the same point both ἄνω and κάτω: for
the point that now is κάτω will be ἄνω
when he reaches the antipodes thereof.
I think we must conceive the traveller
to be moving round the inside of the
circumference of the universe; not, as
Stallbaum supposes, round the στερεόν.
For were he walking round the latter,
every point in it would always be κάτω in
the vulgar sense.

19. καθ᾽ ὅν] Stallbaum would ex-
punge καθ᾽. But I think we may readily

supply an object with εἴληχε, ‘in which
fire has its allotted place.’ Compare
Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 423 Ka-
maveds δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ᾿Ηλέκτραισιν εἴληχεν πύλαις.
See too 41 C above.

20. πλεῖστον ἂν ἠθροισμένον εἴη] Al-
though detached portions of fire are to
be found in all parts of the universe, yet,
since all fire is perpetually struggling to
reach its proper home, naturally the great
bulk of the element will be accumulated
in that region.

20

_ conceive of fire as absolutely light.

232

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

2 <2) πα a \ U > a / a \ > a
ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καὶ δύναμιν eis τοῦτο ἔχων, μέρη τοῦ πυρὸς ἀφαιρῶν
ἱσταίη, τιθεὶς εἰς πλάστιγγας, αἴρων τὸν ζυγὸν καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἕλκων
> | 7 , n ε ow / n /

εἰς ἀνόμοιον ἀέρα βιαζόμενος, δῆλον ws τοὔλαττόν που τοῦ μείζονος
ῥᾷον βιᾶται: ῥώμῃ γὰρ μιᾷ δυοῖν ἅμα μετεωριζομένοιν τὸ μὲν C
5 ἔλαττον μᾶλλον, τὸ δὲ πλέον ἧττον ἀνάγκη που κατατεινόμενον
ξυνέπεσθαι τῇ βίᾳ, καὶ τὸ μὲν πολὺ βαρὺ καὶ κάτω φερόμενον

κληθῆναι, τὸ δὲ σμικρὸν ἐλαφρὸν καὶ ἄνω. ταὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτο δεῖ
φωρᾶσαι δρῶντας ἡμᾶς περὶ τόνδε τὸν τόπον.

ἐπὶ γὰρ γῆς βε-

a f / / ‘ Ὁ 3. ἢ > \ >
Bares, γεώδη γένη διιστάμενοι καὶ γῆν ἐνίοτε αὐτὴν ἕλκομεν εἰς
, ᾽ fal lol >

10 ἀνόμοιον ἀέρα Bia καὶ παρὰ φύσιν, ἀμφότερα τοῦ ξυγγενοῦς ἀντε-
a a \

χόμενα. τὸ δὲ σμικρότερον ῥᾷον Tod μείζονος βιαζομένοις εἰς τὸ
ἀνόμοιον πρότερον ξυνέπεται: κοῦφον οὖν αὐτὸ προσειρήκαμεν καὶ
\ ’ ae 3 “ Wee Ν ὍΝ ὦ , , , \
τὸν τόπον εἰς ὃν βιαζόμεθ᾽ ἄνω, τὸ δ᾽ ἐναντίον τούτοις πάθος βαρὺ

le) »
καὶ κάτω. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δὴ διαφόρως ἔχειν αὐτὰ πρὸς αὑτὰ ἀνάγκη
15 διὰ τὸ τὰ πλήθη τῶν γενῶν τόπον ἐναντίον ἄλλα ἄλλοις κατέχειν"
τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἑτέρῳ κοῦφον ὃν τόπῳ τῷ κατὰ τὸν ἐναντίον τόπον
a a a a a wy
ἐλαφρῷ καὶ τῷ βαρεῖ τὸ βαρὺ τῷ τε κάτω TO κάτω Kal τῷ ἄνω TO
ἄνω πάντ᾽ ἐναντία καὶ πλάγια καὶ πάντως διάφορα πρὸς ἄλληλα E
,
ἀνευρεθήσεται γιγνόμενα καὶ ὄντα' τόδε ye μὴν ἕν τι διανοητέον
. a >
περὶ πάντων ἀὐτῶν, ὡς ἡ μὲν πρὸς TO ξυγγενὲς ὁδὸς ἑκάστοις οὖσα

I. πυρὸς ἀφαιρῶν ἱσταίη] Our mis-
conception about the nature of light and
heavy is due to this cause. We are con-
fined to this region of earth and water;
and when we weigh masses of earth or
water, we find that they always have a
tendency in one direction. This tend-
ency we call weight, and the direction in
which they tend we call downward; and
because earth and water resist our efforts
to remove them from their own region,
we conceive of them as absolutely heavy.
Fire, on the other hand, so far from
resisting any effort to lift it from the
region which earth and water seek, has a
natural impulse to fly from it; whence we
But
this opinion is due to the limitation of
our experience to one sphere. Could we
reach the home of fire and endeavour to
raise portions of it into the region of air,
as we now do with earth and water, we
should then find that fire resisted our

efforts precisely as earth and water do

now: it would have a similar tendency to |

[63 B—

D

revert to its proper region, and would ©

be ‘heavy’; while earth or water, so far
from resisting the effort to remove it
from the region of fire, would have a
natural impulse to fly off in the direction
of earth, and would be ‘light’. Accord-
ingly, whereas now we call the region
of earth ‘down’, and things that tend
towards it ‘heavy’, we should, in the
supposed case, call the region of fire
‘down’ and things that tend towards fire
‘heavy’. There is therefore no such thing
as absolute lightness and heaviness; all
things are light or heavy only relatively
to the region in which they are situate.

4. βιᾶται is middle, as in Aeschylus
Agamemnon 385 βιᾶται δ᾽ a τάλαινα
πειθώ. .

5. ἧττον is of course to be joined
with ξυνέπεσθαι.

7. ταὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτο δεῖ φωρᾶσαι]

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
earth from earth, we are not lifting it
‘up’, but simply out of its own region.
This we should realise if we tried the
experiment on fire in the fire-home, be-
cause we should find our customary
notions of up and down inverted.

10. ἀμφότερα] i.e. the earth in each
scale.

14. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δὴ διαφόρως ἔχειν]
These relations of ‘light’ and ‘heavy’
have no absolute fixity, because, as he
goes on to explain, the same thing which
is light in one region is heavy in another;
and consequently the direction of ‘up’
and ‘down’ is reversed and altered in

a variety of ways.

18. ἐναντία kal πλάγια] Different sub-
stances which are imprisoned in an alien
region will have the lines of their attrac-
tion in some instances opposite, as in the
case of masses of fire and of earth in the
region of air, in others the lines may
be inclined at any angle (πλάγια) one
to another, according to the position
occupied by the two bodies in relation
to their proper regions. Plato is insist-
ing that the lines of gravitation are not
parallel.

20. ἡ μὲν πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενὲς ὁδός] Here
we have the definite statement in so many
words that gravity is just the attraction

ΤΟ

234 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [63 E—

βαρὺ μὲν τὸ φερόμενον ποιεῖ, τὸν δὲ τόπον εἰς ὃν τὸ τοιοῦτον
φέρεται κάτω, τὰ δὲ τούτοις ἔχοντα ὡς ἑτέρως, θάτερα. περὶ δὴ
τούτων αὖ τῶν παθημάτων ταῦτα αἴτια εἰρήσθω. λείου δ᾽ αὖ καὶ
τραχέος παθήματος αἰτίαν πᾶς που κατιδὼν καὶ ἑτέρῳ δυνατὸς ἂν
εἴη λέγειν: σκληρότης γὰρ ἀνωμαλότητι μιχθεῖσα, τὸ δ᾽ ὁμαλότης
πυκνότητι παρέχεται.

XXVII. Μέγιστον δὲ καὶ λοιπὸν τῶν κοινῶν περὶ ὅλον τὸ
σῶμα παθημάτων τὸ τῶν ἡδέων καὶ τῶν ἀλγεινῶν αἴτιον ἐν οἷς
διεληλύθαμεν, καὶ ὅσα διὰ τῶν τοῦ σώματος μορίων αἰσθήσεις
ὧδ᾽

3 Ἁ \ > a \ bd , ’ \ ; TED
οὖν κατὰ παντὸς αἰσθητοῦ Kal ἀναισθήτου παθήματος Tas αἰτίας

/ ‘ , > « a « , θ᾿. e / »
κεκτημένα καὶ λύπας ἐν αὑτοῖς ἡδονάς θ᾽ ἅμα ἑπομένας ἔχει.

λαμβάνωμεν, ἀναμιμνῃσκόμενοι τὸ τῆς εὐκινήτου τε καὶ δυσκινή-
του φύσεως ὅτι διειλόμεθα ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν: ταύτῃ γὰρ δὴ μετα-
τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν
εὐκίνητον, ὅταν καὶ βραχὺ πάθος εἰς αὐτὸ ἐμπίπτῃ, διαδίδωσι
κύκλῳ, μόρια ἕτερα ἑτέροις ταὐτὸν ἀπεργαζόμενα, μέχριπερ ἂν ἐπὶ

, rn -“
διωκτέον πάντα, ὅσα ἐπινοοῦμεν ἑλεῖν.

10 αὑτοῖς : αὐτοῖς A.

of a body towards its proper sphere; and
for every substance the direction of its
proper sphere, wherever that may be, is
κάτω, and the opposite ἄνω. By τὰ δὲ
τούτοις x.T.\. Plato means that while in
a given region we apply the term βαρὺ to
a substance whose ὁδὸς πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενὲς
is towards that region, we apply the
term κοῦφον to a substance whose ὁδὸς
πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενὲς 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. σκληρότης γάρ] With this clause
τὸ μὲν has of course to be supplied.

64 A—65 B, c. xxvii. We have now to
explain the nature and cause of pleasure
and pain. Sensation is produced in the
following way. If an impression from
without lights upon a part of the body
of which the particles are readily stirred,
those particles which first received the
impact transmit the motion to their neigh-
bours; and so it is handed on until it
reaches the seat of consciousness; at
which point sensation is effected. If on

the contrary the impression is received by
a part of the body which is hard to stir,
the motion is not transmitted, and no
sensation ensues. This being so, the
explanation of pleasure and pain is as
follows. When any of the particles that
constitute our body are suddenly and in
considerable numbers forced out of their
normal position, the result is pain; and
when they in like manner return to their
normal position, the result is pleasure.
If however either process takes place on
a very small scale or very gradually, it is
imperceptible. When the corporeal par-
ticles yield to the external impact with
extreme readiness, the process is accom-
panied by vivid perception, but neither
by pleasure nor by pain. If the distur-
bance has been slow and gradual, and
the restoration rapid and sudden, we
experience pleasure without antecedent
pain : but if these conditions are reversed,
we feel pain in the disturbance, but the
restoration affords no pleasure.

ἡ. τῶν κοινῶν περὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα]
An explanation of pleasure and pain will
complete our account of the sensations

644

B

64 8] ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ: 235

that makes us call the falling body heavy, and the place to
which it falls, below; while to the reverse relations we apply
the opposite names. So much then for the causes of these
conditions. Of the qualities of smooth and rough any one
could perceive the cause and explain it to another: the latter
is produced by a combination of hardness and irregularity, the
former by a combination of uniformity and density.

XXVII. We have yet to consider the most important point
relating to the affections which concern the whole body in com-
mon; that is, the cause of pleasure and pain accompanying
the sensations we have discussed: and also the affections which
produce sensation by means of the separate bodily organs and
which involve attendant pains and pleasures. This then is how
we must conceive the causes in the case of every affection,
sensible or insensible, recollecting how we defined above the
source of mobility and immobility: for this is the way we must
seek the explanation we hope to find. When that which is
naturally mobile is impressed by even a slight affection, it spreads
abroad the motion, the particles one upon another producing
the same effect, until coming to the sentient part it announces

which are not confined to any special
organs, but affect the body as a whole:

we saw it used in the preceding chapter.
13. ἐν Tots πρόσθεν] See 55 B.

next we shall proceed to discuss the
separate senses.

8. ἐν ols διεληλύθαμεν] 1.6. in the
perceptions treated in the preceding
chapter.

If. ἀναισθήτου παθήματος] A πά-
θημα then, we see, is not always ac-
companied by αἴσθησις. The distinction
is this. Every external influence affect-
ing the body is a πάθημα, but, unless
it is transmitted to the seat of conscious-
ness, it does not produce αἴσθησις. Thus
cutting the hair is a πάθημα, but not an
αἴσθησις : or, to take another example,
a deaf man has the πάθημα but not the
αἴσθησις of sound; the air-vibrations are
conveyed to his ear, but stop short there
without being announced to the brain.
The word πάθημα, it will be observed,
being now applied to the subject, has
a different significance from that in which

16. μόρια ἕτερα ἑτέροις] The word
μόρια is ‘usually considered as the ob-
ject of διαδίδωσι. But this seems to me
strained; since what the εὐκίνητον trans-
mits is the πάθος, not its own particles.
I should prefer to regard μόρια as placed
in a kind of apposition, the construction
being somewhat similar to that in So-
phokles Antigone 259 λόγοι δ᾽ ἐν ἀλλή-
λοισιν ἐρρόθουν κακοί, φύλαξ ἐλέγχων φύ-
λακα: cf. Herodotus 11 cxxxiii (quoted by
Prof. Campbell) wa οἱ δυώδεκα ἔτεα ἀντὶ
ἕξ ἐτέων γένηται, αἱ νύκτες ἡμέραι ποιεύ-
μεναι. Just below the μύρια are spoken
of as transmitting the πάθος, διαδιδύντων
μορίων μορίοις ἄλλων ἄλλοις.

ταὐτὸν ἀπεργαζόμενα] i.e. affecting
them with the same πάθος. The theory
of sensation here enunciated is also set
forth in Philebus 33D: see too Repudb-
lic 384¢ αἵ ye dia τοῦ σώματος ἐπὶ τὴν

236

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[64 B—

a \
τὸ φρόνιμον ἐλθόντα ἐξαγγείλῃ τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὴν δύναμιν" TO
δ᾽ ἐναντίον ἑδραῖον ὃν κατ᾽ οὐδένα τε κύκλον ἰὸν πάσχει μόνον,

a a 7
ἄλλο δὲ οὐ κινεῖ τῶν πλησίον, ὥστε οὐ διαδιδόντων μορίων μορίοις C
Ν Ν' \ a , > > an Φ'. > \ n
«ἄλλων ἄλλοις TO πρῶτον πάθος ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀκίνητον eis τὸ πᾶν

5 ζῷον γενόμενον ἀναίσθητον παρέσχε τὸ παθόν
ἐ Ὗ μ ἢ ρ x :

ταῦτα δὲ περί τε

ὀστᾶ καὶ τὰς τρίχας ἐστὶ καὶ ὅσ᾽ ἄλλα γήινα τὸ πλεῖστον ἔχομεν

ἐν ἡμῖν μόρια' τὰ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν περὶ τὰ τῆς ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς
, cal “ /

μάλιστα, διὰ τὸ πυρὸς ἀέρος Te ἐν αὐτοῖς δύναμιν ἐνεῖναι μεγίστην.

τὸ δὴ τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ λύπης ὧδε δεῖ διανοεῖσθαι.

τὸ μὲν παρὰ

ἡ U > , >, ¢ A U > , \

10 φύσιν καὶ βίαιον γιγνόμενον ἀθρόον trap ἡμῖν πάθος ἀλγεινόν, τὸ
᾽ > , > \ U 3 , « , Ν \ 9 , Ν Ἁ

δ᾽ εἰς φύσιν ἀπιὸν πάλιν ἀθρόον ἡδύ, τὸ δὲ ἠρέμα καὶ κατὰ σμικρὸν

> / ΑἿ Ss , , > /
ἀναίσθητον, TO ὃ εναντίον TOUTOLS EVAVTLWS.

A \ > > /
TO δὲ μετ᾽ εὐπετείας

γιγνόμενον ἅπαν αἰσθητὸν μὲν ὅ τι μάλιστα, λύπης δὲ καὶ ἡδονῆς
οὐ μετέχον, οἷον τὰ περὶ τὴν ὄψιν αὐτὴν παθήματα, ἢ δὴ σῶμα ἐν
15 τοῖς πρόσθεν ἐρρήθη καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ξυμφυὲς ἡμῶν γίγνεσθαι. ταύτῃ
γὰρ τομαὶ μὲν καὶ καύσεις καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα πάσχει λύπας οὐκ ἐμ-
ποιοῦσιν, οὐδὲ ἡδονὰς πάλιν ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν ἀπιούσης εἶδος, μέγισται

δὲ > , \ , / 7 ὩΣ / \a@ δὰ > /
€ αἰσθήσεις καὶ σαφέσταται καθότι τ᾽ ἂν πάθῃ καὶ ὅσων ἂν αὐτή

πῃ προσβαλοῦσα ἐφάπτηται" βία γὰρ τὸ πάμπαν οὐκ ἔνι τῇ δια-

6 τὰς ante τρίχας omittunt SZ.

ψυχὴν τείνουσαι : and compare Aristotle
de sensu i 4360 6 ἡ δ᾽ αἴσθησις ὅτι διὰ τοῦ
σώματος γίνεται τῇ Ψυχῇ δῆλον καὶ διὰ τοῦ
λόγου καὶ τοῦ λόγου χωρίς.

6. ὀστᾶ καὶ τὰς τρίχας] So says
Aristotle de anima 111 xiii 4358 24 καὶ διὰ
τοῦτο τοῖς ὀστοῖς καὶ ταῖς θριξὶ καὶ τοῖς
τοιούτοις μορίοις οὐκ αἰσθανόμεθα, ὅτι γῆς
ἐστίν,

9. τὸ μὲν παρὰ φύσιν] The first
indication of this theory of pleasure and
pain is to be found in Republic 5836
foll.: it is definitely set forth in Philebus
31D foll. The Platonic theory is assailed
by Aristotle, #zc. eth. X iii 1173°31. He
objects (1) that a κίνησις involves the
notion of speed, which pleasure does
not; (2) if pleasure is ἃ γένεσις, where-
unto is it a γένεσις, and out of what con-
stituents does it arise? (3) it cannot be
an ἀποπλήρωσις, for that is a purely cor-
poreal process, and it is not body but

15 ἡμῖν 8.

19 προσβαλοῦσα: προσβάλλουσα S.

soul which perceives pleasure. As usual,
Aristotle’s objections miss the point. He
is treating pleasure subjectively and psy-
chologically; whereas Plato’s theory is
a purely physical one. There is no con-
fusion in the latter’s view between the
subjective and objective aspects; but here
he is only concerned with explaining the
physical causes which give rise to pleasure
and pain.

12. τὸ δὲ per’ εὐπετείας) We have
seen that sensation is due to the cor-
poreal particles being evxivyra and trans-
mitting the πάθος to the seat of conscious-
ness. But pleasure and pain require a
certain degree of resistance in the par-
ticles: for if they offer only the slightest
possible opposition to the external in-
fluence, the perception is indeed acute,
but is entirely unattended by physical
pain or pleasure. An instance of this
is furnished by the phenomena of sight.

D

Ε] ΤΊΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 237

the property of the agent: but a substance that is immobile
is too stable to spread the motion round about, and thus merely
receives the affection but does not stir any neighbouring part;
so that as the particles do not pass on one to another the
original impulse which affected them, they keep it untransmitted
to the entire creature and thus leave the recipient of the af-
fection without sensation. This takes place with our bones and
hair and all the parts we have which are formed mostly of
earth: while the former conditions apply in the highest degree
to sight and hearing, because they contain the greatest pro-
portion of fire and air. The nature of pleasure and pain must
be conceived thus: an affection contrary to nature, when it takes
place forcibly and suddenly within us, is painful; a sudden
return to the natural state is pleasant; a gentle and gradual
process is imperceptible; and one of an opposite character is per-
ceptible. Now a process which takes place with perfect facility
is perceptible in a high degree, but is accompanied neither by
pleasure nor by pain. An example will be found in the affec-
tions of the visual current, which we said above was in the day-
time a material body cognate with ourselves. In this cutting and
burning and any other affection cause no.pain; nor does pleasure
ensue when it returns to its normal state: but its perceptions
are most vivid and accurate of whatsoever impresses it or what-

soever itself meets and touches.

The ὄψεως ῥεῦμα (which we must remem-
ber to be actually part of ourselves) is
composed of extremely subtle and mobile
particles, which yield without resistance
to any external impulse. This may come
in contact with fire or be divided by a
sharp instrument, and yet, while the καῦ-
σις and the τομὴ are clearly perceived,
no pain is felt, notwithstanding that in
either case the particles are very much
dislocated. Plato is of course speaking
merely of bodily pain and pleasure, not
of the mental pleasure awakened by the
sight of a beautiful object or of the dis-
gust excited by a spectacle of contrary
nature. The process of seeing, as such,
is normally unattended by physical pain
or pleasure.

For its dilation and contraction

14. ἐν Tots πρόσθεν] 45 B. By τὴν
ὄψιν we are as before to understand the
ὄψεως ῥεῦμα.

15. ξυμφυὲς ἡμῶν] Stallbaum is per-
haps right in reading ἡμῖν, But as ξυγ-
γενηὴς is several times followed by the
genitive (see 30D) it seems possible that
ξυμφυὴς might have the same construction.
ξύμφυτος seems to have the same go-
vernment in Philebus 51D καὶ τούτων
ξυμφύτους ἡδονὰς ἑπομένας.

18. καὶ ὅσων ἄν] A similar fulness
of detail is in 456 ὅτου τ᾽ ἂν αὐτό ποτε
ἐφάπτηται καὶ ὃ ἂν ἄλλο ἐκείνου.

19. ϑιακρίσει τε αὐτῆς καὶ συγκρίσει]
These terms are explained when Plato
comes to treat of colours, 67 Ο foll.

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [64 E—

κρίσει τε αὐτῆς καὶ συγκρίσει. τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ μειζόνων μερῶν σώματα
μόγις εἴκοντα τῷ δρῶντι, διαδιδόντα δὲ εἰς ὅλον τὰς κινήσεις, ἡδονὰς
ἴσχει καὶ λύπας, ἀλλοτριούμενα μὲν λύπας, καθιστάμενα δὲ εἰς 65 A
τὸ αὐτὸ πάλιν ἡδονάς. ὅσα δὲ κατὰ σμικρὸν τὰς ἀποχωρήσεις
5 ἑαυτῶν καὶ κενώσεις εἴληφε, τὰς δὲ πληρώσεις ἀθρόας καὶ κατὰ
μεγάλα, κενώσεως μὲν ἀναίσθητα, πληρώσεως δὲ αἰσθητικὰ γυγ-
νόμενα, λύπας μὲν οὐ παρέχει τῷ θνητῷ τῆς ψυχῆς, μεγίστας δὲ
ἡδονάς- ἔστι δὲ ἔνδηλα περὶ τὰς εὐωδίας. ὅσα δὲ ἀπαλλοτριοῦται
μὲν ἀθρόα, κατὰ σμικρὰ δὲ μόγις τε εἰς. ταὐτὸ πάλιν ἑαυτοῖς καθί-
10 σταται, τοὐναντίον τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν πάντα ἀποδίδωσι: ταῦτα δ᾽ αὖ Β
περὶ τὰς καύσεις καὶ τομὰς τοῦ σώματος γιγνόμενά ἐστι κατάδηλα.
XXVIII. Καὶ τὰ μὲν δὴ κοινὰ τοῦ σώματος παντὸς παθή-
ματα, τῶν T ἐπωνυμιῶν ὅσαι τοῖς δρῶσιν αὐτὰ γεγόνασι, σχεδὸν
εἴρηται: τὰ δ᾽ ἐν ἰδίοις μέρεσιν ἡμῶν γιγνόμενα, τά τε πάθη καὶ
15 Tas αἰτίας αὖ τῶν δρώντων, πειρατέον εἰπεῖν, ἄν πη δυνώμεθα. C
πρῶτον οὖν ὅσα τῶν χυμῶν πέρι λέγοντες ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἀπελί-
πομεν, ἴδια ὄντα παθήματα περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν, ἐμφανιστέον F
δυνατόν. φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ταῦτα, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τὰ πολλά, διὰ

238

4 τὸ αὐτὸ: ταὐτὸν S.
10 ταῦτα : ταὐτά A.
post πρῶτον addit 5.

1. ἐκ μειζόνων μερῶν] It will be re-
membered that the visual stream consist-
ed of very fine particles of fire; not the
very finest, since the rays from some
objects penetrate and divide the visual
current: see 67 E.

7- λύπας μὲν οὐ wapéxa] When
the dislocation has been very gradual
and the restoration rapid, we have acute
pleasure without any antecedent pain.
Such pleasures are called in the Republic
and Philebus καθαραὶ ἡδοναί, as distin-
guished from μικταί : see Republic 584.
and Philebus 51 B, where the example of
sweet smells is given, as well as beautiful
colours, shapes and sounds. In our pre-
sent passage Plato adds a little to the
explicitness of his statement: he shows
that ὀσμαὶ are just as much καταστάσεις
as the μικταΐ, only the κένωσις being in-
sensible, we felt no preliminary pain.
He seems to regard sweet odours as the

15 αὖ omittit 5, qui mox post δρώντων dedit αὐτά.
ἀπελίπομεν : ἀπελείπομεν A.

9. καὶ post μόγις τε addit A. ταὐτό: ταῦτόν SZ.

16 μὲν

natural nutriment of the nostrils, which
suffer waste when those are absent: but

_the depletion is so imperceptible that it

is only by sudden restoration of the na-
tural state that we become conscious
that there has been any lack. The state-
ment in the Philebus, i. /., though briefer,
amounts to the same: ὅσα τὰς ἐνδείας
ἀναισθήτους ἔχοντα καὶ ἀλύπους τὰς τλη-
ρώσεις αἰσθητὰς καὶ ἡδείας καθαρὰς λυπῶν
παραδίδωσιν. Aristotle tells us (ad sensu
V 445° 16) that certain Pythagoreans be-
lieved that some animals were nourished
by smell.

8. ἀπαλλοτριοῦται μὲν ἀθρόα] On
the other hand there are cases where the
disturbance is violent and causes severe
pain, but the restoration is too gradual
to afford any pleasure. This is to be
seen in wounds and burns and such like;
the process of healing causes no pleasure.

65 B—66, ¢. xxviii. So much for the

65 Cl TIMAIOS. 239

are entirely free from violence. On the other hand bodies
formed of larger particles, reluctantly yielding to the agent, and
spreading the motions through the whole frame, cause pleasure
and pain; when they are disturbed giving pain, and pleasure
in being restored to their proper state. Those things which
suffer a gradual withdrawing and emptying, but have their
replenishment sudden and on a large scale, are insensible to
the emptying but sensible of the replenishment; so that while
they cause no pain to the mortal part of the soul, they produce
very intense pleasure. This is to be observed in the case of
sweet smells. But when the parts are disturbed suddenly, but
gradually and laboriously restored to their.former condition,
they afford exactly the opposite result to the former: this may
be seen in the case of burns and cuts on the body.

XXVIII. Now the affections common to the body as a
whole and the names that have been given to the agents which
produce them have been well-nigh expounded: next we must
try to explain, if we can, what takes place in the separate parts
of us, both as to the affections of them and the causes on the
part of the agents. First then we must set forth to the best
of our power all that we left unsaid concerning tastes, which

are affections peculiar to the tongue.

sensations affecting the whole body and
their causes; we have now to inquire
into the separate sensory faculties. We
will first take taste. This depends upon
the contraction or dilatation of the pores
of the tongue by substances that are
dissolved inthe mouth. Whatever power-
fully contracts the small vessels of the
tongue is harsh and astringent; that which
has a detergent effect we call alkaline,
or if its action is milder, saline. A sub-
stance which is volatile and inflames
the vessels is called pungent; and one
that produces a kind of fermentation or
effervescence is acid. All the foregoing
exercise a disturbing influence upon the
substance of the tongue: that which
mollifies it and restores the disturbed
particles to their natural state, producing
a pleasurable sensation, is named sweet.

It appears that these,

13. Tots δρῶσιν αὐτά] i.e. the agents
or forces which produce the παθήματα.

16. ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἀπελίπομεν] The
reference would seem to be to the enume-
ration of χυμοί in6o A. Plato’s statement
is quoted by Theophrastos de causis plan-
tarum V1 i: to the list of χυμοὶ given by
Plato in the present passage he adds λι-
mapés. Farther on he gives the views of
Demokritos, who referred differences of
taste to differences in the shape of the
atoms: cf. de sensu 88 65—69. Opinions
not dissimilar to Plato’s are ascribed to
Alkmaion and to Diogenes of Apollonia
by pseudo-Plutarch de placitis philoso-
phorum Iv 18.

17. περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν] The under
surface of the soft palate is said by ana-
tomists to share this function with the
tongue.

Io

I

σι

σι

240

ΠΛΑΤΩΏΝΟΣ

[65 c—

συγκρίσεών τέ τινων καὶ διακρίσεων γίγνεσθαι, πρὸς δὲ αὐταῖς
κεχρῆσθαι μᾶλλόν τι τῶν ἄλλων τραχύτησί τε καὶ λειότησιν.
ὅσα μὲν γὰρ εἰσιόντα περὶ τὰ φλέβια, οἵόνπερ δοκιμεῖα τῆς
γλώττης τεταμένα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν, εἰς TA νοτερὰ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ D
ἁπαλὰ ἐμπίπτοντα γήινα μέρη κατατηκόμενα ξυνάγει τὰ φλέβια
καὶ ἀποξηραίνει, τραχύτερα μὲν ὄντα στρυφνά, ἧττον δὲ τραχύ-
νοντὰ αὐστηρὰ φαίνεται: τὰ δὲ τούτων τε ῥυπτικὰ καὶ πᾶν τὸ
περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ἀποπλύνοντα, πέρα μὲν τοῦ μετρίου τοῦτο
δρῶντα καὶ προσεπιλαμβανόμενα, ὥστε. ἀποτήκειν αὐτῆς τῆς φύ-
σεως, οἷον ἡ τῶν λίτρων δύναμις, πικρὰ πάνθ᾽ οὕτως ὠνόμασται, E
τὰ δὲ ὑποδεέστερα τῆς λιτρώδους ἕξεως ἐπὶ τὸ μέτριόν τε τῇ ῥύψει
χρώμενα ἁλυκὰ ἄνευ πικρότητος τραχείας καὶ φίλα μᾶλλον ἡμῖν
φαντάζεται. τὰ δὲ τῇ τοῦ στόματος θερμότητι κοινωνήσαντα καὶ
λεαινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ξυνεκπυρούμενα καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ ἀντικάοντα
τὸ διαθερμῆναν, φερόμενά τε ὑπὸ κουφότητος ἄνω πρὸς τὰς τῆς
κεφαλῆς αἰσθήσεις, τέμνοντά τε πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσοις ἂν προσπίπτῃ, διὰ

ταύτας τὰς δυνάμεις δριμέα πάντα τοιαῦτα ἐλέχθη.

προλελεπτυσμένων μὲν ὑπὸ σηπεδόνος, εἰς δὲ τὰς στενὰς φλέβας

3 δοκιμεῖα : δοκίμια HSZ.

1. ϑιὰ συγκρίσεων] Nearly all sense-
perception is reduced by Plato to con-
traction and expansion, which however
in different organs produce different
classes of sensation. This is the agency
by which taste is brought about, though
the tongue is in a peculiar degree affected
by the roughness or smoothness of the
entering particles.

πρὸς δὲ αὐταῖς]
καὶ διακρίσεσι.

3. οἵόνπερ δοκιμεῖα] The word δοκι-
μεῖον or δοκίμιον signifies an instrument
for testing, and is applied by Plato to
the small blood-vessels of the tongue,
which he holds to be both the cause of
taste, through their contraction and ex-
pansion, and also the means of trans-
mitting the πάθημα to the seat of con-
sciousness. Of the nerves Plato, like
Aristotle, understood nothing at all: their
functions are attributed by him to the
φλέβια.

5. κατατηκόμενα] Plato holds that

sc. ταῖς συγκρίσεσι

14 λεαινόμενα : λειαινόμενα ASZ.

all taste is produced by substances in a
liquid state, whether liquefied before or
after entering the mouth. In this opinion
Aristotle coincides; see for instance de
anima 11 x 4222.17 οὐθὲν δὲ ποιεῖ χυμοῦ
αἴσθησιν ἄνευ ὑγρότητος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχει ἐνερ-
γείᾳ ἢ δυνάμει ὑγρότητα, Aristotle’s theory
of taste will be found in that chapter.

6. στρυφνά.. αὐστηρά] The first of
these words evidently means ‘astringent’:
αὐστηρὰ may be translated ‘harsh’; but
possibly it answers more to our ‘bitter’
than πικρά: at least we should hardly
call soda bitter. The same word is ap-
plied to alkaline flavours by Aristotle
de sensu iv 441> 6. πικρὸν is defined by
Theophrastos 7. Δ as φθαρτικὸν τῆς ὑγρό-
τητος ἢ πηκτικὸν ἢ δηκτικὸν ἢ ἁπλῶς τραχὺν
ἢ μάλιστα τραχύν.

12. φίλα μᾶλλον ἡμῖν φαντάζεται]
This is mentioned because all the sub-
stances hitherto enumerated, including
salt, have a disturbing action upon the
substance of the tongue, and are there-

τῶν δὲ αὐτῶν 66 A

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

There seems a lack of finish in his de-
finition.

fore presumably disagreeable. The irti-
tation produced by salt is however so

mild that it amounts to no more than
a pleasant stimulation of the organ.

13. τὰ δὲ τῇ τοῦ στόματος θερμότητι]
Compare the view assigned to Alkmaion
by Theophrastos de sensu § 25: yAwrry
δὲ τοὺς χυμοὺς κρίνειν" χλιαρὰν γὰρ οὖσαν
καὶ μαλακὴν τήκειν τῇ θερμότητι" δέχεσθαι
δὲ καὶ διαδιδόναι διὰ τὴν μανότητα τῆς
ἁπαλότητος.

15. πρὸς τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς αἰσθήσεις]
A spoonful of strong mustard would pro-
bably produce very much the sort of ex-
perience which Plato describes. Theo-
phrastos says δριμὺν δὲ τὸν πηκτικὸν ἢ
δηκτικὸν ἢ ἐκκριτικὸν τῆς ἐν τῇ συμφύτῳ
ὑγρότητι θερμότητος els τὸν ἄνω τόπον ἢ

ἁπλῶς χυμὸν καυτικὸν ἢ θερμαντικόν.

Be kk

17. τῶν δὲ αὐτῶν προλελεπτυσμένων]
In this portentous sentence it is quite pro-
bable that some corruptions may lurk.
But no emendation suggests itself of
sufficient plausibility to justify its ad-
mission into the text, although I have
little doubt that ἐχόντων should be read
for ἔχοντα. Stallbaum’s proposed alte-
rations are the result of his not under-
standing the construction: ὅσα ἀέρος is
parallel to τοῖς γεώδεσι and equivalent to
τοῖς ὅσα ἀέρος ἔνεστιν. As for the in-
finitives after ἃ δή, they are incurably
ungrammatical: we must either suppose
that the construction is carried on from
ἐλέχθη in the previous sentence, or that
it never recovers from the effects of ὥστε

16

242 MAATONOS [66 Α--ἰ .,

> / \ a 3 -“ ee! 7 / <3 7
| ἐνδυομένων, καὶ τοῖς ἐνοῦσιν αὐτόθι μέρεσι γεώδεσι καὶ ὅσα ἀέρος
Ϊ na
᾿ ξυμμετρίαν ἔχοντα, ὥστε κινήσαντα περὶ ἄλληλα ποιεῖν κυκᾶσθαι.
Ψ ΄
κυκώμενα δὲ περιπίπτειν τε καὶ εἰς ἕτερα ἐνδυόμενα ἕτερα κοῖλα
a n \ \ / Ἄνα a
ἀπεργάξεσθαι περιτεινόμενα τοῖς εἰσιοῦσιν, ἃ δὴ νοτίδος περὶ ἀέρα B
“ \
κοίλης περιταθείσης, τοτὲ μὲν γεώδους, τοτὲ δὲ καὶ καθαρᾶς, νοτερὰ
a a / nr
᾿ ἀγγεῖα ἀέρος ὕδατα κοῖλα περιφερῆ τε γενέσθαι, καὶ τὰ μὲν τῆς
| a a a / v / A
| καθαρᾶς διαφανεῖς περιστῆναι κληθείσας ὄνομα πομφόλυγας, τὰ
a a 4 , \
| δὲ τῆς γεώδους ὁμοῦ κινουμένης τε Kal αἰρομένης ζέσιν τε Kal
U 2 / θῇ \ δὲ , Ν lal θ /
᾿ ἕύμωσιν ἐπίκλην λεχθῆναι---τὸ δὲ τούτων αἴτιον τῶν παθημάτων

-σι

5 \ “ Ul δὲ a Ν “Ὁ > / 10
ὀξὺ προσρηθῆναι. ξύμπασι δὲ τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα εἰρημένοις πάθος
ς ,
ἐναντίον ἀπ᾽ ἐναντίας ἐστὶ προφάσεως, ὁπόταν ἡ τῶν εἰσιόντων C
lal a “ ,
ξύστασις ἐν ὑγροῖς, οἰκεία τῇ τῆς γλώττης ἕξει πεφυκυῖα, λεαίνῃ
\ > 7 \ [4 Ἁ \ \ / a
μὲν ἐπαλείφουσα τὰ τραχυνθέντα, τὰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν ξυνεστῶτα
x th \ \ / \ δὲ ‘Aa \ , θ᾽ a
ἢ κεχυμένα τὰ μὲν ξυνάγῃ, τὰ δὲ χαλᾷ, καὶ πάνθ᾽ 6
e U \ U eo \ \ \ \ pind % n y
15 ἱδρύῃ κατὰ φύσιν, ἡδὺ καὶ προσφιλὲς παντὶ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἴαμα
τῶν βιαίων παθημάτων γιγνόμενον κέκληται γλυκύ.
a \ \
XXIX. Kal τὰ μὲν ταύτῃ ταῦτα περὶ δὲ δὴ τὴν τῶν Ὁ
᾿ ἀν ον \ an 5 a
μυκτήρων δύναμιν, εἴδη μὲν οὐκ ἔνι τὸ yap τῶν ὀσμῶν πᾶν
\ ΝΜ
ἡμιγενές, εἴδει δὲ οὐδενὶ ξυμβέβηκε ξυμμετρία πρὸς τό τινα ἔχειν

τι μάλιστα

12 λεαίνῃ : λειαίνῃ ASZ. 17 δὴ post τὰ μὲν addit 5. 19 ἔχειν: σχεῖν SZ.

early in the present one. However loose natural position of its constituent par-

Of

the syntax may be, the sense is not on
the whole obscure. Acids are substances
which have been refined by fermentation;
these, when they enter the mouth, form a
combination with the particles of earth
and air which are therein, and stir and
mix them up in such a way as to produce
films of moisture enclosing air, in other
words, bubbles: a kind of effervescence
in fact is produced by the action of the
acid on the substance of the tongue. The
words εἰς ἕτερα ἐνδυόμενα ἕτερα κοῖλα
ἀπεργάζεσθαι περιτεινόμενα τοῖς εἰσιοῦσιν
are not clear: it would seem that the
earthy particles within, by gathering
round the entering particles of acid,
vacate their former positions which are
filled by air surrounded by the moisture
attending the dissolution of the acid.

10. πάθος ἐναντίον] The χυμοὶ which
act upon the tongue are thus divided into
two classes, those which disturb the

ticles, and those which restore it.
the former there are the six varieties
herein before enumerated; of the latter
there is but one, which we term sweet.
This contracts what is unnaturally ex-
panded and expands what is unnaturally
contracted, and thus is ‘a remedy of
forcible affections’, since by restoring the
natural condition it produces a pleasant
and soothing effect.

13. ξυνεστῶτα.. κκεχυμένα.. ξυνάγῃ...
χαλᾷ] Throughout this dialogue a dis-
tinct inclination to chiasmus may be ob-
served.

66 D—67 C, c. xxix. Odours cannot be
classified according to kinds. For no
element in its normal state can be per-
ceived by smell, because the vessels of
the nostrils are too narrow to admit
water or earth and too wide to be ex-
cited by air or fire. They can thus only
perceive an element in process of disso-

D] TIMAIOS. 243

duly proportioned to the earthy particles and the particles of
air which are there, so that they set them in motion and mingle
them together, and thereby cause them to jostle against one
another and taking up other positions to form new hollows
extended round the entering particles—which hollows consist
of a film of moisture, sometimes earthy, sometimes pure, em-
bracing a volume of air; and thus they form moist capsules con-
taining air :—in some cases the films are of pure moisture and
transparent and are called bubbles ; in others they are of earthy
liquid which effervesces and rises all together, when the name
of seething and fermentation is given to it: and the cause
of all these conditions is termed ‘acid’. The opposite affection
to all those which have been described is produced by an oppo-
site cause: when the structure of the entering particles amid
the moisture, having a natural affinity to the tongue’s normal
condition, smooths it by mollifying the roughened parts, and
relaxes or contracts what is unnaturally contracted or expanded,
and settles everything as much as possible in its natural state.
Every such remedy of violent affections is to all of us pleasant
and agreeable, and has received the name of ‘sweet’.

XXIX. Enough of this subject. As regards the faculty
of the nostrils no classification can be made. For smells are
of a half-formed nature: and no class of figure has the adap-
tation requisite for producing any smell, but our veins in this

lution. The object of smell then is either 19. εἴδει δὲ οὐδενί] That is, it does

vapour, which is water changing to air,
or mist, which is air changing to water.
That the object of smell is denser than
air can be proved by placing some ob-
stacle before the nostrils and then forcibly
drawing breath : the air will pass in, but
without any odour. The only classifica-
tion we can make is that scents which
disturb the substance of the nostrils are
unpleasant, while those which restore the
natural state are pleasant.

Sound is a vibration of theair, impinging
upon the ear and thence transmitted first
to the brain and finally to the liver: the
pitch depends upon the rapidity, the
quality upon the regularity, and the
loudness upon the extent of the motion.

not possess the structure of any of the
four, fire, air, water, and earth. We were
able to classify tastes, because we could
point to a definite substance which caused
the sensation in each case. Aristotle
agrees with Plato that the sense of smell
ἧττον εὐδιόριστόν ἐστι, de anima 11 ix
4521871: this he attributes to the fact that
mankind possesses this sense in a very
imperfect degree, being in this respect
inferior to many animals. In the same
chapter 4210 9 he says air or water is
the medium of smell: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ ὄσφρη-
σις διὰ τοῦ μεταξύ, οἷον ἀέρος ἢ ὕδατος"
καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἔνυδρα δοκοῦσιν ὀσμῆς αἰσθά-
νεσθαι. Elsewhere Aristotle denies that
smells cannot be classified: de sensu v

16—2

5

10

244 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [66 p—

ὀσμήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῶν αἱ περὶ ταῦτα φλέβες πρὸς μὲν τὰ γῆς ὕδατός
τε γένη στενότεραι ξυνέστησαν, πρὸς δὲ τὰ πυρὸς ἀέρος τε εὐρύ-
\ , ᾽ \ ᾽ \ ’ a / v / > δ
τεραι, διὸ τούτων οὐδεὶς οὐδενὸς ὀσμῆς πώποτε ἤσθετό τινος, ἀλλὰ
ἢ βρεχομένων ἢ σηπομένων ἢ τηκομένων ἢ θυμιωμένων γίγνονταί
, eee eee J are 9.8 Ὁ ?
τινων. μεταβάλλοντος γὰρ ὕδατος eis ἀέρα ἀέρος Te εἰς ὕδωρ ἐν E
a Ψ Ἀ
τῷ μεταξὺ τούτων γεγόνασιν, εἰσὶ δὲ ὀσμαὶ ξύμπασαι καπιὸς ἢ
ὁμίχλη" τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ ἰὸν ὁμίχλη, τὸ δὲ ἐξ
[ ᾿] »., ty, / \ f /
ὕδατος εἰς ἀέρα καπνός" ὅθεν λεπτότεραι μὲν ὕδατος, παχύτεραι
δὲ ὀσμαὶ ξύμπασαι γεγόνασιν ἀέρος. δηλοῦνται δέ, ὁπόταν τινὸς
> , \ \ > y / \ a >
ἀντιφραχθέντος. περὶ τὴν ἀναπνοὴν ἄγῃ τις βίᾳ τὸ πνεῦμα εἷς
/ / - a
αὑτόν: τότε yap ὀσμὴ μὲν οὐδεμία ξυνδιηθεῖται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα

τῶν ὀσμῶν ἐρημωθὲν αὐτὸ μόνον ἕπεται.
τὰ τούτων ποικίλματα γέγονεν, οὐκ ἐκ πολλῶν οὐδ᾽ ἁπλῶν εἰδῶν ΟἿ A
3 ἀλλὰ ἤ: ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ 8.

2 στενότεραι : στενώτεραι ΑΖ.

δι οὖν ταῦτα ἀνώνυμα

6 εἰσὶ δέ : εἰσί τε 8.

12 δι᾽ οὖν: δύ᾽ οὖν Α5Ζ.

4430 17 οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τινές φασιν, οὐκ
ἔστιν εἴδη τοῦ ὀσφραντοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν : a
little above he gives a list; καὶ γὰρ δρι-
μεῖαι καὶ γλυκεῖαι εἰσὶν ὀσμαὶ καὶ αὐστηραὶ
καὶ στρυφναὶ καὶ λιπαραί, καὶ τοῖς πικροῖς
(sc. χυμοῖς) τὰς σαπρὰς ἄν τις ἀνάλογον
εἴποι. Galen’s opinion concerning this
sense is similar to Plato’s: see de plac.
Hipp. εἰ Plat. Vit 628 πέμπτον γὰρ δὴ
τοῦτο ἔστιν αἰσθητήριον, οὐκ ὄντων πέντε
στοιχείων, ἐπειδὴ τὸ τῶν ὀσμῶν γένος ἐν
τῷ μεταξὺ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος,
ὡς καὶ Πλάτων εἶπεν ἐν Τιμαίῳ.

3. ἀλλὰ ἢ βρεχομένων] The sense
of smell then perceives matter in an in-
termediate condition, as it is passing from
one form to another. Herakleitos seems
to have held some similar view: see
Aristotle de sensu V 4432 23 διὸ καὶ
Ἡράκλειτος οὕτως εἴρηκεν, ws εἰ πάντα τὰ
ὄντα καπνὸς γένοιτο, ῥῖνες dy διαγνοῖεν.
Plato’s doctrine of smell however, when
considered in connexion with his cor-
puscular theory, has a striking peculiarity.
Only ὁμίχλη and καπνὸς can be smelt,
he says. But what are ὁμίχλη and καπνὸς ἢ
We cannot say simply that ὁμίχλη is the
densest form of air and καπνὸς the rarest
form of water, because Plato expressly
tells us that they are transitional forms

between air and water. Now the densest
form of air is still formed of octahedrons,
and the rarest form of water still formed
of icosahedrons; so that no condensation
of the one or rarefaction of the other
constitutes any approach to a transition
between the two. Now since ὁμίχλη and
καπνὸς are not composed either of octa-
hedrons or of icosahedrons, of what na-
ture are the material particles which smell
perceives? for no other regular solid
figure beyond the five exists in nature.
We are compelled to suppose that the
agent which excites smell is actually un-
formed matter—matter, that is, which is
dissolved out of one form, but not yet
remoulded in another. It is evident that
if the particles of water are dissolved and
remoulded as particles of air, this is a
physical process taking place in time:
there is a time therefore when matter
does exist in an unformed condition; and
just in this time smell has the power of
perceiving it. Aristotle, whose objec-
tions to the theory are stated in the
chapter of the de sensu above cited, has
nothing to say about this.

4- γίγνονται] sc. αἱ ὀσμαί.

7. τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀέρος] Aristotle puts
it rather differently: meteorologica 1 ix

67 Al ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 245

part are formed too narrow for earth and water, and too wide
for fire and air: for which cause no one ever perceived any
smell of these bodies; but smells arise from substances which
are being either liquefied or decomposed or dissolved or evapo-
rated: for when water is changing into air and air into water,
odours arise in the intermediate condition; and all odours are
vapour or mist, mist being the conversion of air into water, and
vapour the conversion of water into air; whence all smells are
subtler than water and coarser than air. This is proved when
any obstacle is placed before the passages of respiration, and
then one forcibly inhales the air: for then no smell filters through
with it, but the air bereft of all scent alone follows the inhala-

tion.

For this reason the complex varieties of odour are un-

named, and are ranked in classes neither numerous nor simple:

346” 32 ἔστε δ᾽ ἡ μὲν ἐξ ὕδατος ἀναθυμίασις
ἀτμίς, ἡ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ νέφος" ὁμίχλη
δὲ νεφέλης περίττωμα τῆς εἰς ὕδωρ συγ-
κρίσεως.

8, ὕδατος εἰς ἀέρα] If the matter
which is perceived by smell has no formed
particles (as it cannot have), it is hard
to see why it should not be so perceived
when on the point of passing from water
or air into fire, or the contrary: and in
fact this seems actually suggested by @v-
“μιωμένων just above. However Plato
presently affirms that the substances which
excite smell, because they are in a tran-
sitional state between octahedrons and
icosahedrons, are subtler than one and
coarser than the other. This consequence
seems equally hard to deduce from any in-
terpretation of Plato’s corpuscular theory.

9. ὀσμαί] i.e. the several substances
which excite the olfactory organ.

τινὸς ἀντιφραχθέντος] 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

theory of smell which we have been dis-
cussing. Martin curiously misunderstands
this sentence, supposing that two people
are concerned in the experiment: but
Twos ἀντιφραχθέντος 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 ἃ 6 περὶ δὲ ὀσφρήσεως
kal γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς ὅλως οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν
[ὁ Πλάτων]: he means probably that
Plato’s account treats more of the ais-
θητὸν than the αἴσθησις : μᾶλλον ἀκρι-
βολογεῖται περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν : still the
statement cannot be considered accurate.

12. δι᾽ οὖν ταῦτα] Although all the
mss. agree in giving δύ᾽ οὖν, it is impossi-
ble to retain it. For the δύο εἴδη could
only refer to the two divisions specified
below, which are not ἀνώνυμα, but ἡδὺ
and λυπηρόν. It is the endless diversity
of different scents that fall under these
two heads—ra τούτων moixihwara—which
are ἀνώνυμα.

13. οὐκ ἐκ πολλῶν] Tastes were di-
vided into numerous species, which were

fpr”
/

σι

15

246

MAATONOS

(67 A—

ὄντα, ἀλλὰ διχῇ τό θ᾽ ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ λυπηρὸν αὐτόθι μόνω διαφανῆ
λέγεσθον, τὸ μὲν τραχῦνόν τε καὶ βιαζόμενον τὸ κύτος ἅπαν, ὅσον
ἡμῶν μεταξὺ κορυφῆς τοῦ τε ὀμφαλοῦ κεῖται, τὸ δὲ ταὐτὸν τοῦτο
καταπραῦνον καὶ πάλιν ἣ πέφυκεν ἀγαπητῶς ἀποδιδόν.

Τρίτον δὲ αἰσθητικὸν ἐν ἡμῖν μέρος ἐπισκοποῦσι τὸ περὶ THY
ἀκοήν, δι’ ἃς αἰτίας τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ ξυμβαίνει παθήματα, λεκτέον.
ὅλως μὲν οὖν φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι’ ὥτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε
καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην, τὴν δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς
κίνησιν, ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς μὲν ἀρχομένην, τελευτῶσαν δὲ περὶ τὴν
τοῦ ἥπατος ἕδραν, axonv ὅση δ᾽ αὐτῆς ταχεῖα, ὀξεῖαν, ὅση δὲ
βραδυτέρα, βαρυτέραν: τὴν δὲ ὁμοίαν ὁμαλήν τε καὶ λείαν, τὴν
δὲ ἐναντίαν τραχεῖαν: μεγάλην δὲ τὴν πολλήν, ὅση δὲ ἐναντία,

σμικράν.
μένοις ἀνάγκη ῥηθῆναι.

τὰ δὲ περὶ ξυμφωνίας αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον λεχθησο-

XXX. Τέταρτον δὴ λοιπὸν ἔτι γένος ἡμῖν αἰσθητικόν, ὃ

6 δι᾽ ds: δι’ ἃς δ᾽ A. 11 βραδυτέρα

ἁπλᾶ, because we could name the precise
kind of substance which produced each
and the mode of its action: smells are
not ἁπλᾶ, because they do not proceed
from any definite single substance, nor
πολλά, 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 ἁπλοῦν than smell. For the more
complex flavours which we ‘taste’ are
really perceived by smell.

2. τὸ μὲν τραχῦνον] Plato’s classifi-
cation is based on his broad distinction
between irritant and soothing agents.

3. μεταξὺ κορυφῆς τοῦ τε ὀμφαλοῦ]
This must apply to extremely pungent
and volatile scents, such as the fumes of
strong ammonia: compare the descrip-
tion of δριμέα in 65 E.

7. τὴν δι’ ὥτων] 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-

: Bpaxurépa A.

13 τὰ δέ: τὰς δέ A.

wave (μεγάλην δὲ τὴν πολλήν). 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 804,
B it would appear that he included both,
supposing the more rapid vibrations to be
propagated more swiftly through the at-
mosphere.

ἐγκεφάλου te καὶ αἵματος] The con-
struction of all these genitives is a
little puzzling. Stallbaum constructs
ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος with διά, but
the interposition of ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος surely ren-
ders this indefensible. I think we should
join the words with πληγήν : ‘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

τ"

σ

c] TIMAIOS. 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 Ὁ: 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. τὰ δὲ περὶ ξυμφωνίας] 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 11 viii 419° 4 foll.,
and scattered through the, treatise de
sensu.

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 are
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. αἰσθητικόν] It is again a ques-
tion whether we ought not to read aic-
θητόν, since colours are the object of
investigation. Here however I think the

on

10

15

248 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [67 c—

διελέσθαι δεῖ συχνὰ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ποικίλματα κεκτημένον, ἃ ξύμπαντα
μὲν χρόας ἐκαλέσαμεν, φλόγα τῶν σωμάτων ἑκάστων ἀπορρέ-
ουσαν, ὄψει ξύμμετρα μόρια ἔχουσαν πρὸς αἴσθησιν. ὄψεως δ᾽ ἐν
τοῖς πρόσθεν αὖ τὸ περὶ τῶν αἰτίων τῆς γενέσεως ἐρρήθη. τῇδ᾽
οὖν τῶν χρωμάτων πέρι μάλιστα εἰκὸς πρέποι T ἂν τὸν ἐπιεικῆ
λόγον διεξελθεῖν, τὰ φερόμενα ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων μόρια ἐμπίπτοντά
τε εἰς τὴν ὄψιν τὰ μὲν ἐλάττω, τὰ δὲ μείζω, τὰ δ᾽ ἴσα τοῖς αὐτῆς
τῆς ὄψεως μέρεσιν εἶναι τὰ μὲν οὖν ἴσα ἀναίσθητα, ἃ δὴ καὶ
διαφανῆ λέγομεν, τὰ δὲ μείζω καὶ ἐλάττω, τὰ μὲν συγκρίνοντα, τὰ
δὲ διακρίνοντα αὐτήν, τοῖς περὶ τὴν σάρκα θερμοῖς καὶ ψυχροῖς
καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν στρυφνοῖς καὶ ὅσα θερμαντικὰ
ὄντα δριμέα ἐκαλέσαμεν ἀδελφὰ εἶναι, τά τε λευκὰ καὶ τὰ
μέλανα, ἐκείνων παθήματα γεγονότα ἐν ἄλλῳ γένει τὰ αὐτά,
φανταζόμενα δὲ ἄλλα διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας. οὕτως οὖν αὐτὰ
, \ \ \ a Μ , \ “.» /
προσρητέον," τὸ μὲν διακριτικὸν τῆς ὄψεως λευκόν, TO δ᾽ ἐναντίον
αὐτοῦ μέλαν, τὴν δὲ ὀξυτέραν φορὰν καὶ γένους πυρὸς ἑτέρου προσ-

αὐτῶν HSZ.
eieci cum SZ.

4 αὖ τό: αὐτὸ A.
dedit H.

ὀλίγα post γενέσεως e margine codicis A

5 τὸν ἐπιεικῆ λόγον scripsi: τὸν ἐπιεικῆ λόγῳ AH. ἐπιεικεῖ

λόγῳ SZ. sed forsitan melius legatur πρέπον τ᾽ ἂν ἔτι εἴη λόγῳ.

ms. reading is defensible: we have, says
Plato, to examine a fourth faculty of
sense, which has various ποικίλματα :
the ποικίλματα being the sensations we
call colours. But he passes immediately
from the subjective to the objective
aspect of χρόαι, φλόγα τῶν σωμάτων ἑκάσ-
των ἀπορρέουσαν.

3. ὄψει ξύμμετρα μόρια] i.e. par-
ticles of the right size to coalesce with
the ὄψεως ῥεῦμα and form with it one
sympathetic body. Stallbaum says Plato
is following Empedokles, but this is in-
correct: see Theophrastos de sensu § 7
᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς δὲ περὶ ἁπασῶν ὁμοίως λέγει
καί φησι τῷ ἐναρμόττειν εἰς τοὺς πόρους
τοὺς ἑκάστης αἰσθάνεσθαι: cf. pseudo-
Plutarch de placitis philosophorum 1 15.
The views of Aristotle concerning colour
may be gathered from de sensu iii 439 18
foll. 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> 31
τὰ μὲν yap ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εὐλογίστοις χρώματα,

καθάπερ ἐκεῖ τὰς συμφωνίας, τὰ ἥδιστα
τῶν χρωμάτων εἶναι δοκοῦντα, οἷον τὸ
ἁλουργὸν καὶ φοινικοῦν καὶ ὀλίγ᾽ ἄττα τοι-
αῦτα, δι’ ἥνπερ αἰτίαν καὶ αἱ συμφωνίαι
ὀλίγαι, τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τἄλλα χρώ-
ματα, ἢ καὶ πάσας τὰς χρόας ἐν ἀριθμοῖς
εἶναι, Tas μὲν τεταγμένας τὰς δὲ ἀτάκτους,
καὶ αὐτὰς ταύτας, ὅταν μὴ καθαραὶ ὦσι, διὰ
τὸ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εἶναι τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι.
This has rather a Pythagorean sound.

6. τὰ φερόμενα ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων μό-
ρια] 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.
τὴν ὄψιν again=70 τῆς ὄψεως ῥεῦμα.

8. τὰ μὲν οὖν toa] 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 ὄψεως ῥεῦμα, the

D

E

ΕἸ ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. . 249°

varieties of which it is our part to classify. To these we have

given the name of colours, which consist of a flame streaming off
from every object, having its particles so adjusted to those of
the visual current as to excite sensation. We have already set
forth the causes which gave origin to vision: thus therefore it
will be most natural and fitting for a rational theory to treat of
the question of colours. The particles which issue from outward
objects and meet the visual stream are some of them smaller,
some larger, and some equal in size to the particles of that
stream. Those of equal size cause no sensation, and these we
call transparent; but the larger and smaller, in the one case by
contracting, in the other by dilating it, produce effects akin to
the action of heat and cold on the flesh, and to the action on
the tongue of astringent tastes and the heating sensations which
we termed pungent. These are white and dlack, affections
identical with those just mentioned, but occurring in a different
class and seeming to be different for the causes aforesaid. We
must then classify them as follows. What dilates the visual
stream is white, and the opposite thereof is black. A swifter
motion belonging to a different kind of fire, which meets and

colours produced are light and bright; if
they are larger and compress the stream,
the colours tend to be dark.

ἀναίσθητα] Since the particles are
equal to those of the visual current, they
do not affect the homogeneous structure
of the latter.

10. τοῖς περὶ τὴν σάρκα] Plato
merely means that the physical processes
of contraction and dilation are the same
in both instances; for in the other cases
mentioned the sensations are pleasant or
unpleasant, whereas the phenomena of
vision are, physically regarded, unac-
companied either by pleasure or by pain.

13. ἐκείνων παθήματα] I take ἐκεί-
νων to refer to τὰ συγκρίνοντα καὶ diaxpl-
vovra: the παθήματα belonging to the

| objects affecting the eye are the same as

the παθήματα belonging to the objects of

taste ἅς, namely σύγκρισις and διάκρισις.

For the use of πάθημα compare 61,
where παθήματα are the properties where-

by sensibles excite sensation. Stallbaum,
following Stephanus, understands ἐκείνων
to refer to θερμὰ and ψυχρά, στρυφνὰ and
δριμέα, but this does not appear to me
to give so good a sense. ἐν ἄλλῳ yéver=
in another organ or mode of sensation.
It is not generally recognised, Plato means,
that the process is the same in the case
of sight as in that of taste, because the
sensible effect is so widely dissimilar.

14. διὰ ταύτας tds αἰτίας] i.e. be-
cause they are ἐν ἄλλῳ γένει and are not
attended by pleasure or pain.

16. τὴν δ᾽ ὀξυτέραν] right is dis-
tinguished from white (1) by dissimilarity
between its fiery particles and those of
white, (2) by its more rapid motion. It
penetrates the ὄψεως ῥεῦμα right up to
the eyes, the pores of which it displaces
and dissolves, drawing forth a mixture
of fire and water which we call tears.
And so when the entering and issuing
fires mingle and are quenched in the

σι

Ν

20

250 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [67 E—

πίπτουσαν καὶ διακρίνουσαν τὴν ὄψιν μέχρι τῶν ὀμμάτων, αὐτάς
τε τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὰς διεξόδους βίᾳ διωθοῦσαν καὶ τήκουσαν, πῦρ
μὲν ἀθρόον καὶ ὕδωρ, ὃ δάκρυον καλοῦμεν, ἐκεῖθεν ἐκχέουσαν,
αὐτὴν δὲ οὖσαν πῦρ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἀπαντῶσαν, καὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐκπη-
δῶντος πυρὸς οἷον ἀπ᾿ ἀστραπῆς, τοῦ δ᾽ εἰσιόντος καὶ περὶ τὸ
νοτερὸν κατασβεννυμένου, παντοδαπῶν ἐν τῇ κυκήσει ταύτῃ γυγνο-
μένων χρωμάτων, μαρμαρυγὰς μὲν τὸ πάθος προσείπομεν, τὸ δὲ

n > , / { / 2 , \
τοῦτο ἀπεργαζόμενον λαμπρόν τε Kal στίλβον ἐπωνομάσαμεν. TO

68 A

\ , 3 \ \ , ‘ \ \ a > U € \
δὲ τούτων αὖ μεταξὺ πυρὸς γένος, πρὸς. μὲν τὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων ὑγρὸν Β

? a \
ἀφικνούμενον καὶ κεραννύμενον αὐτῷ, στίλβον δὲ οὔ, τῇ δὲ διὰ
A / a n a /
τῆς νοτίδος αὐγῇ τοῦ πυρὸς μιγνυμένου χρῶμα ἔναιμον παρασχό-
μενον, τοὔνομα ἐρυθρὸν λέγομεν. λαμπρόν τε ἐρυθρῷ λευκῷ τε
U \ , x δὲ “ 4 “ δ᾽ yy
μυγνύμενον ξανθὸν γέγονε: τὸ δὲ ὅσον μέτρον ὅσοις, οὐδ᾽ εἴ τις

a \ /
εἰδείη νοῦν ἔχει TO λέγειν, ὧν μήτε τινὰ ἀνάγκην μήτε τὸν εἰκότα
a \ ,
λόγον καὶ μετρίως av τις εἰπεῖν εἴη δυνατός. ἐρυθρὸν δὲ δὴ μέλανι

λευκῷ τε κραθὲν adouvpydv: ὄρφνινον δέ, ὅταν τούτοις μεμυγμένοις C

καυθεῖσί τε μᾶλλον συγκραθῇ μέλαν. πυρρὸν δὲ ξανθοῦ τε καὶ
a n \

φαιοῦ κράσει γίγνεται, φαιὸν δὲ λευκοῦ τε Kal μέλανος, TO δὲ

ὠχρὸν λευκοῦ ξανθῷ μιγνυμένου. λαμπρῷ δὲ λευκὸν ξυνελθὸν

a n > lal
καὶ εἰς μέλαν κατακορὲς ἐμπεσὸν κυανοῦν χρῶμα ἀποτελεῖται,

II μιγνυμένου dedi cum S e
παρασχομένῃ

3 ἀθρόον post ὕδωρ ponunt SZ.
Stephani correctione.
AHSZ.

το τῇ: αὐτῇ A.
μιγνυμένῃ AHZ. παρασχόμενον scripsi.
IQ μιγνυμένου: μεμιγμένου 8. λευκόν : λαμπρόν Α.

moisture, an agitation of the eyes 15 pro- colour. Stallbaum, accepting μειγνυμένου,

duced which we call ‘dazzling’. As re-
gards πῦρ ἀθρόον καὶ ὕδωρ, we must re-
member that, as Martin remarks, Plato
considered all liquid water, and especially
of course warm water, to be a mixture of
fire and water; cf. 59 Ὁ.

8. τὸ δὲ τούτων αὖ μεταξύ] i.e. in-
termediate between the fire producing
λευκὸν and that producing στίλβον.

10. τῇ δὲ διὰ τῆς νοτίδος αὐγῇ] The
reading of the ms. cannot be construed.
I think it is necessary to receive peyrv-
μένου and παρασχόμενον, agreeing with
γένος. The sense will then be, the rays
arriving at the eye, as their fire mingles
with the gleam pervading the moisture
which is there (i.e. with the fire residing
in the eye itself), give it a blood-red

oddly enough retains παρασχομένῃ.

13. τὸ δὲ ὅσον μέτρον] To give the
exact proportions of the mixture is beyond
the power of science and is not requi-
site κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον: cf. below,
68 D.

16. ὄρφνινον)] This is probably a
very deep shade of violet: compare Aris-
totle de coloribus ii 7928 25 ἐντεινόμενα
γάρ πως πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἁλουργὲς ἔχει TO
χρῶμα" ἐλάττονος δὲ τοῦ φωτὸς προσβάλ-
Aovros ζοφερόν, ὃ καλοῦσιν ὄρῴφνιον. The
word occurs again in the same form in
chapter iv 7945. See too Xenophon
Cyropaedia ΝΠ iii 3 οὐδὲν φειδόμενος οὔτε
πορφυρίδων οὔτε ὀρφνίνων οὔτε φοινικίδων
οὔτε καρυκίνων (red-sauce-coloured) ἱμα-
τίων. It seems to have been an expensive

68 Cc] TIMAIO®, 251

penetrates the visual stream quite up to the eyes, and forcibly
displaces and decomposes the pores of the eyes themselves,
draws from thence a combined body of fire and water, which
we call a tear: and whereas this agent is itself fire, meeting
the other from the opposite direction, and one fire leaps forth
as lightning from the eyes, while the other enters in and is
quenched in the moisture, all manner of colours arise in this
commixture; and to the sensation we give the name of dazzling,
and the agent which produces it we call bright and shining. A
kind of fire which is intermediate between the two former, when
it reaches the moisture of the eye and is mingled with it, but
does not flash, produces a blood-like colour by the mixture of
fire with the gleam of the moisture, and the name we give it
is red. Bright combined with red and white makes yellow. In

what proportion they are mingled, it were not reasonable to say, .

even if we knew; for there is neither any inevitable law nor any
probable account thereof which we might properly declare. Red
mingled with black and white becomes purple, which turns to
dark violet when these ingredients are more burnt and a greater
quantity of black is added. Chestnut arises from the mixture
of yellow and grey, and grey from white and black: pale buff is
from white mixed with yellow. When bright meets white and
is steeped in intense black, a deep blue colour is the result; and

tint much in vogue among people who
dressed ‘handsomely: cf. Athenaeus XII
50, where it appears to represent the
colour of the midnight star-lit sky. As
regards ἁλουργόν, it may be noted that
this is the same combination which is
assigned by Demokritos to πορφυροῦν :
Theophrastos de sensu § 77 τὸ δὲ πορφυ-
ροῦν ἐκ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος Kal ἐρυθροῦ,
πλείστην μὲν μοῖραν ἔχοντος τοῦ ἐρυθροῦ,
μικρὰν δὲ τοῦ μέλανος, μέσην δὲ τοῦ λευκοῦ.
A summary of the opinions of Demokritos
concerning colour is given in §§ 73-—78.

17. πυρρὸν δέ] This is a bright red-
dish brown, chestnut or auburn. φαιὸν
is a dusky grey: ὠχρὸν an ochreous yel-
low or buff.

20, εἰς μέλαν κατακορές] i.e. an in-
tense, absolute black; the substance

being, as it were, saturated with as much
black as it can contain. This is a tech-
nical term to express vividness of colour:
cf. Aristotle de coloribus v 795% 2 μᾶλλον
μὲν οὖν τοῦ ὑγροῦ μελαινομένου TO ποῶδες
γίνεται κατακορὲς ἰσχυρῶς καὶ πρασοειδές.

κυανοῦν χρῶμα] Dark blue. Demo-
kritos gives a different account: Theo-
phrastos 7. Δ τὸ δὲ κυανοῦν ἐξ ἰσάτιδος
(the blue colour obtained from woad)
καὶ πυρώδους. By γλαῦκον a light blue is
evidently meant. The elaborate distine-
tions of colour drawn in the present chap-
ter certainly do not tend to support the
theory which has been put forward that the
Greeks were deficient in the colour-sense:
indeed it is somewhat difficult to get a
sufficient number of English terms to
translate the Greek names,

5

το

-
σι

252 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [68 c—

κυανοῦ δὲ λευκῷ κεραννυμένου γλαυκόν, πυρροῦ δὲ μέλανι πρά-
ῷ κεραννυμένου %y , πυρροῦ δὲ μέλανι mp
3 , a ΓΝ >
σιον. τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἀπὸ τούτων σχεδὸν δῆλα, αἷς ἂν apopovovpeva
μίξεσι διασῴζοι τὸν εἰκότα μῦθον.
“Ὁ 7 ,
πούμενος βάσανον λαμβάνοι, τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καὶ θείας φύσεως
ἠγνοηκὼς ἂν εἴη διάφορον, ὅτι θεὸς μὲν τὰ πολλὰ εἰς ἕν ξυγκεραν-

? / , Ν
εἰ δέ τις τούτων ἔργῳ σκο-

al /
vivat καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς πολλὰ διαλύειν ἱκανῶς ἐπιστάμενος
ied \ , ᾿᾽ , Ν ’ \ > ,ὔ 2 e \ wv
ἅμα καὶ δυνατός, ἀνθρώπων δὲ οὐδεὶς οὐδέτερα τούτων ἱκανὸς οὔτε
a rn rn , / /
ἔστι viv οὔτ᾽ εἰσαῦθίς mot ἔσται. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα τότε ταύτῃ
/ > ’ / ¢ nr / \ : HF 4 \
πεφυκότα ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὁ τοῦ καλλίστου τε Kal ἀρίστου δημιουργὸς
a \ ? \ \
ἐν τοῖς γιγνομένοις παρελάμβανεν, ἡνίκα τὸν αὐτάρκη τε Kal τὸν
a “ ψὲς {δ᾽
τελεώτατον θεὸν ἐγέννα, χρώμενος μὲν ταῖς περὶ ταῦτα αἰτίαις
\ a lal ,
ὑπηρετούσαις, TO δὲ εὖ τεκταινόμενος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς γιγνομένοις
t SE \ \ \ ” ee ὦ ” , \ \ BI] n
αὐτός. διὸ δὴ χρὴ δύ᾽ αἰτίας εἴδη διορίζεσθαι, TO μὲν ἀναγκαῖον,
\ \ Lal \ \ \ - >? “ a / “ >) /
τὸ δὲ θεῖον, καὶ TO μὲν θεῖον ἐν ἅπασι ζητεῖν κτήσεως ἕνεκα εὐδαί-
Ε > ὦ ς lal ς / > / \ \ > a
μονος βίου, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις ἐνδέχεται, TO δὲ ἀναγκαῖον
’ n
ἐκείνων χάριν, λογιζόμενον, ὡς ἄνευ τούτων ov δυνατὰ αὐτὰ ἐκεῖνα,
“ a >
ἐφ᾽ ols σπουδάζομεν, μόνα κατανοεῖν οὐδ᾽ αὖ λαβεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἄλλως

πως μετασχεῖν.
6 ἱκανῶς : ἱκανὸς ὡς 5Ζ.

I. πυρροῦ δὲ μέλανι πράσιον] This
certainly seems an exceedingly odd com-
bination. πράσιον is bright green, or
leek-colour; and a mixture of chestnut
and black appears very little likely to
produce it. Aristotle more correctly
classes green, along with red and violet,
as a simple colour: see metecorologica 111 ii
372°5 ἔστι δὲ τὰ χρώματα ταῦτα ἅπερ
μόνα σχεδὸν οὐ δύνανται ποιεῖν οἱ γραφῆς"
ἔνια γὰρ αὐτοὶ κεραννύουσι, τὸ δὲ φοι-
νικοῦν καὶ πράσινον καὶ ἁλουργὸν οὐ γίγ-
νεται κεραννύμενον. ἡ δὲ ἴρις ταῦτ᾽ ἔχει τὰ
χρώματα" τὸ δὲ μεταξὺ τοῦ φοινικοῦ καὶ
πρασίνου φαίνεται πολλάκις ξανθόν. Ac-
cording to Demokritos πράσινον is ἐκ πορ-
φυροῦ καὶ τῆς ἰσάτιδος, ἢ ἐκ χλωροῦ Kal
πορφυροειδοῦς : combinations which seem
hardly better calculated than Plato’s for
producing the desired result.

5. θεὸς μέν] God, says Plato, can
detect in the multifarious diversity of
particulars one single form underlying
them all; and again he can trace the

16 λογιζόμενον : λογιζομένους SZ.

development of that form through all the
ramifications of its manifold appearances.
Plato here probably has in view the
problem of ἕν καὶ πολλὰ 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 Cc,

11. αἰτίαις ὑπηρετούσαις] cf. supra
48 C, Phaedo 99 A, Politicus 281 Ὁ.

13. τὸ μὲν ἀναγκαῖον, τὸ δὲ θεῖον]
The distinction between the two sorts
of causes is obvious enough. The
ἀναγκαῖον includes all the subsidiary
causes, the physical -forces and laws
by means of which Nature carries on
her work: the θεῖον is the final cause,
the idea of τὸ βέλτιστον as existing in
absolute intelligence. The operation of
ἀνάγκη is to be studied either, as we were
told at 59 Ὁ, for the sake of rational
recreation, or more seriously, as we now

D

E

69 A

69 A] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 253

deep blue mingled with white produces pale blue; and chestnut
with black makes green. And for the remaining colours, it is
pretty clear from the foregoing to what combinations we ought
to assign them so as to preserve the probability of our account:
but if a man endeavour to make practical trial of these theories
he will prove himself ignorant of the difference between divine
and human intelligence: that God has sufficient understanding
and power to blend the many into one and again to resolve the
one into many; but no man is able to do either of these, now or
henceforth for ever.

All these things being thus constituted by necessity, the
creator of the most fair and perfect in the realm of becoming
took them over, when he was generating the self-sufficing and
most perfect god, using the forces in them as subservient causes,
but himself working out the good in all things that come into
being. Wherefore we must distinguish two kinds of causes, one
of necessity and one of God: and the divine we must seek in all
things for the sake of winning a happy life, so far as our nature
admits of it; and the necessary for the sake of the divine, reflect-
ing that without these we cannot apprehend by themselves the
other truths, which are the object of our serious study, nor grasp
them nor in any other way attain to them.

learn, as a stepping-stone to the know-
ledge of the θεῖον. This passage con-
tains ‘the strongest expression which
is to be found in Plato in favour of the
investigation of phenomena, when he
says that it is necessary to study sub-
sidiary causes as an aid to the study of
the final cause. Particulars are nothing
else but the form in which the ideas are
made manifest to our bodily senses; there-
fore the study of particulars, in its highest
aspect, is the study of ideas. But the
sole value of this study lies in its bearing
on the knowledge of the ideal world :
the physical inquiry regarded as an end
in itself Plato estimates quite as low in
the 7tmaeus as in the Republic.

69 A—7o Ὁ, ¢. xxxi. Now therefore
that we have completed our account
of the accessory causes which God em-
ployed in carrying out his end, let us

bring our story to a fitting close by set-
ting forth how he thereafter fulfilled his
design. God found all matter without
form or law, obeying blind chance. He
inspired into it form and order and made
it to be a single universe, a living creature
containing within it all things else that
live. Of the divine he was himself the
maker; but the creation of the mortal
he committed to hischildren. And they,
receiving from him the immortal essence,
built for it a mortal body, bringing with
it all the passions that belong to the flesh.
And reason, which is immortal, they set
in the head: but they made to dwell
with it two mortal forms of soul, which
they severed from the immortal by put-
ting the neck to sunder them, And
since the mortal form was twofold, they
made the midriff for a wall to part the
two: and they set emotion in the heart,

Ι

5

on

254 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [69 A—

“ / o> as ,
ΧΧΧΙ. "Or οὖν δὴ τὰ νῦν ola τέκτοσιν ἡμῖν ὕλη παράκει-
" /
Tat τὰ τῶν αἰτίων γένη διυλασμένα, ἐξ ὧν τὸν ἐπίλουπον λόγον
an 5 > \ \ yA
δεῖ ξυνυφανθῆναι, πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἐπανέλθωμεν διὰ βραχέων.
> 2 ee a sd a > f at
ταχύ τε εἰς ταὐτὸν πορευθῶμεν, ὅθεν δεῦρο ἀφικόμεθα, καὶ τελευ-
\ ΝΜ / a , / ¢ / > a
τὴν ἤδη κεφαλήν τε TO μύθῳ πειρώμεθα ἁρμόττουσαν ἐπιθεῖναι
tal >
τοῖς πρόσθεν. ὥσπερ οὖν Kal κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐλέχθη, ταῦτα ἀτάκτως
ΝΜ ς \ > es A a \ φὰς \
ἔχοντα ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἑκάστῳ τε αὐτῷ πρὸς αὑτὸ Kal πρὸς ἄλληλα
“
συμμετρίας ἐνεποίησεν, ὅσας τε καὶ ὅπῃ δυνατὸν ἦν ἀνάλογα καὶ
U lal
σύμμετρα εἶναι. τότε yap οὔτε τούτων ἕσον μὴ τύχῃ τι μετεῖχεν,
a a 3
οὔτε τὸ παράπαν ὀνομάσαι τῶν νῦν ὀνομαζομένων ἀξιόλογον ἦν
οὐδέν, οἷον πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ εἴ Te τῶν ἄλλων: ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦτα
πρῶτον διεκόσμησεν, ἔπειτ᾽ ἐκ τούτων πᾶν τόδε ξυνεστήσατο, ζῷον
ἕν ζῷα ἔχον τὰ πάντα ἐν αὑτῷ θνητὰ ἀθάνατά τε. καὶ τῶν μὲν
θείων αὐτὸς γίγνεται δημιουργός, τῶν δὲ θνητῶν τὴν γένεσιν τοῖς
ἑαυτοῦ γεννήμασι δημιουργεῖν προσέταξεν: οἱ δὲ μιμούμενοι, παρα-
lal \ nr \ a
λαβόντες ἀρχὴν ψυχῆς ἀθάνατον, TO μετὰ τοῦτο θνητὸν σῶμα
αὐτῇ περιετόρνευσαν ὄχημά τε πᾶν τὸ σῶμα ἔδοσαν, ἄλλο τε εἶδος

2 διυλασμένα : διυλισμένα H et ex correctione, ut videtur, A.
6 ταῦτα: αὐτὰ τά A. 13 ἔχον τὰ πάντα: ἔχοντα πάντα Α.

and appetite they chained in the belly. 3. ἐπ’ ἀρχὴν ἐπανέλθωμεν͵ἢἠ[Ἡ We

This they did that the nobler part should
hear the voice of the reason and pass its
commands through all the swift channels
of the blood, and so might aid it in sub-
duing the rebellious swarm of lusts and
passions. And knowing that the heart,
excited by fear or passion, would leap
and throb vehemently, they devised the
cool soft structure of the lungs for a
cushion to soothe and sustain it in the
time of need.

1. ὕλη παράκειται͵)ὴ We have as-
sorted our material by distinguishing the
θεία αἰτία from the ἀναγκαία and by enu-
merating the manifold forms of the latter.
The use of ὕλη is of course purely meta-
phorical, without any trace of the Aris-
totelian sense.

2. SwAacpéva] I can find no au-
thority for using διυλισμένα, which Her-
mann keeps, in the sense here required.
διυλίζειν is a late word signifying ‘to
filter’.

here resume our account, interrupted at
47 E, of the operation of intelligence,
which now acts through the created gods
in the generation of human beings. At
the same time Plato fulfils the promise
made in 61 D of expounding σαρκὸς καὶ
τῶν περὶ σάρκα γένεσιν ψυχῆς τε ὅσον
θνητόν.

4. τελευτὴν ἤδη κεφαλήν τε] Com-
pare Phaedrus 264 σ ἀλλὰ τόδε γε οἶμαί
σε φάναι ἄν, δεῖν πάντα λόγον ὥσπερ ζῷον
συνεστάναι σῶμά τι ἔχοντα αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ,
ὥστε μήτε ἀκέφαλον εἶναι μήτε ἄπουν,
ἀλλὰ μέσα τε ἔχειν καὶ ἄκρα, πρέποντ᾽
ἀλλήλοις καὶ τῷ ὅλῳ γεγραμμένα : also
Politicus 277 Β ἀλλ᾽ ἀτεχνῶς ὁ λόγος
ἡμῖν ὥσπερ ζῷον τὴν ἔξωθεν μὲν περι-
γραφὴν ἔοικεν ἱκανῶς ἔχειν, τὴν δὲ οἷον
τοῖς φαρμάκοις καὶ τῇ συγκράσει τῶν χρω-
μάτων ἐνάργειαν οὐκ ἀπειληφέναι πω.

6. κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐλέχθη] We have
here a brief reference to the statements
in 30 A, 42 D—43 A.

C] TIMAIOS. 255

XXXI. Now therefore that the different kinds of causes lie
ready sorted to our hand, like wood prepared for a carpenter, of
which we must weave the web of our ensuing discourse, let us in
brief speech return to the beginning and proceed once more to
the spot whence we arrived at our present point; and so let us
endeavour to add an end and a climax to our story conformable
with what has gone before.

As was said then at the beginning, when God found these
things without order either in the relation of each thing to itself
or of one to another, he introduced proportion among them, in
as many kinds and ways as it was possible for them to be pro-
portionate and harmonious. For at that time neither had they
any proportion, except by mere chance, nor did any of the
bodies that now are named by us deserve the name, such as fire
and water and the other elements: but first he ordered all these,
and then out of them wrought this universe, a single living crea-
ture containing within itself all living creatures, mortal and
immortal, that exist. And of the divine he himself was the
creator; but the creation of mortals he delivered over to his own
children to work out. And they, in imitation of him, having
received from him the immortal principle of soul, fashioned
round about her a mortal body and gave her all the body to

ἀτάκτως ἔχοντα] See note on 53 A.
As to the construction, the accusative
may be regarded as governed by the
compound phrase συμμετρίας éveroln-
σεν, as though Plato had written ξυνηρ-
μόσατο. We had a somewhat similar
sentence in 37D, ἡμέρας yap καὶ νύκτας
καὶ μῆνας καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν
οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι, τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ ξυνιστα-
μένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται.

9. τούτων] sc. τῶν συμμετριῶν.

10, οὔτε τὸ παράπαν ὀνομάσαι] An-
other shaft aimed at Demokritos: had
fire and water received only just so much
form as they might owe to τύχη, they
could not even have been worthy of the
names fireand water. The mere existence
of such definite forms as fire air earth
and water, even apart from their harmoni-
sation into a single coherent κόσμος, could

not have come to pass without the action
of intelligence. Compare 53 B ἔχνη μὲν
ἔχοντα αὑτῶν ἄττα.

12. {@ov ἕν] cf. 306.

17. ὄχημα] Compare 44 Ε ὄχημα
αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ εὐπορίαν ἔδοσαν. The
notion οὗ ὄχημα is not a vessel to contain
the soul, but a means of her physical
locomotion.

ἄλλο τε εἶδος...τὸ θνητόν] The nature
of this θνητὸν εἶδος has been discussed
in detail in my introduction to the
Phaedo: a brief statement therefore of
what I conceive it to mean may suffice
here. The division into θεῖον and θνητὸν
is obviously identical with the division
into λογιστικὸν and ἄλογον in the Re-
public; and the subiivision of θνητὸν cor-
responds to the subdivision of ἄλογον in
that dialogue into θυμοειδὲς and ἐπιθυμη-

256 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ

[69 c—

ἐν αὐτῷ hs προσῳκοδόμουν τὸ θνητόν, δεινὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ἐν
υτῷ ψυχῆς προσῳκοδοόμο νητόν, y
a “ € , / a
ἑαυτῷ παθήματα ἔχον, πρῶτον μὲν ἡδονήν, μέγιστον κακοῦ δέλεαρ, D
a >
ἔπειτα λύπας, ἀγαθῶν φυγάς, ἔτι δ᾽ ad θάρρος καὶ φόβον, ἄφρονε
EvpBotro, θυμὸν δὲ δυσπαραμύθητον, ἐλπίδα δ᾽ εὐπαράγωγον"

5 αἰσθήσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ καὶ ἐπιχειρητῇ παντὸς ἔρωτι ξυγκερασάμενοι
ταῦτα ἀναγκαίως τὸ θνητὸν γένος ξυνέθεσαν. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ
σεβόμενοι μιαίνειν τὸ θεῖον, ὅ τι μὴ πᾶσα ἦν ἀνάγκη, χωρὶς ἐκείνου

7 > an , ” \ / > \
κατοικίζουσιν εἰς ἄλλην τοῦ σώματος οἴκησιν τὸ θνητόν, ἰσθμὸν E
καὶ ὅρον διοικοδομήσαντες τῆς τε κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ στήθους, av-

ιο xéva μεταξὺ τιθέντες, ἵνα εἴη χωρίς. ἐν δὴ τοῖς στήθεσι καὶ τῷ

/ / \ Lal Lal \ / ΔΌΣ ee \
καλουμένῳ θώρακι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς θνητὸν γένος ἐνέδουν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ
τὸ μὲν ἄμεινον αὐτῆς, τὸ δὲ χεῖρον ἐπεφύκει, διοικοδομοῦσι τὸ τοῦ.
θώρακος αὖ κύτος, διορίζοντες οἷον γυναικῶν, τὴν δὲ ἀνδρῶν χωρὶς 70 A
οἴκησιν, τὰς φρένας διάφραγμα εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν τιθέντες. τὸ
4 θυμὸν δέ: θυμόν τε et mox ἐλπίδα 7’ S. 5 αἰσθήσει δέ: αἰσθήσει τε SZ.

ξυγκερασάμενοι ταῦτα : ξυγκερασάμενοί τ᾽ αὐτά, facta post ἔρωτι interpunctione, SZ.
υγκερασάμ post ἔρ Ρ

12 ἐπεφύκει: πεφύκει S. τὸ τοῦ θώρακος ab: τὸ τοῦ θώρακος αὐτό A. τοῦ θώρακος αὖ

τό SZ.

τικόν, and to the nobler and baser steed
in the Phaedrus. It seems to me certain
that these three εἴδη are but names for
one and the same vital force manifesting
itself in different relations. The intellect,
seated in the head, is the soul acting by
herself, performing her own proper func-
tion of thinking. But since she is brought
into connexion with a material body, she
must needs have πάθη which are con-
cerned with that body. So then, if
the θεῖον is her activity by herself, the
θνητὸν is her activity through the body ;
which activity Plato distributes into two
classes of πάθη, one of which may
be designated by the general term of
emotions, the other by that of appetites.
It will be noticed that this does not
profess to give an exhaustive catalogue
of the soul’s activities through body:
for sensuous perceptions are a mode of
her action through body which does not
fall under either head. For reasons in
support of this view of the relation of
the εἴδη I must refer to the introduction
to the Phaedo aforesaid. The name
θνητὸν is applied by Plato to the lower

εἶδος, because, though soul is in herself and
in her own activity eternal, her connexion
with any particular body is temporary,
and so must her action through such a
body be also. Galen comments upon
the term θνητὸν ἃ5 follows: de plac. Hipp.
et Plat. ΙΧ 794 πότερον κυρίως ὀνομάζων
εἴρηκεν ἐν Τιμαίῳ θνητὰ τὰ δύο μέρη τῆς
ψυχῆς ἢ ταύτην αὐτοῖς ἐπήνεγκε τὴν προση-
γορίαν ἀθανάτοις οὖσιν ὡς χείροσι τοῦ λο-
γιστικοῦ καὶ ὡς κατὰ τὰ θνητὰ τῶν ζῴων
ἐνεργοῦσι μόνον ; Of this question he offers
no determination, but that he raised the
point is interesting.

1. δεινὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖα] This and
much more of the phraseology in the
present passage is echoed from 42 A.
avarykata=necessarily inherent in their
nature.

3. ἄφρονε ξυμβούλω] Compare
Laws ὅ44 Ο, where pleasure and pain
take the place of confidence and fear:
δύο δὲ κεκτημένον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ξυμβούλω
ἐναντίω τε καὶ ἄφρονε, ᾧ προσαγορεύομεν
ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην.

6. τὸ θνητὸν γένος] sc. τῆς ψυχῆς.

7- σεβόμενοι μιαίνειν τὸ θεῖον] An-

70 Al TIMAIOS. 257

ride in; and beside her they built in another kind of soul, even
that which is mortal, having within itself dread and inevitable
passions—first pleasure, the strongest allurement of evil, next
pains, that scare good things away; confidence moreover and
fear, a yoke of thoughtless counsellors; wrath hard to assuage
and hope that lightly leads astray; and having mingled all these
perforce with reasonless sensation and love that ventures all
things, so they fashioned the mortal soul. And for this cause,
in awe of defiling the divine, so far as was not altogether neces-
sary, they set the mortal kind to dwell apart from the other in
another chamber of the body, having built an isthmus and
boundary between the head and the breast, setting the neck
between them to keep them apart. So in the breast, or the
thorax as it is called, they confined the mortal kind of soul.
And whereas one part of-it was nobler, the other baser, they
built a party-wall across the hollow of the chest, as if they were
marking off an apartment for women and another for men, and
they put the midriff as a fence between them. That part of the

other reason why the intellect should be
in the head is given in 90 A. Galen de
plac. Hipp. et Plat. V1 505 says that Hip-
pokrates agreed with Plato in making
three ἀρχαί, the head heart and liver:
this view Galen himself defends against
that of Aristotle and Theophrastos, who
made the heart the sole ἀρχή: cf. Aris-
totle de iuventute iii 469% 5. See note on
738 ol γὰρ τοῦ βίου δεσμοὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τῷ
σώματι ξυνδουμένης ἐν τούτῳ διαδούμενοι
κατερρίζουν τὸ θνητὸν γένος.

ὅ τι μὴ πᾶσα ἦν ἀνάγκη] A certain
loss of her divine nature is inseparable
from the soul’s differentiation and con-
sequent material embodiment: all the
gods could do was to reduce this to a
minimum.

10. τῷ καλουμένῳ θώρακι] The epi-
thet καλουμένῳ is inserted because the
word θώραξ in this sense is a technical
term of anatomy, the popular word being
στέρνον or στῆθος. It occurs nowhere else
in Plato, but is common in Aristotle, who
sometimes, as de partibus animalium αν

a by

xii 693? 25, uses the same expression, τὰ
τοῦ καλουμένου θώρακος ἐπὶ τῶν τετραπό-
δων. Euripides has it once, Hercules furens
1095 νεανίαν θώρακα καὶ βραχίονα. Aris-
totle also uses the word in a more com-
prehensive sense than it bears nowadays,
including the entire trunk: Aistoria ani-
malium 1 vii 4917 29.

13. οἷον γυναικῶν, τὴν δὲ ἀνδρῶν]
This is no more than a mere simile:
there is nothing in the words to warrant
the titles which Martin bestows upon the
two elén—1l’Ame mAle and |’ame femelle ;
nor is there the slightest appropriateness
in these names. It is not even said which
division corresponds to the yuvacxav, which
to the ἀνδρῶν οἴκησις.

14. διάφραγμα] This word, which
has since become specially appropriated
to the midriff, is used in a general sense
by Plato for a fence or partition: Aris-
totle applies it to the cartilaginous wall
dividing the nostrils, A¢storia animalium
I xi 492 16: the midriff he often calls
διάζωμα.

17

258 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [70 A—

/ > “ a fol ,
μετέχον οὖν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνδρείας καὶ θυμοῦ, φιλόνεικον ὄν, κατῴ-
κισαν ἐγγυτέρω τῆς κεφαλῆς μεταξὺ τῶν φρενῶν τε καὶ αὐχένος,
ἵνα τοῦ λόγου κατήκοον ὃν κοινῇ μετ᾽ ἐκείνου βίᾳ τὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν

΄ t ε Ὦ.» | a > t re ‘ , \ ,
κατέχοι γένος, ὁπότ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως τῷ ἐπιτάγματι καὶ λόγῳ

“ 4 Ὁ
5 μηδαμῇ πείθεσθαι ἑκὸν ἐθέλοι. τὴν δὲ δὴ καρδίαν ἅμμα τῶν φλεβῶν
καὶ πηγὴν τοῦ περιφερομένου κατὰ πάντα τὰ μέλη σφοδρῶς αἵ- Β
ματος εἰς τὴν δορυφορικὴν οἴκησιν κατέστησαν, ἵνα, ὅτε ζέσειε τὸ
a “ / a »
τοῦ θυμοῦ μένος, τοῦ λόγου παραγγείλαντος, ὥς τις ἄδικος περὶ
ποσόν τ, Ὁ a ” Ἐπ πον eh ΨΈΜ > a
αὐτὰ γίγνεται πρᾶξις ἔξωθεν ἢ Kai Tis ἀπὸ τῶν ἔνδοθεν ἐπιθυμιῶν,
10 ὀξέως διὰ πάντων τῶν στενωπῶν πᾶν ὅσον αἰσθητικὸν ἐν τῷ
σώματι τῶν τε παρακελεύσεων καὶ ἀπειλῶν αἰσθανόμενον γίγνοι-
To ἐπήκοον καὶ ἕποιτο πάντῃ, καὶ τὸ βέλτιστον οὕτως ἐν αὐτοῖς
πᾶσιν ἡγεμονεῖν ἐῴῷ.
δεινῶν προσδοκίᾳ καὶ τῇ τοῦ θυμοῦ ἐγέρσει, προγιγνώσκοντες ὅτι

τῇ δὲ δὴ πηδήσει τῆς καρδίας ἐν τῇ τῶν Ο

15 διὰ πυρὸς ἡ τοιαύτη πᾶσα ἔμελλεν οἴδησις γίγνεσθαι τῶν θυ-
μουμένων, ἐπικουρίαν αὐτῇ μηχανώμενοι τὴν τοῦ πλεύμονος ἰδέαν
ἐνεφύτευσαν, πρῶτον μὲν μαλακὴν καὶ ἄναιμον, εἶτα σήραγγας
ἐντὸς ἔχουσαν οἷον σπόγγου κατατετρημένας, ἵνα τό τε πνεῦμα
καὶ τὸ πόμα δεχομένη, ψύχουσα, ἀναπνοὴν καὶ ῥᾳστώνην ἐν τῷ.
1 ἀνδρείας : ἀνδρίας AZ.

13 ἐῷ : ἐῴη 5.

10 τῶν ante στενωπῶν omittunt AS.
19 πόμα: πῶμα A pr. m. SZ,

5 ἅμμα: ἀρχὴν dua 8.
15 οἴδησις : οἴκησις A.

3. κατήκοον)]λ Undoubtedly this tion only, not of the venous, the ἀρχὴ

means ‘ within hearing of’: that was the
object they had in view when they placed
the θυμοειδὲς ἐγγυτέρω τῆς κεφαλῆς.

4. ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως] Compare
Galen de placitis Hippocratis et Platonis
II 230 καθάπερ ἐν ἀκροπόλει τῇ κεφαλῇ
δίκην μεγάλου βασιλέως ὁ ἐγκέφαλος ἵδρυ-
ται.

5. ἅμμα] This reading has best ms.
authority and gives the best sense: Stall-
baum’s ἀρχὴν dua is comparatively feeble.
It is true that Aristotle de zuventute iii
4680 31 has ἡ δὲ καρδία ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τῶν
φλεβῶν : but that is no evidence that
Plato wrote ἀρχὴν here. Galen quotes
this passage, de plac. τι 292, and charges
Chrysippos with plagiarising the Platonic
doctrine.

6. σφοδρῶς] From this word Galen
de plac. V1 573 infers that Plato makes
the heart the dpx7 of the arterial circula-

of which is the liver; τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ
ἥπατος ὁρμώμενον ov περιφέρεται σφοδρῶς.
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. 11 p. 22
Kiihn ῥίζωσις φλεβῶν ἧπαρ, ῥίζωσις ἀρτη-
ριῶν καρδίη, ἐκ τουτέων ἀποπλανᾶται αἷμα
καὶ πνεῦμα, καὶ θερμασίη διὰ τουτέων
φοιτᾷ : the passage however has in ‘it
unmistakable marks of a date long sub-
sequent to Plato’s time or Aristotle’s
either. The distinction between veins
and arteries seems also to have been un-
known to Aristotle; and unquestionably
he makes the heart the only ἀρχή.

9. τῶν ἔνδοθεν ἐπιθυμιῶν] Compare
the functions of the φύλακες in protecting
the city εἴτε τις ἔξωθεν ἢ καὶ τῶν ἔνδοθεν

Cc] TIMAIO®. 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 411. -

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

of the paramount importance of the lungs
in the process of breathing and the purifi-
cation of the blood: he is also of course

ἴοι κακουργήσων 17 Ὁ.
10. διὰ πάντων τῶν στενωπῶν] i.e.
through all the narrow blood-vessels ; to

which, as we have seen, Plato attributed
the functions which are really discharged
by the nerves.

11. τῶν τε παρακελεύσεων Kal ἀπει-
λῶν] Cf. 71 Β χαλεπὴ προσενεχθεῖσα
ἀπειλῇ. τὸ βέλτιστον Of course =7d λογισ-
τικόν.

13. τῇ δὲ δὴ πηδήσει] The violent
beating of the heart under the influence
of strong emotion is due to its hot and
fiery composition. So the lungs, a soft
and bloodless structure, were placed be-
side it, partly to cool it, partly to provide
a soft cushion to receive its bounding.
Plato, as we shall see when we come to
his account of respiration, was unaware

quite wrong in calling them ἄναιμον. His
view is impugned by Aristotle on grounds
of comparative anatomy, de partibus ani-
malium 111 vi 6697 18 τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὴν Gow
εἶναι τὸν πλεύμονα τῆς καρδίας οὐκ εἴρηται
καλῶς : further on, 669>8, he says ὅλως
μὲν οὖν ὁ πλεύμων ἐστὶν ἀναπνοῆς χάριν:
but he does not seem to have had a very
clear idea of the functions performed by
the lungs.

18. τό τε πνεῦμα Kal τὸ πόμα] In
this curious error Plato is at one with all,
or nearly all, the best medical science of
the day. Plutarch de Stoicorum repug-
nantiis xxix says Πλάτων μὲν ἔχει τῶν
ἰατρῶν τοὺς ἐνδοξοτάτους μαρτυροῦντας,

17—2

or

260 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [70 D—

καύματι παρέχοι διὸ δὴ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ὀχετοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν πλεύμονα Ὁ

ἔτεμον, καὶ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν͵ αὐτὸν περιέστησαν οἷον ἅλμα μαλα-
κόν, iv 6 θυμὸς ἡνίκα ἐν αὐτῇ ἀκμάζοι, πηδῶσα εἰς ὑπεῖκον καὶ
ἀναψυχομένη, πονοῦσα ἧττον, μᾶλλον τῷ λόγῳ μετὰ θυμοῦ δύ-
ναίτο ὑπηρετεῖν.

XXXII. Τὸ δὲ δὴ σίτων τε καὶ ποτῶν ἐπιθυμητικὸν τῆς
ψυχῆς καὶ ἕσων ἔνδειαν διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἴσχει φύσιν, τοῦτο
εἰς τὰ μεταξὺ τῶν τε φρενῶν καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ὅρου κατῴ-
κίσαν, οἷον φάτνην ἐν ἅπαντι τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ τῇ τοῦ σώματος
τροφῇ τεκτηνάμενοι᾽ καὶ κατέδησαν δὴ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐνταῦθα ὡς
θρέμμα ἄγριον, τρέφειν δὲ ξυνημμένον ἀναγκαῖον, εἴπερ τι μέλλοι

2 ἅλμα μαλακόν : μάλαγμα TI.

ἹἹπποκράτην, Φιλιστίωνα, Διώξιππον τὸν
ἹἽἹπποκράτειον" καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν Εὐριπίδην,

᾿Αλκαῖον, Εἰ ὔπολιν, ᾿Ερατοσθένην, λέγοντας
ὅτι τὸ ποτὸν διὰ τοῦ πνεύμονος διέξεισι.
It is remarkable that Galen also held
this view: cf. de plac. Hipp. εἰ Plat. vill
719 ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ gPov, ὅ τι ἂν ἐθελήσῃς,
διψῆσαι ποιήσεις, ὡς κεχρωσμένον ὕδωρ
ὑπομεῖναι πιεῖν, εἰ δοίης εἴτε κυανῷ χρώ-
ματι χρώσας εἴτε μίλτῳ, εἶτα εὐθέως σφάξας
ἀνατέμοις, εὑρήσεις κεχρωσμένον τὸν πνεύ-
μονα. δῆλον οὖν ἐστὶν ὅτι φέρεταί τι τοῦ
πόματος εἰς αὐτόν. Galen’s observation
is, I believe, correct, though his inference
isnot so. Aristotle, on the contrary, was
aware that no fluid passes down the wind-
pipe to the lungs: see historia animalium
I xvi 4050 16 ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀρτηρία τοῦτον
ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, καὶ δέχεται μόνον τὸ πνεῦ-
μα καὶ ἀφίησιν, ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐθὲν οὔτε ξηρὸν
οὔθ᾽ ὑγρόν, ἢ πόνον παρέχει, ἕως dv ἐκβήξῃ
τὸ κατελθόν. See too de partibus anima-
lium ται iii 664 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 de
ossium natura, a work of uncertain date,
vol. I p. 515 Kiihn. Galen de δίας. Vil1
715 points out that Plato conceives only
a part of the fluid to pass down the
trachea: οὐκ ἀθρόον οὐδὲ διὰ μέσης τῆς εὐ-

ὅσον H.

ἡ ὅσων :

ρυχωρίας τοῦ ὀργάνου φερόμενον, ἀλλὰ περὶ
τὸν χίτωνα αὐτοῦ δροσοειδῶς καταρρέον.

I. τῆς ἀρτηρίας) i.e. the windpipe :
later it was designated ἡ τραχεῖα ἀρτηρία,
whence trachea. This is the only usage
of the word ἀρτηρία in Plato and Aristotle;
it never means ‘artery’ in the modern
sense. ὀχετοὺς is plural like ἀρτηρίας in
78 c, probably because of the bifurcation
of the trachea into the bronchia before
entering the lungs.

2. ἅλμα μαλακόν] 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 dyna
is a very unhappy suggestion, and Her-
mann’s μάλαγμα is as inappropriate as
arbitrary. μάλαγμα means a poultice or
fomentation ; but the function of the lungs
is distinctly stated just below, πηδῶσα
els ὑπεῖκον : this is perfectly well expressed
by the received reading. I believe that
Aristotle had this word ἅλμα in his mind,
when he wrote ἅλσις in the passage from
de partibus animalium quoted above.
The object of the lungs then, according
to Plato, is to quiet down the agitation
of the heart and thereby render the emo-
tional faculty capable of taking sides with
the reason against the ἐπιθυμητικόν.

4: μετὰ θυμοῦ] i.e. that the heart,
along with the emotional faculty seated
therein, may be enabled to obey the

E] TIMAIOS¥. 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.

reason: that is to say, that the emotional
faculty may not be hampered in its
action by the physical agitation of the
organ which it employs. From first to
last, in this dialogue as in the Repudlic,
Plato regards the emotions, if they are
given fair play, as sure allies of the
reason.

70 D—72 D, ¢. 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

To the end

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. Std τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἴσχει φύ-
ow] This clearly teaches that it is for
the sake of the body alone that the ap-
petitive soul desires meat and drink; for
itself it needs no such thing. The in-
ference thence is that the ἐπιθυμητικὸν
detached from the body is just pure soul,
the one and only soul; but gaa ἐπιθυ-
μητικὸν it is considered as working through
and for the body, the nourishment of
which it has to superintend.

9. οἷον φάτνην] This suggests a horse
as the similitude, rather than a wild beast:
compare Phaedrus 247 E.

10. ὡς θρέμμα ἄγριον] Compare Re-
public 588 Ὁ foll.

11. εἴπερ τι μέλλοι] If a mortal crea-
ture is to be, it must have a body; the
body must be animated and sustained by

ou

10

262

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[70 E—

\
τὸ θνητὸν ἔσεσθαι γένος. ἵν᾽ οὖν ἀεὶ νεμόμενον πρὸς φάτνῃ καὶ
ὅ τι πορρωτάτω τοῦ βουλευομένου κατοικοῦν, θόρυβον καὶ βοὴν
ὡς ἐλαχίστην παρέχον, τὸ κράτιστον καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν περὶ τοῦ πᾶσι
κοινῇ ξυμφέροντος ἐῷ βουλεύεσθαι, διὰ ταῦτα ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἔδοσαν
αὐτῷ τὴ (ἕξ ἰδό . δὲ τὸν ε λό \ v E , εἰν
ῷ τὴν τάξιν. εἰδότες αὐτό, ὡς λόγου μὲν οὔτε ξυνήσ

» ν , \ ‘ \ + «Ἂς > Δὸς >
ἔμελλεν, εἴ τέ πῃ Kal μεταλαμβάνοι τινὸς αὐτῶν αἰσθήσεως, οὐκ
» ᾿ fal ‘ / la) Μ ζ ἢ A > , Ν
ἔμφυτον αὐτῷ τὸ μέλειν τινῶν ἔσοιτο λόγω, ὑπὸ δὲ εἰδώλων καὶ
φαντασμάτων νυκτός τε καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μάλιστα ψυχαγωγή-

’ \ \ > “ 7 A \ A 5 ἡ ΄
σοιτο, τούτῳ δὴ θεὸς ἐπιβουλεύσας αὐτῷ τὴν ἥπατος ἰδέαν ξυνέ-
στησε καὶ ἔθηκεν εἰς τὴν ἐκείνου κατοίκησιν, πυκνὸν καὶ λεῖον Β
καὶ λαμπρὸν καὶ γλυκὺ καὶ πικρότητα ἔχον μηχανησάμενος, ἵνα
ἐν αὐτῷ τῶν διανοημάτων ἡ ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ φερομένη δύναμις, οἷον ἐν

1 τὸ θνητόν : ποτὲ θνητὸν S.

soul; hence there must be an ἐπιθυμητι-
κόν, or, as Aristotle would say, a θρεπτι-
κὸν εἶδος of soul. For, as has been said,
the differentiation of souls into individuals
involves materialisation and hence imper-
fection.

5. οὔτε ξυνήσειν ἔμελλεν] The lowest
εἶδος 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. αὐτῶν] This is doubtless right,
referring to the τινῶν λόγων which fol-
lows. Stallbaum’s reading is, as I think,
weak in sense.

8. καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν] The phantasms
of the daytime are the perceptions of the
senses.

10. τὴν ἐκείνου κατοίκησιν)ὔ sc. τὴν
In his account of the
relations of the liver with the ἐπιϑυμητι-
κὸν Plato has by anticipation refined be-
yond the point made by Aristotle in zc.
eth. 1 xiii 1102> 23 foll. tows δ᾽ οὐδὲν

x Ἄ
τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ.

6 αὐτῶν αἰσθήσεως : αὖ τῶν αἰσθήσεων SZ.

ἧττον καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ νομιστέον εἶναί τι
παρὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐναντιούμενον τούτῳ καὶ
ἀντιβαῖνον. πῶς δ᾽ ἕτερον, οὐδὲν διαφέρει.
λόγου δὲ καὶ τοῦτο φαίνεται μετέχειν, ὧσ-
περ εἴπομεν" πειθαρχεῖ γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ
τοῦ ἐγκρατοῦς. ἔτι δ᾽ ἴσως εὐηκοώτερόν
ἐστι τὸ τοῦ σώφρονος καὶ ἀνδρείου" πάντα
γὰρ ὁμοφωνεῖ τῷ λόγῳ. φαίνεται δὴ καὶ
τὸ ἄλογον διττόν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ φυτικὸν οὐ-
δαμῶς κοινωνεῖ λόγου, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν
καὶ ὅλως ὀρεκτικὸν μετέχει πως, ἣ κατή-
κοόν ἐστιν αὐτοῦ καὶ πειθαρχικόν. οὕτω
δὴ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν φίλων φαμὲν ἔχειν
λόγον, καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ τῶν μαθηματικῶν.
ὅτι δὲ πείθεταί πως ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἄλο-
γον, μηνύει καὶ ἡ νουθέτησις καὶ πᾶσα ἐπι-
τίμησις καὶ παράκλησις. εἰ δὲ χρὴ καὶ
τοῦτο φάναι λόγον ἔχειν, διττόν ἐστι καὶ
τὸ λόγον ἔχον, τὸ μὲν κυρίως καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ,
τὸ δὲ ὥσπερ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκουστικόν τι. In
Aristotle’s analysis then the rational part
is twofold, the one kind possessing reason
absolutely, the other listening to its be-
hests. The ἄλογον also is twofold, one
kind being absolutely irrational, while
the other μετέχει πῃ λόγου. It thus ap-
pears that the lower kind of λόγον ἔχον
is identical with the higher kind of ἄλο-
γον: that in fact they are the same thing
viewed in different aspects. Comparing
this with Plato’s statement, we shall find
that Aristotle’s ἄλογον μετέχον πῃ λόγου

71 8] 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 θυ-
μοειδὲς κατήκοον τοῦ λόγου. 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 θυμοειδὲς with a surge of indig-
nation against the friend’s baseness. But
no such response would come from the
ἐπιθυμητικόν, 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 πλασματῶδες. It must
of course not be forgotten that Aristotle’s
᾿ἐπιθυμητικὸν is not the same as Plato’s,

A point worth noticing is a certain ad-
vance in the psychology of the 7imaeus
as compared with that of the Phaedrus.
In the latter the lowest εἶδος is simply
appetitive; but in the Z%maeus it in-
cludes the functions of nutrition and
growth. This is plain from 7o E οἷον
φάτνην x.7.d.3 and also from the fact
that the τρίτον εἶδος is assigned to plants.
Aristotle then is in reality indebted to
Plato for his θρεπτικὸν καὶ φυτικόν: though
it must be confessed that the debt is by

no means acknowledged.

11. ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ] As this long sen-
tence is very involved, a few words about
the construction may not be amiss. The
optatives belonging to wa are φοβοῖ (the
temporal clause after ὁπότε extending as
far as παρέχοι) and the second ποιοῖ:
while to ὁπότε belong ἐμφαίνοι, the first
ποιοῖ, and παρέχοι; and to ὅτε belongs
drofwypagot only. The μὲν after φοβοῖ
ought to have been answered by a δέ,
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 καὶ instead of δέ.
Again, it is not at first sight obvious,
especially as the sentence is sometimes
punctuated, to see where the apodosis to
ὅτ᾽ αὖ begins. I should without hesi-
tation, putting a comma after ἀπευθύ-
vovoa, make the beginning of the apodo-
sis at ἵλεών Te: though, if we took the
participles παρέχουσα and the rest in
agreement with δύναμις instead of ἐπί-
πνοια, it would be possible to begin the
apodosis at τῆς μὲν πικρότητος. But the
former view seems to me in every way
preferable. ἐν αὐτῷ is anticipative of the
clause beginning οἷον ἐν κατόπτρῳ, from
which we must supply the notion ‘ par:
ducing reflections in it’.

264

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[71 B—

κατόπτρῳ δεχομένῳ τύπους Kal κατιδεῖν εἴδωλα παρέχοντι, φοβοῖ
μὲν αὐτό, ὁπότε μέρει τῆς πικρότητος χρωμένη ξυγγενεῖ, χαλεπὴ
προσενεχθεῖσα ἀπειλῇ, κατὰ πᾶν ὑπομιγνῦσα ὀξέως τὸ ἧπαρ,
χολωδὴ χρώματα ἐμφαίνοι, ξυνάγουσά τε πᾶν ῥυσὸν καὶ τραχὺ
5 ποιοῖ, λοβὸν δὲ καὶ δοχὰς πύλας τε, τὰ μὲν ἐξ ὀρθοῦ κατακάμπ-
tovoa καὶ ξυσπῶσα, τὰ δὲ ἐμφράττουσα συγκλείουσά τε, λύπας
καὶ ἄσας παρέχοι καὶ ὅτ᾽ αὖ τἀναντία φαντάσματα ἀποζωγραφοῖ
πραύότητός τις ἐκ διανοίας ἐπίπνοια, τῆς μὲν πικρότητος ἡσυχίαν
παρέχουσα τῷ μήτε κινεῖν μήτε προσάπτεσθαι τῆς ἐναντίας ἑαυτῇ
10 φύσεως ἐθέλειν, γλυκύτητι δὲ τῇ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ξυμφύτῳ πρὸς αὐτὸ
χρωμένη καὶ πάντα ὀρθὰ καὶ λεῖα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλεύθερα ἀπευθύ-
νουσα, ἵλεών τε καὶ εὐήμερον ποιοῖ τὴν περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ ψυχῆς
μοῖραν κατῳκισμένην, ἔν τε τῇ νυκτὶ διαγωγὴν ἔχουσαν μετρίαν,
μαντείᾳ χρωμένην καθ᾽ ὕπνον, ἐπειδὴ λόγου καὶ φρονήσεως οὐ
15 μετεῖχε. μεμνημένοι γὰρ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπιστολῆς οἱ ξυστήσαντες
ἡμᾶς, ὅτε τὸ θνητὸν ἐπέστελλε γένος ὡς ἄριστον εἰς δύναμιν ποιεῖν,

5 τά: τὸ Α. 10 αὐτό: ἑαυτὸ A,

2. μέρει τῆς πικρότητος χρωμένη
Evyyevet] Stallbaum understands τῷ
ἥπατι after συγγενεῖ, 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:
évyyeve? signifies, akin to the dark and
gloomy nature of the thoughts which are
conveyed by ἡ ἐκ Tov νοῦ φερομένη δύ-
ναμις: see below μήτε προσάπτεσθαι τῆς
ἐναντίας ἑαυτῇ φύσεως ἐθέλειν. If the
bitterness belonging to the liver is of a
contrary nature to cheerful thoughts, it
can hardly be very ridiculous to conceive
that it is of kindred nature to thoughts
that are gloomy. So Wagner, ‘was seiner
Natur (d. i. des Nachdenkens) entgegen-
gesetzt ist’.

3. ἀπειλῇ] Hermann punctuates so
as to join this word with κατὰ πᾶν ὑπο-
μιγνῦσα x.t.d., which surely gives it an
intolerable situation. Cf. 70 B.

5. λοβὸν δὲ kal δοχὰς πύλας te] The
λοβὸς here meant is the lobe κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν,
the large right lobe of the liver, in which
the gall-bladder is situated; to which

15 ξυστήσαντες : ξυνιστάντες HS.

effect Stallbaum cites Rufus Ephesius: the
δοχαὶ seem to be the small vessels in the
liver: the πύλαι 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
Electra 827—829:
kal λοβὸς μὲν οὐ προσῆν

σπλάγχνοις, πύλαι δὲ καὶ δοχαὶ χολῆς

πέλας
κακὰς ἔφαινον τῷ σκοποῦντι προσβολάς.
Compare Aristotle Azstoria animalium
I xvii 496> 29 προσπέφυκε δὲ τῇ μεγάλῃ
φλεβὶ τὸ ἧπαρ, τῇ δ᾽ ἀορτῇ od κοινωνεῖ"
διὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἥπατος διέχει | ἀπὸ τῆς μεγά-
Ans φλεβὸς φλέψ, ἡ δὴ αἱ καλούμεναι πύλαι
εἰσὶ τοῦ ἥπατος. The μεγάλη φλὲψ is
evidently the vera cava; see de partibus
animalium 111 iv 666> 24 ὅτι δὲ πρῶτον
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ γίνεται τὸ αἷμα πολλάκις εἰρή-
καμεν, διὰ τὸ τὰς ἀρχηγοὺς φλέβας δύο
εἶναι, τήν τε μεγάλην καλουμένην καὶ τὴν
ἀορτήν; while ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς μεγάλης is as
clearly the portal vein.

D

iy eel TIMAIOS. 265

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

τὰ μὲν] I suspect τὸν μὲν to be the
right reading.

6. λύπας καὶ doas] The effect is partly
physical, partly moral: the pains and
nausea would cause evil dreams, which
served as portents and deterrents. Her-
mann, presumably by a typographical
error, puts no stop at all after παρέχοι.

8. πραότητός tis...émrlrvoa] With
this very striking expression compare the
beautiful phrase in Aeschylus Agamemnon
740 φρόνημα νηνέμου yaddvas. ἐπίπνοια
is the regula? word for divine inspiration:
cf. Phaedrus 265 B, Laws 811 C.

10. γλυκύτητι τῇ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο] sc. τὸ
ἧπαρ: the ἐπίπνοια uses upon the liver
(πρὸς aird) the sweetness which per-
meates it. ξυμφύτῳ, i.e. akin to the
ἐπίπνοια. Stallbaum understands πρὸς

αὐτὸ to refer to the ἐπιθυμητικόν : but this
will not do. For αὐτὸ must surely have
the same reference as αὐτοῦ, which neces-
sarily means τοῦ ἥπατος.

12. ἵλεών τε kal εὐήμερον ποιοῖ] Aris-
totle (who must have been rather mysti-
fied by this passage) has a direct reference
to these words in de partibus animalium
IV ii 676> 22 διόπερ of λέγοντες τὴν φύσιν
τῆς χολῆς αἰσθήσεώς τινος εἷναι χάριν οὐ
καλῶς λέγουσιν. φασὶ γὰρ εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο,
ὅπως τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ μόριον
δάκνουσα μὲν συνιστῇ, λυόμενον δ᾽ ἵλεων
Aristotle is himself decidedly
sceptical concerning the prophetic charac-
ter of dreams: see his exceedingly in-
teresting treatise de divinatione.

13. ἔν τε τῇ νυκτί] The re merely
couples ἔχουσαν with ἵλεών τε καὶ εὐήμερον.

ποιῇ.

σι

10

~
σι

266 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [71 D—

7 los ς ” tA 53 ’
οὕτω δὴ κατορθοῦντες καὶ τὸ φαῦλον ἡμών, ἵνα ἀληθείας πῃ E
\ Cal Ω ν Ν
προσάπτοιτο, κατέστησαν ἐν τούτῳ τὸ μαντεῖον. ἱκανὸν δὲ ση-
tal ¢ \ ’ / θ \ 3 θ / δέδ ᾧ >) \ \
μεῖον, ὡς μαντικὴν ἀφροσύνῃ θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ δέδωκεν" οὐδεὶς yap
a a 4, (A
ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ καθ᾽ ὕπνον
\ fad , \ , ΓΝ ‘ , * , >
THY τῆς φρονήσεως πεδηθεὶς δύναμιν ἢ Sia νόσον ἢ διά τινα ἐνθου-
, r ’
σιασμὸν παραλλάξας. ἀλλὰ ξυννοῆσαι μὲν ἔμφρονος τά τε ῥηθέντα
ἀναμνῃσθέντα ὄναρ ἢ ὕπαρ ὑπὸ τῆς μαντικῆς τε καὶ ἐνθουσιασ-
τικῆς φύσεως, καὶ ὅσα ἀν φαντάσματα ὀφθῇ, πάντα λογισμῷ
: Δ
διελέσθαι, ὅπῃ τι σημαίνει καὶ ὅτῳ μέλλοντος ἢ παρελθόντος ἢ
a a a /
παρόντος κακοῦ ἢ ἀγαθοῦ" τοῦ δὲ μανέντος ἔτι τε ἐν τούτῳ μένον-
3 ΜΝ Ν ΄ \ ’ $s Ὁ a , 9 3. @
TOS οὐκ ἔργον Ta φανέντα καὶ φωνηθέντα ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κρίνειν, ἀλλ᾽ εὖ
καὶ πάλαι λέγεται τὸ πράττειν καὶ γνῶναι τά τε αὑτοῦ καὶ ἑαυτὸν
σώφρονι μένῳ προσήκειν. ὅθεν δὴ καὶ τὸ τῶν προφητῶν γένος ἐπὶ
ταῖς ἐνθέοις μαντείαις κριτὰς ἐπικαθιστάναι νόμος" ods μάντεις Β
\ a - ’ a a
αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζουσί τινες, TO πᾶν ἠγνοηκότες, OTL THs δι’ αἰνιγμῶν
οὗτοι φήμης καὶ φαντάσεως ὑποκριταί, καὶ οὔ τι μάντεις, προφῆται δὲ
μαντευομένων δικαιότατα ὀνομάζοιντ᾽ ἄν. ἡ μὲν οὖν φύσις ἥπατος
\ fe) , ,
διὰ ταῦτα τοιαύτη τε καὶ ἐν τόπῳ ᾧ λέγομεν πέφυκε, χάριν μαν-
τικῆς" καὶ ἔτι μὲν δὴ ζῶντος ἑκάστου τὸ τοιοῦτον σημεῖα ἐναρ-
8 φαντάσματα: φάσματα SZ. 17 ἥπατος : τοῦ ἥπατος 5.
19 ἐναργέστερα : ἐνεργέστερα A.

3. ἀφροσύνῃ θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ δέδωκεν]
The keen irony pervading the whole of
this very curious and interesting passage
is too evident to escape notice. Plato
had no high opinion of μαντικὴ and μάν-
eis: the μαντικὸς βίος comes low in order
of merit in Phaedrus 248 E. See too the
contemptuous reference to ἀγύρται καὶ
μάντεις in Republic 364 B, and Symposium
203 Akal τὴν μαντείαν πᾶσαν Kal γοή-
τειαν. In Politicus 290 Ὁ he says with
similar irony τὸ yap δὴ τῶν ἱερέων σχῆμα
καὶ τὸ τῶν μαντέων εὖ μάλα φρονήματος
πληροῦται καὶ δόξαν σεμνὴν λαμβάνει διὰ
τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἐγχειρημάτων : but for all
their assumption, they practise but ἃ
‘servile art’, ἐπιστήμης διακόνου μόριον.

οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔννους] Compare Phacdrus
244 Aq τε γὰρ δὴ ἐν Δελφοῖς προφῆ-
τις αἵ τ᾽ ἐν Δωδώνῃ ἱέρειαι μανεῖσαι μὲν
πολλὰ δὴ καὶ καλὰ ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ
τὴν ᾿Ελλάδα εἰργάσαντο, σωφρονοῦσαι δὲ

βραχέα ἣ οὐδέν. Presently follows the
well-known derivation of μανικὴ from
μαντική. The most remarkable passage
is at 244 Ὁ: ἀλλὰ μὴν νόσων γε καὶ πόνων
τῶν μεγίστων, ἃ δὴ παλαιῶν ἐκ μηνιμάτων
ποθὲν ἔν τισι τῶν γενῶν, ἡ μανία ἐγγενο-
μένη καὶ προφητεύσασα οἷς ἔδει, ἀπαλλαγὴν
εὕρετο, καταφυγοῦσα πρὸς θεῶν εὐχάς τε
καὶ λατρείας, ὅθεν δὴ καθαρμῶν τε καὶ τελε-
τῶν τυχοῦσα ἐξάντη ἐποίησε τὸν ἑαυτῆς
ἔχοντα πρός τε τὸν παρόντα καὶ τὸν ἔπειτα
χρένον, λύσιν τῷ ὀρθῶς μανέντι καὶ κατα-
σχομένῳ τῶν παρόντων κακῶν εὑρομένη :
where see Thompson’s note.

6. παραλλάξας] For this sense of
the word see above, 27 C εἰ μὴ παντάπασι
παραλλάττομεν, and Euripides Hippolytus
935 λόγοι παραλλάσσοντες ἔξεδροι φρενῶν.

7. ἀναμνῃσθέντα)] sc. ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔμφρο-
vos: the order of words is somewhat
peculiar.

13. τὸ τῶν προφητῶν γένος] The

72 Bl TIMAIOS. 267

were able, in this wise redeeming even the baser part of us,
that it might have in some way a hold on the truth, placed in
this region the seat of divination.

Now that divination is the gift of God to human folly, this is
a sufficient proof. No man in his sound senses deals in true
and inspired divination, but when the power of his under-
standing is fettered in sleep or by sickness, or if he has become
distraught by some divine possession. The part of the sane
man is to remember and interpret all things that are declared,
dreaming or waking, by the prophetic and inspired nature; and
whatsoever visions are beheld by the seer, to determine by
reason in what way and to whom they betoken good or ill in
the future or the present or the past: but it is not for him who
has become mad and still is in that state to judge his own
visions and utterances; the old saying remains true, that only
for the sane man is it meet to act and to be the judge of his
own actions and of himself. Whence has arisen the custom of
setting up interpreters as judges of inspired prophecy: these are
themselves called prophets by some who are altogether un-
aware that they are but the expounders of mystic speech and
visions, and ought not in strict accuracy to be called prophets,
. but interpreters of the prophecies.

Such is the nature of the liver and its situation that we
have described, for the purpose of prophecy as aforesaid. And
while each body has life, this organ displays the signs clearly

function of the προφῆται ἴ5 well illustrated 16. οὔ τι μάντεις προφῆται δέ] It
by Euripides 70 413—416: must be confessed that Plato is himself

EOY. ἔσται τάδ᾽" ἀλλὰ τίς προφητεύει θεοῦ;
IQN. ἡμεῖς τά γ᾽ ἔξω, τῶν ἔσω δ᾽ ἄλλοις

μέλει
ot πλησίον θάσσουσι τρίποδος, ὦ
ξένε,
Δελφῶν ἀριστῆς ots ἐκλήρωσεν
πάλος.

This points to the existence at Delphi of
two classes of προφῆται: one class, to
which only high-born Delphians were
admitted, heard the inspired utterances
of the Pythia herself; the other and
less exclusive class having to declare what-
ever was to be made known to the public
without.

guilty of a converse error, when in
Phaedrus 244 B he applies the term zpo-
φῆτις to the Pythian priestess. This how-
ever is venial; for the Pythia may be re-
garded as the προφῆτις of Apollo, whereas
her προφῆται are in no sense μάντεις.

18. χάριν μαντικῆς] Plato does not
altogether ignore the physiological func-
tions of the liver; as may be seen from the
important part played by χολή, when this
secretion is in a morbid condition, in his
pathology. But he characteristically
gives chief prominence to the final cause,
which is to redeem the ἐπιθυμητικὸν from
complete irrationality.

σι

10

15 διακινδυνευτέον τὸ φάναι, καὶ πεφάσθω.

268 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [72 B—

γέστερα ἔχει, στερηθὲν δὲ τοῦ ζῆν γέγονε τυφλὸν καὶ τὰ μαντεῖα
ἀμυδρότερα ἔσχε τοῦ τι σαφὲς σημαίνειν. ἡ δ᾽ αὖ τοῦ γείτονος
αὐτῷ ξύστασις καὶ ἕδρα σπλάγχνου γέγονεν ἐξ ἀριστερᾶς χάριν
ἐκείνου, τοῦ παρέχειν αὐτὸ λαμπρὸν ἀεὶ καὶ καθαρόν, οἷον κατόπ-
τρῳ παρεσκευασμένον καὶ ἕτοιμον ἀεὶ παρακείμενον ἐκμαγεῖον"
διὸ δὴ καὶ ὅταν τινὲς ἀκαθαρσίαι γίγνωνται διὰ νόσους σώματος
περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ, πάντα ἡ σπληνὸς καθαίρουσα αὐτὰ δέχεται μανέτης,
ἅτε κοίλου καὶ ἀναίμου ὑφανθέντος" ὅθεν πληρούμενος τῶν ἀπο-
καθαιρομένων μέγας καὶ ὕπουλος αὐξάνεται, καὶ πάλιν, ὅταν
καθαρθὴ τὸ σῶμα, ταπεινούμενος εἰς ταὐτὸν ξυνίζει.

ΧΧΧΙΠΠ. Τὼ μὲν οὖν περὶ ψυχῆς, ὅσον θνητὸν ἔχει καὶ ὅσον
θεῖον, καὶ ὅπῃ, καὶ μεθ᾽ ὧν, καὶ δι’ ἃ χωρὶς ὠκίσθη, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς
ὡς εἴρηται, θεοῦ ξυμφήσαντος, τότ᾽ ἂν οὕτω μόνως διισ χυριζοίμεθα"
τό γε μὴν εἰκὸς ἡμῖν εἰρῆσθαι καὶ νῦν καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀνασκοποῦσι

1. στερηθὲν δὲ τοῦ ζῆν] 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. ἐκμαγεῖον] Here we have a totally
different use of the word from that in 50C:
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

τὸ δ᾽ ἑξῆς 8) τούτοισι

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 unfermented flesh mingled with

σ

D

E

E] TIMAIOS‘. 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.

bone. 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

But what follows

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. τό ye μὴν εἰκός] It may be ob-
jected that soul is immaterial and eternal,
and therefore we must not be satisfied
with τὸ εἰκὸς 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 B—37 Ὁ.

270

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[72 E—

-“ e
κατὰ ταὐτὰ μεταδιωκτέον' ἦν δὲ TO τοῦ σώματος ἐπίλοιπον ἡ γέ-

ryovev,
TOV πρέποι.

ἐκ δὴ λογισμοῦ τοιοῦδε ξυνίστασθαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸ πάν-
τὴν ἐσομένην ἐν ἡμῖν ποτῶν καὶ ἐδεστῶν ἀκολασίαν

Μ e , ¢ a \ / \u a , ᾿
ἤδεσαν οἱ ξυντιθέντες ἡμῶν τὸ γένος, καὶ ὅτι τοῦ μετρίου καὶ ἀναγ-

5 καίου διὰ μαργότητα πολλῷ χρησοίμεθα πλέονι" ἵν᾿ οὖν μὴ φθορὰ
διὰ νόσους ὀξεῖα γίγνοιτο καὶ ἀτελὲς τὸ γένος εὐθὺς τὸ θνητὸν τε-

λευτῷ, ταῦτα προορώ ἢ τοῦ f 7 ἐδέ- 73 A
ῷ, ροορώμενοι τῇ τοῦ περιγενησομένου πόματος ἐδέ

/ Ψ, A > / / ε \ ΝΜ
σματός τε ἕξει τὴν ὀνομαζομένην κάτω κοιλίαν ὑποδοχὴν ἔθεσαν,
fal / /
εἵλιξάν τε πέριξ τὴν τῶν ἐντέρων γένεσιν, ὅπως μὴ ταχὺ διεκπε-
a fal , o “Ὁ
ιορῶσα ἡ τροφὴ ταχὺ πάλιν τροφῆς ἑτέρας δεῖσθαι τὸ σῶμα ἀναγ-
, \ / 3 ‘ \ / > “
κάξζοι, καὶ παρέχουσα ἀπληστίαν διὰ γαστριμαργίαν ἀφιλόσοφον
καὶ ἄμουσον πᾶν ἀποτελοῖ τὸ γένος, ἀνυπήκοον τοῦ θειοτάτου τῶν

παρ᾽ ἡμῖν.

Ν \ > a \ a a Ud ,
TO δὲ ὀστῶν Kal capK@v καὶ τῆς τοιαύτης φύσεως

, / e » / U > Ν ε an r
πέρι πάσης ὧδε ἔσχε. τούτοις ξύμπασιν ἀρχὴ μὲν ἡ TOD μυελοῦ
15 γένεσις" οἱ γὰρ τοῦ βίου δεσμοὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τῷ σώματι ξυνδουμένης

> , / / A \ ,
ἐν τούτῳ διαδούμενοι κατερρίζουν τὸ θνητὸν γένος.

> \ ‘ c
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ

\ / > a * / “ Ὁ 3 “Ὁ
μυελὸς γέγονεν ἐξ ἄλλων. τῶν γὰρ τριγώνων ὅσα πρῶτα ἀστραβῆ
a Μ fa} ee A 3s y a > > ,ὔ
καὶ λεῖα ὄντα πῦρ τε καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ γῆν δι’ ἀκριβείας
μάλιστα ἦν παρασχεῖν δυνατά, ταῦτα ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτῶν
“ τ᾿ \ > \ > / ,
20 ἕκαστα γενῶν χωρὶς ἀποκρίνων, μιγνὺς δὲ ἀλλήλοις ξύμμετρα,

6 τελευτῷ : τελευτῴη 8.

1. ἦν δέ] Referring back to ὅι σ
σαρκὸς δὲ καὶ τῶν περὶ σάρκα γένεσιν,
ψυχῆς τε ὅσον θνητόν, οὔπω διεληλύθαμεν.

8. τὴν ὀνομαζομένην] ‘So-called’,
because ἡ κάτω κοιλία was a medical
term: see Hippokrates passim: it de-
noted all the region of the body below
the θώραξ strictly so called: cf. Aristotle
problemata XXXII ix 962* 35 τριῶν τόπων
ὄντων, κεφαλῆς καὶ θώρακος καὶ τῆς κάτω
κοιλίας, ἡ κεφαλὴ θειότατον. The θώραξ,
though sometimes applied to the entire
cavity of the body, was properly identical
with ἡ ἄνω κοιλία, which included the
stomach: cf. de partibus animalium 111
xiv 675> 29.

ὑποδοχήν] Plato does not seem to
have understood very clearly the func-
tions of this part of the human anatomy,
merely regarding it as a safeguard against

7 πόματος: πώματος ASZ,

gluttony. Aristotle has a preciser con-
ception: see de partibus animalium 11|
xiv 674? 12 foll.

9. ταχὺ διεκπερῶσα] We should thus
relapse into the life symbolised by the
ἀγγεῖα τετρημένα καὶ σαθρὰ in Gorgias
493E: cf. 494 B χαραδριοῦ τιν᾽ αὖ σὺ
βίον λέγεις.

15. οἱ γὰρ τοῦ βίου δεσμοί] That is
to say, it is through the marrow that the
soul is linked to the body. Plato, though
unacquainted with the nervous system,
saw clearly that the spinal marrow and
ultimately the brain was the centre of
consciousness: a point wherein he is
much ahead of Aristotle, who declared
(1) that the brain and spinal marrow are
essentially different substances, (2) that
the function of the brain is merely to cool
the region of the heart: see de fartibus

B

73 6] TIMAIOS.

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

271

ὕδατος καὶ γῆς. Plato had considerably
less knowledge of anatomy than Ari-
stotle; but this is one of several cases
where his superior scientific insight keeps
him nearer to the truth.

16. ἐν τούτῳ] i.e. in the spinal mar-
row; for the brain was the seat of the

animalium τὶ vii 652% 24 πολλοῖς yap
καὶ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος δοκεῖ μυελὸς εἶναι καὶ
ἀρχὴ τοῦ μυελοῦ διὰ τὸ συνεχῆ τὸν ῥαχίτην
αὐτῷ ὁρᾶν μυελόν. ἔστι δὲ πᾶν τοὐναν-
τίον αὐτῷ τὴν φύσιν, ὡς εἰπεῖν" ὁ μὲν γὰρ
ἐγκέφαλος ψυχρότατον τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι
μορίων, ὁ δὲ μυελὸς θερμὸς τὴν φύσιν.

652> τό ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἅπαντα δεῖται τῆς ἐναντίας
ῥοπῆς, ἵνα τυγχάνῃ τοῦ μετρίου καὶ τοῦ
μέσου,...διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν πρὸς τὸν
τῆς καρδίας τόπον καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῇ θερ-
μότητα μεμηχάνηται τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἡ
φύσις, καὶ τούτου χάριν ὑπάρχει τοῦτο τὸ
μόριον τοῖς ζῴοις, τὴν φύσιν ἔχον κοινὴν

θεῖον γένος.

17. ἐξ ἄλλων] sc. ἢ ὀστῶν καὶ σαρκῶν
καὶ τῶν τοιούτων.

τῶν γὰρ τριγώνων] The triangles being
the elements of the corpuscules of which
matter is composed, Plato speaks of them
as the elements of μυελός.

Io

15

20

272 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [73 c—

a f \ \ ᾽
πανσπερμίαν παντὶ θνητῷ γένει μηχανώμενος, τὸν μυελὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν
᾽ ’ \
ἀπειργάσατο, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δὴ φυτεύων ἐν αὐτῷ κατέδει τὰ τῶν
ὃν γέ ; ὁσα) ὅβολλαν ad σγή Ἢ θ᾽
ψυχῶν γένη, σχημάτων τε ὅσα [ἔμελλεν αὖ σχήσειν οἷά τε κα
ἕκαστα εἴδη, τὸν μυελὸν αὐτὸν τοσαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα διῃρεῖτο σχή-
ματα εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ διανομῇ τῇ κατ᾽ ἀρχάς. καὶ τὴν μὲν τὸ θεῖον
¢ a
σπέρμα οἷον ἄρουραν μέλλουσαν ἕξειν ἐν αὑτῇ περιφερῆ παν-
a U fal “Ὁ ͵ \ -
ταχῇ πλάσας ἐπωνόμασε τοῦ μυελοῦ ταύτην τὴν μοῖραν ἐγκέφαλον,
, lal > -“
ὡς ἀποτελεσθέντος ἑκάστου ζῴου τὸ περὶ τοῦτο ἀγγεῖον κεφαλὴν
, ἃ > - \ \ ‘ \ a > ”
γενησόμενον" ὃ δ᾽ av τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ θνητὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔμελλε
, lal ,
καθέξειν, ἅμα στρογγύλα καὶ προμήκη διῃρεῖτο σχήματα, μυελὸν
\ / > , \ , 3 > a > ,
δὲ πάντα ἐπεφήμισε, καὶ καθάπερ ἐξ ἀγκυρῶν βαλλόμενος ἐκ τού-
Tov πάσης ψυχῆς δεσμοὺς περὶ τοῦτο ξύμπαν ἤδη τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν
a \
ἀπειργάζετο, στέγασμα μὲν αὐτῷ πρῶτον ξυμπηγνὺς περίβολον
ὀστέινον. τὸ δὲ ὀστοῦν ξυνίστησιν ὧδε" γῆν διαττήσας καθαρὰν
\ / ΦΉΣ, So» - \ \ psi ees a ἃς Ἢ
καὶ λείαν ἐφύρασε καὶ ἔδευσε μυελῷ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς πῦρ αὐτὸ
" , 2 > a \ > δ ’ “ \ > a 5247
ἐντίθησι, μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο δὲ εἰς ὕδωρ βάπτει, πάλιν δὲ εἰς πῦρ αὖθίς τε
Seo 7 ’ A ͵ > mer, ret ae a
εἰς ὕδωρ' μεταφέρων δ᾽ οὕτω πολλάκις εἰς ἑκάτερον ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν
ἄτηκτον ἀπειργάσατο. καταχρώμενος δὴ τούτῳ περὶ μὲν τὸν
ἐγκέφαλον αὐτοῦ σφαῖραν περιετόρνευσεν ὀστεΐνην, ταύτῃ δὲ στε-
A , ,ὔ \ \ \ , με \
viv διέξοδον κατελείπετο" Kal περὶ τὸν διαυχένιον ἅμα Kal vo-
a \ 3 > “ , / «ς / ,
τιαῖον μυελὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σφονδύλους πλάσας ὑπέτεινεν οἷον στρό-
> a a \ \ a
guyyas, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ παντὸς Tod κύτους" Kal
Ape \ / n
τὸ πᾶν δὴ σπέρμα διασῴζων οὕτω λιθοειδεῖ περιβόλῳ Evvédpaker,
περὶ ὅλον ASZ et codices omnes.
23 οὕτω: οὕτως A.

13 περίβολον : sic H e Valckenari coniectura.
20 κατελείπετο: κατελίπετο SZ.

I. πανσπερμίαν] The marrow, being however no special divisions of μυελὸς for

formed from all the four elements, was
capable of supplying material for all parts
of the human frame.

3. ὅσα ἔμελλεν] It is remarkable
that, although Plato only mentions two
σχήματα explicitly, his phraseology is so
studiously vague concerning their number
as to lead one to imagine that he may
have suspected the existence of further
ramifications of μυελός, such as in fact
are the nerves.

καθ᾽ ἕκαστα εἴδη] sc. τῆς ψυχῆς:
the shape of the different portions of
marrow in the body was made to suit
the nature of that particular function of
soul which acted through it. There are

the θυμοειδὲς and the ἐπιθυμητικὸν sepa-
rately ; the spinal cord serving for the
θνητὸν as a whole.

5. τῇ κατ᾽ ἀρχάς] i.e. without wait-
ing for the differentiation to be made in
the course of evolution.

6. περιφερῆ] The brain is made ap-
proximately spherical, because, as we
have seen, the action of reason is sym-
bolised by the rotation of a sphere on its
axis: cf. 44 D τὸ Tod παντὸς σχῆμα μιμού-
μενοι περιφερὲς ὃν εἰς σφαιροειδὲς σῶμα
ἐνέδησαν.

8. ὡς... γενησόμενον] The construc-
tion is that which is known as the accu-
sative absolute: compare Profagoras 342

D

E

74 A

74-A]” “ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 273

with another, to make a common seed for all the race of mortals,
he formed of them the marrow; and thereafter he implanted
and fastened in it the several kinds of soul; and according to
the number and fashion of the shapes that the soul should have
corresponding to her kinds, into so many similar forms did he .
divide the marrow at the very outset of his distribution. And
that which should be as it were a field to contain in it the divine
seed he moulded in a spherical form all round; and this part of
the marrow he called the brain, with the view that, when each
animal was completed, the vessel containing it should be the
head. But that which was to have the mortal part of soul
which remained he distributed into moulds that were at once
round and elongated: but he called all these forms marrow ;
and from these, as though from anchors, he put forth bonds to
fasten all the soul, and then he wrought the entire body round
about it, first building to fence it a covering of bone. And
bone he formed in this way: having sifted out earth that was
pure and smooth he kneaded and soaked it with marrow, and
after that he placed it in fire; and next he set it in water, and
again in fire, and once more in water: and thus having shifted
it many times from one to another he made it indissoluble by
either. Making use of this, he carved a bony sphere thereof to
surround the brain, but on one side he left a narrow outlet; and
around the marrow of the neck and back he made vertebrae of
bone and set them to serve as pivots, beginning at the head and
carrying them through the whole length of the body. Thus to
preserve all the seed he enclosed it in a strong envelope, and he

C καὶ of μὲν ὦτά τε κατάγνυνται μιμούμενοι
αὐτούς, καὶ ἱμάντας περιειλίττονται καὶ
φιλογυμναστοῦσι καὶ βραχείας ἀναβολὰς
φοροῦσιν, ὡς δὴ τούτοις κρατοῦντας τῶν
Ἑλλήνων τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους.

10. στρογγύλα καὶ προμήκη] ‘Round
and elongated’ is the same thing as
‘cylindrical’: this of course refers to the
vertebral column.

12. πάσης ψυχῆς δεσμούς] The brain
and spinal marrow serve as conductors of
vital force; it is on them that the soul
immediately acts—the λογιστικὸν work-
ing through the brain, the ἄλογον through

the spinal marrow—and they transmit-

Pooks

her action to the rest of the body. The
word δεσμοὺς does not refer to any liga-
ment or the like, nor has it any physical
significance: it is purely metaphorical.
For the phrase καθάπερ ἐξ ἀγκυρῶν com-
pare 85 E ἔλυσε τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτόθεν οἷον
νεὼς πείσματα.

13. περίβολον] The ms. reading περὶ"
ὅλον will no doubt yield a reasonable
sense. But Valckenaer’s correction is so
much more apt that I have not hesitated
to follow Hermann in accepting it. Be-
low in 74 A we have λιθοειδεῖ περιβόλῳ
ξυνέφραξεν.

15. μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς πῦρ] The process

18

10

274 MAATONO® [74 A—

ἐμποιῶν ἄρθρα, τῇ θατέρου προσχρώμενος ἐν αὐτοῖς ὡς μέσῃ
ἐνισταμένῃ δυνάμει, κινήσεως καὶ κάμψεως ἕνεκα. τὴν δ᾽ αὖ τῆς
ὀστεΐίνης φύσεως ἕξιν ἡγησάμενος τοῦ δέοντος κραυροτέραν εἶναι B
καὶ ἀκαμπτοτέραν, διάπυρόν T αὖ γιγνομένην καὶ πάλιν ψυχομένην
σφακέλίσαψαν ταχὺ διαφθερεῖν τὸ σπέρμα ἐντὸς αὑτῆς, διὰ ταῦτα +
οὕτω τὸ τῶν νεύρων Kal TO τῆς σαρκὸς γένος ἐμηχανᾶτο, ἵνα τῷ μὲν a
ἅπαντα τὰ μέλη ξυνδήσας ἐπιτεινομένῳ καὶ ἀνιεμένῳ περὶ τοὺς
στρόφυγγας καμπτόμενον τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἐκτεινόμενον παρέχοι, τὴν

δὲ σάρκα προβολὴν μὲν καυμάτων πρόβλημα δὲ χειμώνων, ἔτι δὲ
πτωμάτων οἷον τὰ πιλητὰ ἔσεσθαι κτήματα, σώμασι μαλακῶς καὶ C
πράως ὑπείκουσαν, θερμὴν δὲ νοτίδα ἐντὲς ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσαν θέρους

μὲν ἀνιδίουσαν καὶ νοτιζομένην ἔξωθεν ψῦχος κατὰ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα
παρέξειν οἰκεῖον, διὰ χειμῶνος δὲ πάλιν αὖ τούτῳ τῷ πυρὶ τὸν
προσφερόμενον ἔξωθεν καὶ περιιστάμενον πάγον ἀμυνεῖσθαι με-
τρίως. ταῦτα ἡμῶν διανοηθεὶς ὁ κηροπλάστης, ὕδατι μὲν καὶ πυρὶ

καὶ γῇ ξυμμίξας καὶ ξυναρμόσας, ἐξ ὀξέος καὶ ἁλμυροῦ ξυνθεὶς

12 ψῦχος:

is obviously suggested by the tempering
of metal.

1. τῇ θατέρου προσχρώμενος] This
expression is very obscure; and no
two interpreters agree as to its meaning.
Stallbaum is entirely at sea: Lindau, at
whom he scoffs, throws out a suggestion
which is much more reasonable than any-
thing in Stallbaum’s note: ‘eadem philo-
sophum corpori et animo tribuere prin-
cipia gravitatemque eum et expansionem
comparare cum ratione sensibusque’.
Martin’s idea that 4 θατέρου δύναμις
means the synovial fluid is extremely far-
fetched: could Plato possibly expect any
one to understand him if he made such
use of language? Dr Jackson has sug-
gested to me an interpretation which is
certainly much more natural and, I think,
right. We know that θάτερον expresses
plurality. Plato then, when he says that
the gods used ἡ θατέρου δύναμις in the
construction of the bones, simply signifies
that by means of joints they divided the
bones into a number of parts, κάμψεως
καὶ κινήσεως ἕνεκα. ἐν μέσῃ I take to
mean between the’ bones—the joints

ψύχος SZ.

represent the principle of θάτερον, as
being the cause of division and plurality.

4. ϑιάπυρόν τ᾽ αὖ γιγνομένην] That
is to say, subjected to vicissitudes of tem-
perature.

5. σφακελίσασαν] 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 zz-
ventute vi 470% 31 λέγεται σφακελίζειν
καὶ ἀστρόβλητα γίνεσθαι τὰ δένδρα περὶ
τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους.

τὸ σπέρμα] i.e. τὸν μυελόν : cf. 73 6.

6. τὸ τῶν νεύρων] By νεῦρα Plato
always means tendons or ligaments, not
nerves, which were entirely unknown to.
him. Aristotle always uses the word in
the same sense: see de fartibus anti-
malium τι ii 647> τό τὰ δὲ ξηρὰ καὶ στερεὰ
τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν ἐστίν, οἷον ὀστοῦν ἄκανθα
νεῦρον φλέψ. The nature, almost the ex-
istence, of the nerves was not discovered
till considerably after Plato’s time:
Erasistratos, who flourished in the next
century, is said to have been the first-who
ascertained their functions. Aristotle
seems to have had some sort of vague

a ie TIMAIOS. 275

made joints in it, using the power of the Other as an inter-
mediary between the parts, for the sake of moving and bending
them. But deeming that the structure of bone was too rigid
and inflexible, and that should it be inflamed and cooled again,
it would rot away and quickly destroy the seed within it, for this -
cause God devised the sinews and the flesh, that binding all the
limbs together with the former he might by their tension and
relaxation round their pivots enable the body to bend and ex-
tend itself; while the flesh he designed as a defence against
heat and a shelter from cold; and moreover that it might be,
like coverings of felt, a protection against falls, gently and easily
yielding to external bodies; and containing a warm moisture
within itself, in summer it might exude this, and spreading
dampness on the surface might diffuse a natural coolness over
all the body; but in winter on the other hand it might by its
own fire afford a fair protection against the frost that assailed
and surrounded it from without. Considering this, he that
moulded us like wax made a mixture and blending of water
and fire and earth; and compounding a ferment of acid and salt

knowledge of the optic and olfactory
nerves, which he calls πόροι: cf. de parti-
bus animalium 11 xii 656 16 ἐκ μὲν οὖν
τῶν ὀφθαλμῷῴν οἱ πόροι φέρουσιν els τὰς
περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον φλέβας" πάλιν δ᾽ ἐκ
τῶν ὥτων ὡσαύτως πόρος εἰς τοὔπισθεν
συνάπτει : also historia animalium 1 xvi
495° 11 φέρουσι δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τρεῖς
πόροι εἰς τὸν ἐγκέφαλον, ὁ μὲν μέγιστος καὶ
ὁ μέσος εἰς τὴν παρεγκεφαλίδα ὁ δ᾽ ἐλάχισ-
τος εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐλάχιστος δ᾽
ἐστὶν ὁ πρὸς τῷ μυκτῆρι μάλιστα. About
the auditory nerve he gives a very con-
fused statement, apparently, as Martin
observes, mistaking for it the Eusta-
chian ‘tube: 7d. 492% 19 τοῦτο δ᾽ εἰς μὲν
τὸν ἐγκέφαλον οὐκ ἔχει πόρον, els δὲ τὸν
τοῦ στόματος οὐρανόν. Aristotle’s notions
concerning the brain are sufficient evi-
dence that he did not really understand
anything about the nature of the nerves.
That Alkmaion was acquainted with the
optic nerves, notwithstanding the state-
ment of Kallisthenes adduced by Chalci-

dius, seems highly improbable: indeed
the words of Kallisthenes, as there: re-
ported, hardly amount to this.

9. προβολήν ... πρόβλημα]![ There
seems to be absolutely no difference in
meaning between these two words, and
the juxtaposition of two closely cognate
forms without any distinction of sense is
strange. Is it possible that we ought to

-read προβολὴν in both cases? Plato, like

Sophokles, is given to repeating the same
word with μὲν and δέ; as in Phaedrus
247 Ὁ καθορᾷ μὲν αὐτὴν δικαιοσύνην,
καθορᾷ δὲ σωφροσύνην, καθορᾷ δὲ ἐπὶ-
στήμην : see too below 87 A ποικίλλει μέν
«ποικίλλει 6€. 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 διενοήθη must be mentally supplied.

13- οἰκεῖον] contrasted with τὸν mepi-
φερόμενον ἔξωθεν.

16. καὶ γῇ] I see no sufficient reason

ν 18---2

5

276 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [74 C—

ζύμωμα καὶ ὑπομίξας αὐτοῖς, σάρκα ἔγχυμον καὶ μαλακὴν ξυνέ-
'στησε τὴν δὲ τῶν νεύρων φύσιν ἐξ ὀστοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀζύμου κρά-
σεὼς μίαν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν μέσην δυνάμει ξυνεκεράσατο, ξανθῷ χρώματι
προσχρώμενος. ὅθεν συντονωτέραν μὲν καὶ γλισχροτέραν σαρκῶν,
μαλακωτέραν δὲ ὀστῶν ὑγροτέραν τε ἐκτήσατο δύναμιν νεῦρα. οἷς
ξυμπεριλαβὼν ὁ θεὲς ὀστᾶ καὶ μυελόν, δήσας πρὸς ἄλληλα νεύ-

Ἀ A \ Ud >’ \ / “Μ᾿ a \
pots, μετὰ ταῦτα σαρξὶ πάντα αὐτὰ κατεσκίασεν ἄνωθεν. ὅσα μὲν E

. ΕῚ ΄ - ’ “a 3 >» / . , ᾿ “Ὁ >
οὖν ἐμψυχότατα τῶν ὀστῶν ἦν, ὀλυγίσταις συνέφραττε σαρξίν, ἃ ὃ

> , 2 , 4 \ U ‘ \ > ee \
ἀψυχότατα ἐντός, πλείσταις Kal πυκνοτάταις. καὶ δὴ Kal κατὰ

‘ ‘ fal > a 4 ΄ , x « , ᾽
10 τὰς ξυμβολᾶς τῶν ὀστῶν, ὅπῃ μή τινα ἀνάγκην ὃ λόγος ἀπέφαινε

15

20

δεῖν αὐτὰς εἶναι, βραχεῖαν σάρκα ἔφυσεν, ἵνα μήτε ἐμποδὼν ταῖς
καμπαῖσιν οὖσαι δύσφορα τὰ σώματα ἀπεργάζοιντο, ἅτε δυσκίνητα
γιγνόμενα, μήτ᾽ αὖ πολλαὶ καὶ πυκναὶ σφόδρα τε ἐν ἀλλήλαις
ἐμπεπιλημέναι, διὰ στερεότητα ἀναισθησίαν ἐμποιοῦσαι, δυσμνη-
μονευτότερα καὶ κωφότερα τὰ περὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ποιοῖεν. διὸ δὴ τό

n A \ A \ \ \ \ a > , , / Lar
TE TWY LNPOV καὶ κνημων Καὶ TO TEDL τὴν τῶν LOX LOV φύσιν τὰ TE

᾿ \ tod 4 > a \ \ a , \ oa bs
[περὶ ta] τῶν βραχιόνων ὀστᾶ καὶ Ta τῶν πήχεων, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα
« a v a > ‘ tA -“ 9 > , -“ > an
ἡμῶν avapOoa, ὅσα τε ἐντὸς ὀστᾷ δι᾽ ὀλιγότητα ψυχῆς ἐν μυελῷ
n >
κενά ἐστι φρονήσεως, ταῦτα πάντα συμπεπλήρωται σαρξίν" ὅσα ὃ
, Ψ
ἔμφρονα, ἧττον, εἰ μή πού τινα αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν αἰσθήσεων ἕνεκα

1 καὶ ante ὑπομίξας omittunt AHZ. 3 ἐξ ἀμφοῖν : συναμφοῖν supra scripto ἐξ A.
17 περὶ τὰ inclusi, quae retinet H. omittunt SZ.

for abandoning the reading of all the ὀστέῳ πεφύκασι, καὶ τρέφονται δὲ τὸ

mss., since σάρκα is readily supplied as the
object of ξυμμίξας : and if γῆν be read,
καὶ is positively bad. The insertion of
καὶ before ὑπομίξας seems to me, in this
accumulation of participles, almost neces-
sary, although it is lacking in A.

1. ζύμωμα] This means a fermented
mixture: it would seem to be intended
thereby to explain the combined softness
and elasticity of flesh. Flesh could also
be made of unfermented materials, as we
presently see: ἐξ ὀστοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀζύμου:
but the difference in the composition is
not stated.

2. τὴν τῶν νεύρων φύσιν] The de-
scription of νεῦρα tallies closely with
that given by Hippokrates de ἐρεῖς in
homine vol. 11. p. 107 Kiihn τὰ δὲ νεῦρα
ξηρά τέ ἐστι καὶ ἀκοίλια καὶ πρὸς. τῷ

πλεῖστον ἐκ τοῦ ὀστέου, τρέφονται δὲ καὶ
ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκός, καὶ τὴν χροὴν καὶ τὴν
ἰσχὺν μεταξὺ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ ὀστέου
πεφύκασι. καὶ ὑγρότερα μέν εἰσι τοῦ
ὀστέου καὶ σαρκοειδέστερα, ξηρότερα δὲ ἢ
αἱ σάρκες καὶ ὀστοειδέστερα. This extract
will explain the meaning of μέσην δυνά-

-μει.

5. οἷς ξυμπεριλαβών] The reference
of οἷς is to νεῦρα.

ἡ. ὅσα μὲν οὖν ἐμψυχότατα] This
rather curious expression denotes the
bones which contain the greatest amount
of marrow—marrow being the seat of
life. By these are meant the bones of
the skull and the vertebral process only;
since it is clear from what Plato says
a little below (διὸ δὴ τό τε τῶν μηρῶν
κιτ.λ.) that he entirely distinguished be-

75 Al TIMAIOS, | 277°.

he mingled it with them and produced soft flesh full of sap : the
sinews he composed of bone and unfermented flesh, a separate
substance having an intermediate function; and to this he added
a yellow colour. Accordingly the sinews received a power more
firm and tenacious than the flesh, but more soft and flexible
than the bones.

With these God covered the bones and marrow; and after he
had bound one part to another with sinews, he enveloped them
over all with flesh. Those bones which were chiefly inhabited
‘by soul, he enclosed with the smallest amount of flesh; but
those wherein was least soul he covered most abundantly and
densely with it: moreover at the joints of the bones, save where
reason showed that it ought to be there, he put but little flesh,
that neither it might render the body unwieldy by hindering its
flexions and impeding its motions, nor again that a dense mass
of flesh piled together, producing by its hardness a dulness of
sensation, might render the faculties of the mind too slow of
memory and hard of apprehension. Wherefore the thighs and
the shins and the parts about the hips and the bones in the
upper arms and the fore-arms and all parts of our limbs which
are without joints, and all bones which are devoid of intelligence
owing to the small amount of soul inhering in marrow within
them, all these are abundantly furnished with flesh; but those
which are the seat of intelligence have less: except in cases

tween the substance contained in the
spinal column and what we call ‘marrow’
in other bones, which he does not ac-
count as μνελὸς at all. Aristotle, owing
to his complete misconception of the
functions belonging to the brain and
spinal marrow, is much less clear on
this point: see de partibus animalium
11 v 6515 32. It is true that Plato
assigns as the reason for the fleshiness
of the arms, thighs, &c, that these bones
are dvap@pa: still, had they contained
μυελός, that would have been a reason
for giving them a thin covering of flesh.

11. αὐτάς] sc. τὰς σάρκας.

14. ἐμπεπιλημέναι) If from too much
crowding the substance of the flesh be-
came very stiff and solid, the free motions

of its particles would be impeded, and
consequently sensations would with diffi-
culty make their way to the conscious-
ness: cf. 64 B. This rather seems to
apply to the density of the flesh than
to its quantity; but doubtless the same
effect might be produced by both,

20. εἰ μή που] The only instance in
which an acutely sensitive part is of a
fleshy nature is when the flesh itself is
the instrument of perception; as in the
case of the tongue, and that only. Of
course in all cases the external πάθημα
is conveyed through the flesh to the con-
scious centre; but in general the flesh
is only the medium of transmission, and
the less. flesh there is to traverse, the
more speedily and clearly will the sen-

-
on

278

TIAATONO®

> / € \ > > Ul / \ F , »
ἐκείνως" 9 γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης γιγνομένη καὶ ξυντρεφομένη φύσις
> A le
οὐδαμῇ προσδέχεται πυκνὸν ὀστοῦν καὶ σάρκα πολλὴν ἅμα TER
αὐτοῖς ὀξυήκοον αἴσθησιν. μάλιστα γὰρ ἂν αὐτὰ πάντων ἔσχεν ἡ
\

5 περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ξύστασις, εἴπερ ἅμα ξυμπίπτειν ἠθελησάτην, καὶ
\ a ’ 4 , , » 54,3 « a \ /
τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος σαρκώδη ἔχον ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ καὶ νευρώδη.
Kpatepav τε κεφαλὴν βίον ἂν διπλοῦν καὶ πολλαπλοῦν καὶ ὕγιει-

fa) a P a a
νότερον Kal ἀλυπότερον τοῦ νῦν Κατεκτήσατο" Viv δὲ τοῖς περὶ τὴν
ἡμετέραν γένεσιν δημιουργοῖς ἀναλογιζομένοις, πότερον πολυ-
10 Ypoviwrepov χεῖρον ἢ βραχυχρονιώτερον βέλτιον ἀπεργάσαιντο
, ‘ “ / , / / Ν > /
γένος, συνέδοξε τοῦ πλείονος βίου, φαυλοτέρου δέ, τὸν ἐλάττονα
ἀμείνονα ὄντα παντὶ πάντως αἱρετέον: ὅθεν δὴ μανῷ μὲν ὀστῷ,
\ \ \ ͵ , “ 2A \ ” >
σαρξὶ δὲ καὶ νεύροις κεφαλήν, ἅτε οὐδὲ καμπὰς ἔχουσαν, ov Evve-
στέγασαν. κατὰ πάντα οὖν ταῦτα εὐαισθητοτέρα μὲν καὶ φρονιμω-
\ \ 3 / ‘\ 4 \ / \
τέρα, πολὺ δὲ ἀσθενεστέρα παντὸς ἀνδρὸς προσετέθη κεφαλὴ
σώματι. τὰ δὲ νεῦρα διὰ ταῦτα καὶ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτην τὴν
μ ᾿ ‘ \ \ U RT: ς Lf
κεφαλὴν περιστήσας κύκλῳ περὶ τὸν τράχηλον ἐκόλλησεν ὁμοιό-

9 ἀναλογιζομένοις : λογιζομένοις 8.

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. ἡ γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης] 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 κενὸν φρονήσεως :
it has no power of perceiving anything
apart from the mere sense of touch re-
siding in its nerves; whereas the parts
containing μυελὸς are centres of conscious-
ness, and the fleshy structure of the

12 τῷ ante μανῷ habet A.

13 οὐ delet A.

tongue is the organ of a special mode
of sensation.

4. μάλιστα γάρ] 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 animalium τ xii 656 15 οὐ
γὰρ ὥσπερ τινὲς λέγουσιν, ὅτι εἰ σαρκώδης
ἦν, μακροβιώτερον ἂν ἣν τὸ γένος" ἀλλ᾽
εὐαισθησίας ἕνεκεν ἄσαρκον cival φασιν"
αἰσθάνεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ, τὴν
δ᾽ αἴσθησιν οὐ προσίεσθαι τὰ μόρια τὰ
σαρκώδη λίαν. τούτων δ᾽ οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν
ἀληθές, ἀλλὰ πολύσαρκος μὲν ὁ τόπος ὧν ὁ
περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον τοὐναντίον ἂν ἀπειργά-
fero ὧν ἕνεκα ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῴοις ὁ ἐγκέ-
φαλος: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο καταψύχειν
ἀλεαίνων αὐτὸς λίαν’ τῶν δ᾽ αἰσθήσεων
οὐκ αἴτιος οὐδεμιᾶς, ὅς γε ἀναίσθητος καὶ

[75.4--:

σάρκα οὕτω ξυνέστησεν, οἷον τὸ τῆς γλώττης εἶδος. τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα

σ

D

ΒΕ 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

αὐτός ἐστιν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν τῶν περιττω-
μάτων. Aristotle is, I believe, to a cer-
tain extent right in his assertion respect-
ing the ἀναισθησία of the brain; so that
we have here again an instance of his
drawing a false conclusion from correct
data.
who affirmed an ἀκίνητος ἀρχὴ κινήσεως
need not have felt much difficulty about
an ἀναίσθητος ἀρχὴ αἰσθήσεως.

αὐτά] i.e. a strong protective cover-
ing along with keenness of sensation.

13. σαρξὶ δὲ Kal νεύροις] Hippo-
krates also denies that the head has νεῦρα :
de locis in homine vol. 11. p. 108 Kiihn
καὶ τὸ μὲν σῶμα πᾶν ἔμπλεον νεύρων, περὶ
δὲ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν οὐκ ἔστι
νεῦρα. ;

14. εὐαισθητότερα] i.e. more sen-
sitive than it would have been had the
gods taken a different view.

One might have supposed that he -

16. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτην τὴν κεφαλήν] Plato
supposes the νεῦρα to pass up the neck
and terminate at the base of the head,
made fast to the jawbone.

17. ἐκόλλησεν ὁμοιότητι] It is im-
possible that ὁμοιότητι can simply stand
for ὁμοίως, as Stallbaum asserts; nor is
he justified by the passage he cites, Re-
public 535 A, ἔτι οὖν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἀπισ-
τοῦμεν μὴ κατὰ τὴν ὀλιγαρχουμένην πόλιν
ὁμοιότητι τὸν φειδωλόν Te καὶ χρηματιστὴν
τετάχθαι; there obviously the. meaning
is that the φειδωλὸς and χρηματιστὴς are
ranked as corresponding to the oligarchi-
cal state because of their resemblance to
it; and similarly in 576 c, ὅ ye τυραν-
νικὸς κατὰ τὴν τυραννουμένην πόλιν ἂν ely
ὁμοιότητι. In like manner I think we
must take it here as an instrumental
dative.

15

280

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[75 D—

* . ᾽ a = . ‘

THTL, καὶ τὰς σιωγόνας ἄκρας αὐτοῖς ξυνέδησεν ὑπὸ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ
‘ \ > ες > “ \ , fs ,
προσώπου" τὰ δ᾽. ἄλλα εἰς ἅπαντα τὰ μέλη διέσπειρε, ξυνάπτων

ν ΕΝ \ \ \ a , € a , ᾽ a

ἄρθρον ἄρθρῳ. τὴν δὲ 8) τοῦ στόματος ἡμῶν δύναμιν ὀδοῦσι καὶ
γλώττῃ καὶ χείλεσιν ἕνεκα τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ τῶν ἀρίστων διε-
5 κύσμησαν οἱ διακοσμοῦντες, 4% νῦν διατέτακται, τὴν μὲν εἴσοδον
τῶν ἀναγκαίων μηχανώμενοι χάριν, τὴν δ᾽ ἔξοδον τῶν ἀρίστων"
ἀναγκαῖον μὲν γὰρ πᾶν ὅσον εἰσέρχεται τροφὴν διδὸν τῷ σώματι,

\ ’ a »” ev a‘ rn , ,ὔ
τὸ δὲ λόγων νᾶμα ἔξω ῥέον καὶ ὑπηρετοῦν φρονήσει κάλλιστον καὶ
ἄριστον πάντων ναμάτων... τὴν δ᾽ αὖ κεφαλὴν οὔτε μόνον ὀστεΐνην
\ Ἁ ».» \ \ > an [4 > > id , «
το ψιλὴν δυνατὸν ἐᾶν ἦν διὰ τὴν ἐν ταῖς ὥραις ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον ὕὗπερ-
, ΓΕ a \ \ ? , Ν \ a

βολήν, οὔτ᾽ αὖ ξυσκιασθεῖσαν κωφὴν καὶ ἀναίσθητον διὰ τὸν τῶν

σαρκῶν ὄχλον περιιδεῖν γιγνομένην.

τῆς 8) σαρκοειδοῦς φύσεως

[ov] καταξηραινομένης λέμμα μεῖζον περιγιγνόμενον ἐχωρίζετο,
δέρμα τὸ νῦν λεγόμενον.. τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον
νοτίδα ξυνιὸν αὐτὸ πρὸς αὑτὸ καὶ βλααπάνον κύκχῳ περιημφιέννυε
\ ’ ¢ \ Ἀ ς \ \ 4 \ > la) s \ ,
τὴν κεφαλήν" ἡ δὲ νοτὶς ὑπὸ Tas papas ἀνιοῦσα. npde Kal συνέ-
1 a, Te 18. \ ΄ ied a Ἀ \ “

κλεισεν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφήν, οἷον ἅμμα Evvayayodoa’ τὸ δὲ τῶν
ῥαφῶν παντοδαπὸν εἶδος γέγονε διὰ τὴν τῶν περιόδων δύναμιν καὶ

13 οὐ inclusi a tribus codicibus omissum. servant AHSZ.

ἐχωρίζετο : ἐχώριζε τό A.

4. τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ τῶν ἀρίστων]
This distinction differs from that of ἀναγ-
καῖα and θεῖα in 68 E; for here both
ἀναγκαῖα and ἄριστα are an end, not
a means.

8. λόγων νᾶμα] Compare the meta-
phor in Euripides Aippolytus 653 ἁγὼ
ῥυτοῖς νασμοῖσιν ἐξομόρξομαι | els ὦτα κλύ-
ἕων. Somewhat similar is the metaphor
in Phaedrus 243 D, ποτίμῳ λόγῳ οἷον ἁλ-
μυρὰν ἀκοὴν ἀποκλύσασθαι.

10. ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον sc. ἐπὶ πνῖγος καὶ
ψῦχος.

II. τὸν τῶν σαρκῶν ὄχλον] cf. 42°C
τὸν πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ ὕστερον προσφύντα
ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς.

13. [οὐ] καταξηραινομένης] Notwith-
standing the approximate unanimity of
the mss., I do not see how it is possible
to reconcile od with the sense. Surely the
λέμμα is formed by the drying of the sur-
face of the flesh. The Engelmann trans-
Jator indeed says it is ‘durch den Sinn er-

14 δέρμα post τὸ vdv λεγόμενον ponit 5,

fordert’, and rendérs if ‘ welche nicht aus-
getrocknet war’: but obviously this would
require: καταξηρανθείσης; I suspect we
ought to read.ad.

λέμμα μεῖζον] λέμμα. is-a peel or rind:
the skin, according to Plato’s concep-
tion, is analogous to the membranous
film which forms on the surface of
boiled milk, for instance, when exposed
to the air: cf. Aristotle de generatione
animalium 11 vi. 743° 5 τὸ δὲ δέρμα ξη-
ραινομένης τῆς σαρκὸς γίνεται, καθάπερ
ἐπὶ. τοῖς ἑψήμασιν ἡ λεγομένη γραῦς.
Aristotle’s language, it may be observed
by the way, supports the omission of οὐ
before καταξηραινομένης. As to μεῖζον,
I see nothing for it but to acquiesce in
Lindau’s ‘dixit vero μεῖζον, quod cetera
amplectitur’: but I cannot believe that
the word is genuine. That Plato should
think it necessary to point out that the
envelope is greater than that which it
envelopes is altogether incredible: but

E

76A

76 A] “TIMAIOS, 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
emendation.

14. ϑέρμα] Is this meant to be de-
rived from λέμμαϑ The viv looks like
it; and Plato’s etymological audacity has
adventured things xévrepa'than this.

διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον νοτίδα]
Plato is explaining how it comes to
pass that the skull is covered with
skin, although, according to his account,
there is no flesh upon it. He regards it
as an extension of the skin on the face
and neck, which grows up over the head
from all sides, being nourished by the
moisture belonging to the brain, and
meets on the summit (ξυνιὸν αὐτὸ πρὸς
αὑτό). Thereupon the moisture, issuing
through the sutures, penetrates the skin
and causes it to take root on the head
and to grow firmly together where it
meets in the middle, as it were fastened
in a knot (οἷον ἅμμα ξυναγαγοῦσα).

17. τὸ δὲ τῶν ῥαφῶν] The number
and diversity of the sutures depends upon
the violence of the struggle described in
43 B foll. between the influx of aliment
and the revolutions of the soul acting
through the brain. There is a passage
of Hippokrates which curiously falls in
with Plato’s connexion of the sutures
with the soul’s περίοδοι: de capitis vul-
neribus vol. WI p. 347 Kiihn ὅστις μη-
δετέρωθι μηδεμίαν προβολὴν ἔχει, οὗτος
ἔχει τὰς ῥαφὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς ὡς γράμμα τὸ
x? γράφεται: that is to say, the rounder
the head the more nearly does the form
of the sutures approximate to that of the
letter X, which is the form of the inter-
section of the two circles. When the
head is prominent in front, says Hippo-
krates, the sutures resemble T; when
protuberent behind, the figure is reversed,

; if protuberent both before and behind,
the sutures form the figure H. Thus in

1

1

2

282. ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [76 A—.
lol ” a A “- , ’ ’ La
τῆς τροφῆς, μᾶλλον μὲν ἀλλήλοις μαχομένων τούτων πλείους, ἧττον B
δὲ ἐλάττους. τοῖτο δὴ πᾶν τὸ δέρμα κύκλῳ κατεκέντει πυρὶ τὸ
θεῖον, τρωθέντος δὲ καὶ τῆς ἰκμάδος ἔξω δι’ αὐτοῦ φερομένης τὸ μὲν
«ε \ ‘ “ ¢. \ ν᾽ 2 A \ Ν 3 ia ‘4 ν.
ὑγρὸν καὶ θερμὸν ὅσον εἱλικρινὲς ἀπήειν, τὸ δὲ μικτὸν ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὸ
5 δέρμα ἦν, αἰρόμενον μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς φορᾶς ἔξω μακρὸν ἐτείνετο, λεπ-
τότητα ἴσην ἔχον τῷ κατακεντήματι, διὰ δὲ βραδυτῆτα ἀπωθούμε-
νον ὑπὸ τοῦ περιεστῶτος ἔξωθεν πνεύματος πάλιν ἐντὸς ὑπὸ τὸ
δέρμα εἱχλόμενον κατερριζοῦτο, καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα δὴ τὰ πάθη τὸ
τριχῶν γένος ἐν τῷ δέρματι πέφυκε, ξυγγενὲς μὲν ἱμαντῶδες ὃν
αὐτοῦ, σκληρότερον δὲ καὶ πυκνότερον τῇ πιλήσει τῆς ψύξεως,
a ᾽ ͵ , ς΄. ἢ ‘ a ,
ἣν ἀποχωριζομένη δέρματος ἑκάστη θρὶξ ψυχθεῖσα συνεπιλήθη.
τούτῳ δὴ λασίαν ἡμῶν ἀπειργάσατο τὴν κεφαλὴν ὁ ποιῶν, χρώ-
μενος μὲν αἰτίοις τοῖς εἰρημένοις, διανοούμενος δὲ ἀντὶ σαρκὸς
αὐτὸ δεῖν εἶναι στέγασμα τῆς περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἕνεκα ἀσφα-

ο

on

λείας κοῦφον καὶ θέρους χειμῶνός τε ἱκανὸν σκιὰν Kal σκέπην D
παρέχειν, εὐαισθησίας δὲ οὐδὲν διακώλυμα ἐμποδὼν γενησόμενον.
τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ περὶ τοὺς δακτύλους καταπλοκῇ τοῦ νεύρου καὶ τοῦ
δέρματος ὀστοῦ τε, ξυμμιχθὲν ἐκ τριῶν, ἀποξηρανθὲν ἕν κοινὸν
ξυμπάντων σκληρὸν γέγονε δέρμα, τοῖς μὲν ξυναιτίοις τούτοις δη-
μιουργηθέν, τῇ δὲ αἰτιωτάτῃ διανοίᾳ τῶν ἔπειτα ἐσομένων ἕνεκα

ο

3 τρωθέντος : τρηθέντος SZ.
8 τὸ τριχῶν : τὸ τῶν τριχῶν 8.

so far as the shape of the head departs

from the spherical or normal shape, in-

the same degree the sutures depart from
the figure X; and in the same degree we
may suppose the struggle between the
περίοδοι and the κῦμα τῆς τροφῆς to have
been long and severe. The treatise con-
cerning wounds on the head is one of
those considered to be the genuine work
of Hippokrates. In 92A we find that
in the lower animals the ἀργία τῶν περι-
φορῶν causes the head to assume an elon-
gated shape.

2. τὸ θεῖον] i.e. the brain, which is
the seat of τὸ θεῖον. Plato now passes
to the growth of the hair, which he
thus explains. The skin of the head
is punctured all over by the fire issuing
from the brain: through the punctures
moisture escapes, of which so much as

7 ὑπὸ τοῦ : ἀπὸ τοῦ A.
10 πυκνότερον: πυκνώτερον 8.

is pure evaporates and disappears ; but
that which contains an admixture of the
substances composing the skin is forced
outward in a cylindrical form fitting the
size of the punctures. But owing to the
slowness of its growth and the resistance
of the surrounding atmosphere, the hair
is pushed backwards, so that the end
becomes rooted under the skin. Thus
the hair is composed of the same sub-
stance as the skin, but by refrigeration
and compression has become more hard
and dense. As to its identity with the
skin Aristotle agrees: cf. de gen. anim.
II vi 745? 20 ὄνυχες δὲ καὶ τρίχες καὶ Ké-
para καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐκ τοῦ δέρματος, διὸ
καὶ συμμεταβάλλουσι τῷ δέρματι τὰς χρόας.

3. τρωθέντος] The suggestion τρη-
θέντος is certainly tempting: but the mss.
are unanimous, and I retain their reading,

Ρ] TIMAIOS. 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 was 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. ἀπήειν] They at once departed in
the course of nature to their own habita-
tion: but the earthier substance, having
no such impulse, was forced back by the
pressure of the atmosphere.

8. εἱλλόμενον] ‘rolled up’: see note
on 40 B.

13. αἰτίοις rots εἰρημένοις] i.e. the
subsidiary physical causes aforesaid: the
final cause is given next. ,

16. γενησόμενον] Note the change
of construction: the future participle
stands in the place of δεῖν εἶναι in the
prior cause.

17. καταπλοκῇ] That is to say, the
three substances of tendon skin and bone
are interwoven into one homogeneous
body and completely dried; out of this

here differs somewhat from Aristotle’s as
cited above.

20. τῶν ἔπειτα ἐσομένων ἕνεκα] This
is a very singular declaration. The nails,
by this account, are formed solely for the
development they will afterwards attain
in the inferior animals, as though they
were of no use whatsoever to mankind.
The importance of them is no doubt more
conspicuous in beasts and birds; but
Plato’s theory certainly appears rather
paradoxically to ignore their value to
the human race. There is however a
curious approximation to Darwinism in
his statement: the nails appeared first
in a rudimentary form in the human race;
and afterwards in course of evolution the
claws of the lion and the talons of the

284

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[76 p—.

εἰργασμένον. ὡς yap ποτε ἐξ ἀνδρῶν γυναῖκες καὶ τἄλλα θηρία
γενήσοιντο, ἠπίσταντο οἱ ξυνιστάντες ἡμᾶς, καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς τῶν E
ὀνύχων χρείας ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν θρεμμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ πολλὰ δεήσοιτο
ἤδεσαν, ὅθεν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐθὺς γιγνομένοις ὑπετυπώσαντο τὴν
τῶν ὀνύχων γένεσιν: τούτῳ δὴ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ταῖς πρόφάσεσι
ταύταις δέρμα τρίχας «τ᾽» ὄνυχάς τε ἐπ᾽ ἄκροις τοῖς κώλοις

ἔφυσαν.

XXXIV. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντ᾽ ἦν τὰ τοῦ θνητοῦ ζῴου ξυμπεφυ-

κότα μέρη καὶ μέλη, τὴν δὲ ζωὴν ἐν πυρὶ καὶ πνεύματι ξυνέβαινεν 77 A

3 ᾽ / Μ ? led \ \ fal ¢ \ , /
το ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχειν αὐτῷ, Kal διὰ ταῦτα ὑπὸ τούτων τηκόμενον κε-

νούμενόν τ᾽ ἔφθινε, βοήθειαν αὐτῷ θεοὶ μηχανῶνται.

τῆς γὰρ

ἀνθρωπίνης ξυγγενῆ φύσεως φύσιν ἄλλαις ἰδέαις καὶ αἰσθήσεσι
κεραννύντες, ὥσθ᾽ ἕτερον ζῷον εἶναι, φυτεύουσιν: ἃ δὴ νῦν ἥμερα

3 δεήσοιτο : δεήσοιντο A,

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. τρίχας «τ᾽ -- ὀνυχάς te] I have
taken upon me to insert τε, since I do
not believe δέρμα τρίχας ὄνυχάς Te can be
Greek. It may be noticed that this cor-
rection almost restores a hexameter verse :
δέρμα τρίχας τ᾽ ὄνυχάς τ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄκροις κώ-

λοισιν ἔφυσαν.

Is Plato quoting from some old physical.

poet? Empedokles might have written
such a line.

76 E—77C, ¢. 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-

6 τ᾽ inserui.

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.

9. μέρη καὶ μέλη] For this combi-
nation compare Laws 795 Ε τῶν τοῦ σώ-
ματος αὐτοῦ μελῶν τε καὶ μερῶν : and Phi-
lebus 14 E ὅταν τις ἑκαστοῦ τὰ μέλη τε καὶ
ἅμα μέρη διελὼν τῷ λόγῳ. The distinc-
tion between the terms is thus defined by
Aristotle historia animalium 1 i 4868 8
τῶν δὲ τοιούτων ἔνια οὐ μόνον μέρη ἀλλὰ
καὶ μέλη καλεῖται τοιαῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅσα
τῶν μερῶν ὅλα ὄντα ἕτερα μέρη ἔχει ἐν
αὑτοῖς, οἷον κεφαλὴ καὶ σκέλος καὶ χεὶρ
καὶ ὅλος ὁ βραχίων καὶ ὁ θώραξ" ταῦτα
γὰρ αὐτά τέ ἐστι μέρη ὅλα, καὶ ἔστιν αὐτῶν
ἕτερα μόρια. A μέλος then is that which
is part of a whole, but is yet in itself
a definite whole.

τὴν δὲ ζωὴν ἐν πυρὶ καὶ πνεύματι]
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. 78D.
These two elements in fact keep up the
vital movement of the human body.

το. τηκόμενον κενούμενόν te] Sc.

ee TIMAIOS.

yet existing. For our creators were aware that men should pass
into women, and afterwards into beasts; and they knew that
many creatures would need the aid. of nails for many purposes:
wherefore at the very birth of the human race they fashioned
the rudiments of nails. On such reasoning and with such
purposes did they form skin and hair, and on the extremities of
the limbs nails. \

XXXIV. Now when all the parts and members of the
mortal being were created in union, and since his life was made
perforce dependent upon fire and air, and therefore his body
suffered waste through being dissolved and left void by these,
the gods devised succour for him. They engendered another
nature akin to the nature of man, blending it with other forms

285

and sensations, so as to be another kind of animal.

τηκόμενον ὑπὸ πυρός, κενούμενον ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος.
Plato enters more fully into this in 88 6
foll.

12. ἄλλαις ἰδέαις Kal αἰσθήσεσι
Plants are akin to the nature οὗ man-
kind, inasmuch as they are animated by
the same vital principle and are formed
out of similar physical materials, so that
they are able to repair the waste of the
human structure. But the form of these
organisms is diverse from man’s, and
their mode of sensation is peculiar to
themselves. Whether Plato was a vege-
tarian or not, it is clear that he regards
vegetables as the natural and primaeval
food of man: see below 80 £, and Zfr-
nomts 975 A ἔστω δὴ πρῶτον μὲν ἡ τῆς
ἀλληλοφαγίας τῶν ἕῴων ἡμᾶς τῶν μέν, ὡς
ὁ μῦθός ἐστι, τὸ παράπαν -«ἀποστήσασα,
τῶν δὲ εἰς τὴν νόμιμον ἐδωδὴν καταστή-
σασα. We must of course allow for the
possibility that the author of the Z/1-
nomis has overstated Plato’s disappro-
bation of animal diet,

13. ἃ δὴ viv ἥμερα δένδρα] So then
the device of the gods for the preserva-
tion of human life was not the invention
‘of plants, but their cultivation: plants
themselves existed as part of the general
order of nature. It thus appears that
in Plato’s scheme plants do not, like the

These are

inferior animals, arise by degeneration
from the human form. For as soon as
man was first created, he would have
need of plants to provide him with sus-
tenance. It would appear then that in
the Platonic mythology the erring soul
in the course of her transmigrations does
not enter any of the forms of plant-life ;
though the contrary was the belief of
Empedokles—#in γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ γενόμην
κοῦρός τε κόρη Te| θάμνος τ᾽ olwvos τε
καὶ εἰν ἁλὶ ἔλλοπος ἰχθύς. Martin how-
ever is mistaken in inferring this con-
clusion from the fact that plants possess
only the third εἶδος of soul; this third
εἶδις is simply the one vital force acting
exclusively through matter—a degree of
degeneracy to which any human soul,
according to the theory of metempsy-
chosis, might sink: indeed there are
forms of what we call animal life, which
are clearly within the limits of transmi-
gration, but which possess little, if any,
more independent activity of ψυχὴ than
do plants. The simultaneous appearance’
of mankind and of plants in the world,
while all intermediate forms of animal
life are absent, is curious, and could
hardly, I think, be defended upon onto-
logical grounds.

286 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[77 A—

, ‘ \ \ , “4 ὀ.Ἀ . “ff
δένδρα καὶ φυτὰ καὶ σπέρματα παιδευθέντα ὑπὸ γεωργίας τιυ-
θασῶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔσχε, πρὶν δὲ ἦν μόνα τὰ τῶν ἀγρίων γένη,
πρεσβύτερα τῶν ἡμέρων ἔντα. πᾶν γὰρ οὖν, ὅ τί περ ἂν μετάσχῃ B
τοῦ ζῆν, ζῷον μὲν ἂν ἐν δίκῃ λέγοιτο ὀρθότατα' μετέχει γε μὴν
τοῦτο, ὃ νῦν λέγομεν, τοῦ τρίτου ψυχῆς εἴδους, ὃ μεταξὺ φρενῶν
ὀμφαλοῦ τε ἱδρῦσθαι λόγος, ᾧ δόξης μὲν λογισμοῦ τε καὶ νοῦ

, \ ’ > , Ν ¢ / \ 3 a ‘ »>
μέτεστι τὸ μηδέν, αἰσθήσεως δὲ ἡδείας καὶ ἀλγεινῆς μετὰ ἐπιθυ-
μιῶν. πάσχον γὰρ διατελεῖ πάντα, στραφέντι δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐν ἑαυτῷ
περὶ ἑαυτό, τὴν μὲν ἔξωθεν ἀπωσαμένῳ κίνησιν, τῇ δ᾽ οἰκείᾳ
χρησαμένῳ, τῶν αὑτοῦ τι λογίσασθαι κατιδόντι φύσιν οὐ παρα- Ο

δέδ ε "4 ὃ \ ὃ A a \ 4 Φ 4 & , /
wKev ἡ γένεσις. διὸ On ζῇ μὲν ἔστι τε οὐχ ἕτερον ζῴου, μόνιμον

10 αὑτοῦ : αὐτοῦ A.

φύσιν : φύσει Α.

2. ἔσχε] i.e. attained the condition
in which now they are.

3. πᾶν yap οὖν] 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 hetween ‘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 fw) and ψυχή, but he does not
allow them alo@no.s: see de anima 1 v
410° 23 φαίνεται yap τὰ φυτὰ ζῆν οὐ
μετέχοντα φορᾶς καὶ αἰσθήσεως: cf. 11 ii
4138 25, and ἐδ partibus animalium 1 i
6415 6. They had according to him the
θρεπτικὴ ψυχὴ alone: de anima τι ii
413> 7 θρεπτικὸν δὲ λέγομεν τὸ τοιοῦτον
μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς οὗ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ μετέχει.
This coincides with Plato’s statement.
Aristotle however draws the distinc-
tion between {ga and φυτὰ that the
former possess αἴσθησις, the latter pos-
sess it not: de zuventute i 467° 24 τὰ μὲν
φυτὰ ζῇ μέν, οὐκ ἔχει δ᾽ αἴσθησιν' τῷ δ᾽

αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον πρὸς τὸ μὴ ζῷον διο-
ρίζομεν. See however hist. anim. VIII i.

In the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise de
plantis i 815> τό it is affirmed that
Anaxagoras Empedokles and Demokri-
tos attributed thought and knowledge to
plants: ὁ δὲ ᾿Αναξαγόρας καὶ ὁ Δημόκριτος
καὶ ὁ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς καὶ νοῦν καὶ γνῶσιν el-
πον ἔχειν τὰ φυτά: they of course as-
signed them ἐπιθυμία and αἴσθησις also:
zbid. 815° 15 ᾿Αναξαγόρας μὲν οὖν καὶ
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐπιθυμίᾳ ταῦτα κινεῖσθαι λέ-
γουσιν, αἰσθάνεσθαί τε καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ
ἥδεσθαι διαβεβαιοῦνται. ὧν ὁ μὲν ᾿Αναξ-
αγόρας καὶ ζῷα εἶναι καὶ ἥδεσθαι καὶ λυ-
πεῖσθαι εἶπε, τῇ τε ἀπορροῇ τῶν φύλλων
καὶ τῇ αὐξήσει τοῦτο ἐκλαμβάνων" ὁ δὲ
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς γένος ἐν τούτοις κεκραμένον
εἶναι ἐδόξασεν. Sextus Empiricus adv.
math. Ψ1Πὴ 286 confirms the statement
that Empedokles allowed reason to plants:
πάντα yap ἴσθι φρόνησιν ἔχειν καὶ νώματος
αἶσαν. Diogenes of Apollonia was of ἃ
contrary opinion: Theophrastos de sensu
§ 44 τὰ δὲ φυτὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἷναι κοῖλα
μηδὲ ἀναδέχεσθαι τὸν ἀέρα παντελῶς ἀφῃ-
ρῆσθαι τὸ φρονεῖν. In our estimate of
such statements however we must allow
for the fact that these early philosophers
only very imperfectly distinguished be-
tween αἰσθάνεσθαι and φρονεῖν: Theo-
phrastos says of Parmenides τὸ γὰρ
αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ λέγει:

c] TIMAIOS. 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. αἰσθήσεως δέ] The θρεπτικὴ δύ-
ναμις, though not explicitly mentioned
here, is of course included, as we- see
from the account of the τρίτον εἶδος in
70 Ὁ foll.

8. πάσχον γὰρ διατελεῖ πάντα] i.e.
it passively submits to the influences
which work upon it: since it does not
possess the two more active forms of
soul, the passive conditions of nutrition
growth and decay, together with sensa-
tion, are all that belong to it.

στραφέντι δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐν ἑαυτῷ] That is
to say, its motions, e.g. the circulation
of the sap, take place within it: its
movement is not κατὰ τόπον, but ἐν
ταὐτῷ.

9. τὴν μὲν ἔξωθεν ἀπωσαμένῳ] 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 κατὰ φύσιν,
the motion ἔξωθεν only κατὰ συμβεβηκός.
Plato means that it αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ κινεῖ and
therefore must possess ψυχή, which alone

is self-moved.

10. τῶν αὑτοῦ τι λογίσασθαι κατι-
δόντι φύσιν] 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 φύσει, and I
am not sure that it ought not to be re-
stored: Schneider however is alone, I
believe, in adopting it.

11. ἔστι τε οὐχ ἕτερον ζῴου] It would
seem ἃ necessary consequence that a thing
which δῇ is {@ov: and Aristotle is per-
haps somewhat inconsistent in allowing
plants ζῆν, while refusing them the title
of ¢~a. Also Plato seems more scientific
than Aristotle in attributing αἴσθησις to
plants. What manner of αἴσθησις be-
longs to plants may or may not be dis-

288

IAATONOS |

[77.0-

\ 4 a -“ « ΄
δὲ καὶ κατερριζωμένον πέπηγε διὰ τὸ τῆς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεως

fal
ἐστερῆσθαι.

XXXV. Ταῦτα δὴ τὰ γένη πάντα φυτεύσαντες οἱ κρείττους

-“ ‘4 -“ “ »“
τοῖς ἥττοσιν ἡμῖν τροφήν, τὸ σῶμα αὐτὸ ἡμῶν διωχέτευσαν τέμ-
δινοῦτες οἷον ἐν κήποις ὀχετούς, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐκ νάματος ἐπιόντος

ἄρδοιτο.

\ lel \ > ‘ / ¢ \ \ U
Kal πρῶτον μὲν ὀχετοὺς κρυφαίους ὑπὸ τὴν ξύμφυσιν Ὁ

τοῦ δέρματος καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς δύο φλέβας ἔτεμον νωτιαίας διδύ-
μους, ὡς τὸ σῶμα ἐτύγχανε δεξιοῖς τε καὶ ἀριστεροῖς ὄν" ταύτας
δὲ καθῆκαν παρὰ τὴν ῥάχιν καὶ τὸν γόνιμον μεταξὺ λαβόντες
ἢ

10 μυελόν, ἵνα οὗτός τε ὅ τι μάλιστα θάλλοι, καὶ ἐπὶ τἄλλα εὔρους
ἐντεῦθεν ἅτε ἐπὶ κάταντες ἡ ἐπίχυσις γιγνομένη παρέχοι τὴν
¢ ᾽ὔ ε ͵ \ \ “ Ud \ \

ὑδρείαν ὁμαλήν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα σχίσαντες περὶ THY κεφαλὴν
τὰς φλέβας καὶ δι’ ἀλλήλων ἐναντίας πλέξαντες διεῖσαν, τὰς μὲν E
ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν ἐπὶ τἀριστερὰ τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστε-

6 κρυφαίους : κρυφαίως A.

covered or discoverable by science; but
it seems at least improbable that any-
where a hard and fast line can be drawn
between the αἴσθησις of animals, from
man down to the zoophyte, and the cor-
responding πάθος 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.

1. τῆς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεως ἐστερῆ-
σϑαι] This is not inconsistent, though at
first sight it may appear so, with τῇ οἰκείᾳ
χρησαμένῳ above. For there the question
was of motion ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, now it is of
motion from place to place. The plant is
free to carry on all its natural movements
within its own structure, but it is incap-
able of transferring itself from place to
place. Yet this stationary condition is

ἡ διδύμους : δίδυμον SZ.

14 τἀριστερά: τὰ ἀριστερά 8.

no reason for refusing it the name of
ζῷον : for indeed the κόσμος itself has its
motion only ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ. Galen evidently
had τῆς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, for he proposes to read
ἔξω : ἐνενόησα λείπειν τὸ w στοιχεῖον, ypa-
ψαντος τοῦ Πλάτωνος διὰ τὸ τῆς ἔξω ἑαυ-
τοῦ. The emendation does him credit:
but there is no reason for interfering with
our present text.

77 C—79 A, ¢. xxxv. Then the gods
made two channels down the body, em-
bedded in the flesh, one on either side of
the spine, to irrigate it with blood;
and at the head they cleft the veins and
caused them to cross each other trans-
versely, that the head might be firmly
fixed on the neck, and that communica-
tion might be preserved between both
sides of the body. This scheme for the
irrigation of the body we shall best un-
derstand, if we reflect that all substances
composed of finer particles exclude those
of coarser, while the coarser are easily
penetrated by the finer, So then when
food and drink enter the belly, they

fare retained; but fire and air are too

subtle to be confined therein. Therefore
the gods wove a web of fire and of air
spread over the cavity of the body and

Ε] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 280

stationary and rooted fast, because it has been denied the power
of self-motion.

XXXV. Thus did the higher powers create all these kinds
as sustenance for us who were feebler; and next they made
canals in the substance of our body, as though they were
cutting runnels in a garden, that it might be irrigated as by an
inflowing stream. And first they carried like hidden rills, under
the place where the skin and the flesh are joined, two veins
down the back, following the twofold division of the body into
right and left. These they brought down on either side of the
spine and the seminal marrow, first in order that this might be
most vigorous, next that the current might have an easy flow
downwards and render the irrigation regular. After that, they
cleft the veins around the head, and interweaving them crossed
them in opposite directions, carrying these from the right side of

the body to the left and those from the left to the right.

placed therein two lesser webs opening
into the mouth and nostrils. And they
made alternately the great web to flow
towards the lesser webs, and again the
lesser towards the greater. In the former
case the airy envelope of the greater
web penetrated through the porous sub-
stance of the body to the cavity within,
in the latter the lesser webs passed

through the body outwards; and in

either case the fire followed with the
air. This alternation is kept up per-
petually so long as a man lives, and we
give it the name of respiration. And so
when the fire, passing to and fro, en-
counters food and drink in the stomach, it
dissolves them and driving them onwards
forces them to flow through the veins, like
water drawn into pipes from a fountain.
3. οἱ κρείττους] Plato several times
applies this phrase to supernal powers:
cf, Sophist 216 B τάχ᾽ οὖν ἂν καὶ σοί τις
οὗτος τῶν κρειττόνων συνέποιτο, φαύλους
ἡμᾶς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἐποψόμενός τε
καὶ ἐλέγξων, θεός τις ὧν ἐλεγκτικός :
Symposium 188 Ὁ τοῖς κρείττοσιν ἡμῶν
θεοῖς: Euthydemus 291 A μή τις τῶν
κρειττόνων παρὼν αὐτὰ ἐφθέγξατο: the

Pers

This

last passage being ironical.

4. τέμνοντες... ὀχετούς] cf. 70 Ὁ τῆς
ἀρτηρίας ὀχετοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν πλεύμονα ἔτεμον.

7. ϑύο φλέβας] The two ‘ veins’ are,
according to Martin, the aorta and the
vena cava.

8. δεξιοῖς τε καὶ ἀριστεροῖς ὄν] i.e.
with right and left sides: I doubt whe-
ther μέρεσιν is to be supplied, any more
than μέρη with the phrases ἐπὶ δεξιά, ἐπ᾽
ἀριστερά.

9. τὸν γόνιμον.. μυελόν] cf. 73 6.

11. ἐπὶ κάταντες] As Galen objects,
this seems to leave out of sight the circu-
lation of the blood in the head and neck,
which would be ἄναντες.

14. ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν ἐπὶ τἀριστερά]
Plato makes the blood-vessels belonging
to the right side of the head pass to the
left side of the body and wice versa for
two reasons: first that the consequent
interlacing of the veins might fasten the
head (which we have seen to be destitute
of νεῦρα) firmly on the trunk; secondly
that the sensations might be conveyed
from either side of the brain to the oppo-
site side of the body, and so all parts of
the body might be kept in communica-

19

I

σι

290

ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ

[77 E—

ρῶν ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ κλίναντες, ὅπως δεσμὸς ἅμα τῇ κεφαλῇ πρὸς
τὸ σῶμα εἴη μετὰ τοῦ δέρματος, ἐπειδὴ νεύροις οὐκ ἦν κύκλῳ
κατὰ κορυφὴν περιειλημμένη, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πάθος

7? 3

a “Ὁ lal ,
ἵν᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν εἰς ἅπαν τὸ σῶμα εἴη διαδιδόμενον.
5 τὸ δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη τὴν ὑδραγωγίαν παρεσκεύασαν τρόπῳ τινὶ

τοιῷδε, ὃν κατοψόμεθα ῥᾷον προδιομολογησάμενοι τὸ τοιόνδε, ὅτι 73 A

πάντα, ὅσα ἐξ ἐλαττόνων ξυνίσταται, στέγει τὰ μείζω, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ
μειζόνων τὰ σμικρότερα οὐ δύναται" πῦρ δὲ πάντων γενῶν σμικρο-
μερέστατον, ὅθεν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ γῆς ἀέρος τε καὶ ὅσα ἐκ τούτων
10 ξυνίσταται διαχωρεῖ καὶ στέγειν οὐδὲν αὐτὸ δύναται. ταὐτὸν δὴ
καὶ περὶ τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κοιλίας διανοητέον, ὅτι σιτία μὲν καὶ
ποτὰ ὅταν εἰς αὐτὴν ἐμπέσῃ στέγει, πνεῦμα δὲ καὶ πῦρ σμικρο- Β

μερέστερα ὄντα τῆς αὑτῆς ξυστάσεως οὐ δύναται.

τούτοις οὖν

κατεχρήσατο ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὴν ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας ἐπὶ τὰς φλέβας
¢ / / 2 3.2 \ \ φΦ e U /
ὑδρείαν, πλέγμα ἐξ ἀέρος Kal πυρὸς οἷον οἱ κύρτοι ξυνυφηνάμενος,

nr
4 διαδιδόμενον : διαδιδόν A.

tion. The notion that the blood-vessels
are wanted to fasten the head is of course
erroneous ; the latter part of his theory,
had nerves but been substituted for veins,
is a nearer guess at the truth.

5. τὸ δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη] cf. Galen de
plac. Hipp. et Plat. Vit 706 τὸ μὲν οὖν
ἀέρι καὶ πυρὶ χρῆσθαι τὴν φύσιν πρὸς
πέψιν τροφῆς αἱμάτωσίν τε καὶ ἀνάδοσιν
ὀρθώς εἴρηται, τὸ δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν πλέγμα γε-
γονέναι καὶ μὴ διὰ ὅλων κρᾶσιν οὐκέτι
ἐπαινῶ, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὸ πῦρ ὀνομάζειν
αὐτόν [? αὐτό], ἐνόν, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης, ἔμφυ-
tov θερμόν. The principle that smaller
particles can pass through the interstices
of larger ones, while the larger cannot
penetrate the smaller, is thus applied by
Plato to explain the process of digestion:
the nutriment swallowed must on the one
hand have a receptacle provided which is
able to contain it, while on the other
hand it must be subjected to the action
of fire. The walls of the receptacle are
therefore constructed of material suffi-
ciently fine to retain the food, but not
fine enough to arrest the passage of fire
and air: the two latter therefore are

enabled to circulate freely through the
substance and lining of the body and to
act upon the food contained within it.
It will thus be seen that Plato conceives
respiration solely as subsidiary to diges-
tion: an opinion which is perhaps pe-
culiar to him alone among ancient
thinkers: the ordinary view being that
its function was to regulate the tempera-
ture of the body, as thought Aristotle:
cf. de respiratione xvi 478 28 καταψύξεως
μὲν οὖν ὅλως ἡ τῶν ζῴων δεῖται φύσις, διὰ
τὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐμπύρωσιν.
ταύτην δὲ ποιεῖται διὰ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς. De-
mokritos thought it served to keep up the
supply of ψυχὴ in the body: zd. iv
471» 30 foll.: not, Aristotle observes,
that Demokritos conceived that Nature
designed it for that end ; ὅλως γάρ, ὥσπερ
kal οἱ ἄλλοι φυσικοί, καὶ οὗτος οὐθὲν ἅπτε-
ται τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας.

8, πῦρ δὲ πάντων γενῶν] Air seems
more concerned with the process of respi-
ration; but we must remember that in
Plato’s view fire was the actual instru-
ment of assimilating the food, and also
that it was the agent which started the

78 B] TIMAIOS. 291

they did, partly in order that together with the skin they might
form a bond to fasten the head to the body, seeing that it was
not set round with sinews on the crown; and also that this
might be a means of distributing from each side throughout
the whole body the sensation due to the perceptions. And
next to this they designed the irrigation on a kind of plan
which we shall better discern by assuming the following premises.
All bodies which are composed of smaller particles exclude the
larger, but the larger cannot exclude the smaller. Fire is com-
posed of finer particles than any other element, whence it
penetrates through water and earth and air and whatever is
composed of them, and nothing can keep it out. This rule
must also be applied to the human belly; when food and
drink enter into it, it keeps them in; but air and fire, being
finer than its own structure, it cannot keep in. Accordingly
God used these two elements for the conveyance of liquid
from the belly to the veins, weaving of air and fire a network

air in its oscillations, cf. 79 Ὁ. Air then
plays a part only subsidiary to fire.

13. τούτοις οὖν κατεχρήσατο] He
used fire and air (1) for the conversion of
the food into blood, (2) for its convey-
ance into the blood-vessels.

15. πλέγμα ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός] This

theory of respiration is by far the most>

obscure and perplexing of Plato’s physio-
logical lucubrations, partly owing to the
enigmatical form in which it is expressed,
partly to actual gaps in the exposition.
An important light however is thrown
upon it by a fragment of Galen’s treatise
on the Zimaeus, which deals with this
passage. This fragment, which was pre-
viously known only in an imperfect Latin
translation, was found by M. Daremberg
in the Paris library and published by him
in 1848. On Galen’s commentary the
ensuing explanation is based: I cannot
however persuade myself that it fully
clears up statements which Galen himself
declares to be δυσνόητά re καὶ δύσρητα.
First we must determine the meaning
of κύρτος and éyxipriov. The first was a
fishing-trap, or weel, woven of reeds ; it

seems to have had a narrow funnel-shaped
neck, through which the fish entered, but
was unable to return, owing to the points
of the reeds being set against it. (Martin
conceives it to consist of two baskets, one
fitting into the other ; but Galen says it is
ἁπλοῦν.) The ἐγκύρτιον---α word which
is only found in the present passage—is
explained by Stallbaum (whom Liddell
and Scott follow) to mean the entrance or
neck of the xvpros. But on this point
Galen is explicit: he says it is ὅμοιον μὲν
τῷ μεγάλῳ, μικρὸν δέ. We must therefore
conceive the ἐγκύρτια to be two smaller
κύρτοι similar to the larger, contained
within it and opening into its neck.
Applying these premises, we shall find
that the κύρτος or large πλέγμα consists
of two layers, one of fire, one of air. The
outer layer (τὸ κύτος) is the stratum of air
in contact with all the outer surface of
the body; the inner layer (τὰ ἔνδον τοῦ
πλοκάνου) is the vital heat contained in
the blood and pervading all the substance
of the body between the skin and the
cavity within. The two ἐγκύρτια, which
are formed entirely of air, represent re-

19—2

I

1

on

ο

or

292 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [78 B—

a ‘ ΝΜ
διπλᾶ κατὰ τὴν εἴσοδον ἐγκύρτια ἔχον, ὧν θάτερον αὖ πάλιν
/ , \ 3 \ a > / \

διέπλεξε Sixpours καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐγκυρτίων δὴ διετείνατο οἷον

\ \ rn
σχοίνους κύκλῳ διὰ παντὸς πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ πλέγματος. τὰ
μὲν οὖν ἔνδον ἐκ πυρὸς συνεστήσατο τοῦ πλοκάνου ἅπαντα, τὰ δ᾽
> n \ > Lol
ἐγκύρτια καὶ τὸ κύτος ἀεροειδῆ, καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὸ περιέστησε TO
, , , \ A ‘
πλασθέντι ἕῴῳ τρόπον τοιόνδε. TO μὲν τῶν ἐγκυρτίων εἰς TO

A “ \ yw >? a \ \ \ ’ / >
στόμα μεθῆκε' διπλοῦ δὲ ὄντος αὐτοῦ κατὰ μὲν τὰς ἀρτηρίας εἰς

‘ ͵ ΘᾺ θ , \ Ny > \ / \ κι
τὸν πλεύμονα καθῆκε θάτερον, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν παρὰ τὰς
᾽ \ ’
ἀρτηρίας. τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον σχίσας τὸ μέρος ἑκάτερον κατὰ τοὺς
“ \ me , A > lA
ὀχετοὺς τῆς ῥινὸς ἀφῆκε κοινόν, ὥσθ᾽ ὅτε μὴ κατὰ στόμα ἴοι
‘
θάτερον, ἐκ τούτου πάντα καὶ Ta ἐκείνου ῥεύματα ἀναπληροῦσθαι.
A > ». , fol , \ % A a « lel
τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο κύτος τοῦ κύρτου περὶ TO σῶμα ὅσον κοῖλον ἡμῶν
’ a a a
περιέφυσε, καὶ πᾶν δὴ τοῦτο τοτὲ μὲν εἰς TA ἐγκύρτια ξυρρεῖν
μαλακῶς, ἅτε ἀέρα ὄντα, ἐποίησε, τοτὲ δὲ ἀναρρεῖν μὲν. τὰ ἐγ-
/ « a Ig fal
κύρτια, TO δὲ πλέγμα, ὡς ὄντος TOD σώματος μανοῦ, δύεσθαι εἴσω
ὃ ι 3 a } , ΝΜ \ δὲ > \ a ‘ > n ὃ ὃ
“ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἔξω, τὰς δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ πυρὸς ἀκτῖνας διαδε-

spectively the thoracic and abdominal
cavities of the body: the first having a
double outlet, one by the larynx, the
other by the orifices of the nostrils: the
second has one outlet only, through the
oesophagus into the mouth. These preli-
minaries laid down, we shall be able to
understand more or less precisely the
remaining statements in thechapter. Mar-

ς

/
Rae As Bae ath

upper ἐγκύρτιον, opening into the mouth and
bifurcating i in the passages of the nostrils.
3. lower ἐ ἐγκύρτιον, opening into the mouth only.
ς. κύτος τοῦ πλοκάνον, or stratum of air sur-
rounding the body.
dad. τὰ ἔνδον τοῦ πλοκάνου, or the heat residing in
the solid part of the body.

a.

tin’s interpretation, which is most lucidly
stated, would probably have been modi-

fied had the commentary of Galen in the
original been before him.

I give a diagram, which, without aim-
ing at anatomical accuracy, may perhaps
help to elucidate Plato’s meaning.

1. ϑιπλᾶ κατὰ τὴν εἴσοδον] i.e.
having two separate entrances, the wind-
pipe and the oesophagus, one to each
ἐγκύρτιον.

2. διέπλεξε δίκρουν] The ἐγκύρτιον
occupying the cavity of the thorax he
constructed with a double outlet, one by
the larynx through the mouth, the other
through the nostrils.

διετείνατο οἷον σχοίνους] Here Plato
has departed somewhat from his analogy
of the fishing-trap. The σχοῖνοι of course
represent the arteries and veins which
permeate the structure of the body.

3. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔνδον ἐκ πυρός] This
is the inner layer of the κύρτος, which, as
we have seen, consisted of the vital heat
contained in the solid part of the body
lying between the surrounding air and
the ἐγκύρτια, or cavities within.

6. τὸ μὲν τῶν ἐγκυρτίων] Galen warns
us against taking this ‘ one of the ἐγκύρ-
τια᾿᾽, in which case, as he justly remarks,

D

D] TIMAIOS. 293

like a fish-trap or weel, having two lesser weels within with a
double inlet ; one of which inlets he again wove with two pas-
sages; and from the lesser weels he stretched as it were cords
on all sides to the extremities of the network. All the inner
part of the net he constructed of fire, but the lesser weels and
the envelope he made of airy substance; and he took the net
and wrapped it in manner following about the animal he had
moulded. The structure of the lesser weels he carried into the
mouth: and, these being twofold, he let down one of them by
the windpipe into the lungs, the other past the windpipe into
the belly. The one weel he split in two, and let both inlets
meet by the passages of the nostrils, so that when the first
inlet was not in action by way of the mouth, all its currents also
might be replenished from the second. But with the general
surface of the network he enveloped all the hollow part of our
body; and all this, seeing it was air, he now caused to flow
gently into the lesser weels, now made them flow back upon it;
and since the body is of porous texture, the network passes
through it inward and again outward, and the beams of fire

Plato would have gone on ‘70 δὲ εἰς τόδε
τι τοῦ σώματος᾽. He understands πλό-
κανον, in which he is probably right. The
subdivision of the πλόκανον into the two
ἐγκύρτια begins at διπλοῦ δὲ ὄντος αὐτοῦ.
7. τὰς ἀρτηρίας] See the note on
0c. -

8. τὸ δὲ εἰς τὴν κοιλέαν] The other
ἐγκύρτιον, occupying the abdominal σαν
had its outlet past the windpipe by way
of the oesophagus: this had only one
opening.

9. τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον] The éyxipriov which
occupied the chest had a twofold outlet,
one through the mouth, the other through
the nose; and this latter was again di-
vided into the two channels of the nos-
115. The object of this double outlet
was to allow respiration to be carried on
through the nostrils when the passage by
way of the mouth was not working, that
we might not always have to open our
mouths in order to breathe.

12. τὸ 8 ἄλλο κύτος] i.e. the stra-

tum of air in contact with the body.
This first, penetrating through the porous
substance of the flesh, flows through it
into the cavity of the ἐγκύρτια, the airy
contents of which have passed up through
the passages of respiration : presently the
ἐγκύρτια flow down again into the body,
and the air that had come in through the
flesh passes forth again by the way that
it came. The inner layer of the xipros,
which was formed of fire, also oscillates to
and fro, accompanying the motions of
the airy envelope. And this oscillation
must ceaselessly continue so long as we
live. There are then two modes by
which the air effects an entrance into the
interior of the body: one by way of the
tubes and orifices constructed for that
purpose ; the other through the substance
of the body, which is too porous to bar its
ingress, seeing that the flesh is partly
constructed out of the coarser elements of
water and earth.

16. τὰς δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ πυρὸς ἀκτῖνας]

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

294 [78 p—

, > “ δίς ας Site ba a 95», ‘ a
δεμένας ἀκυλουθεῖν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα ἰόντος τοῦ ἀέρος, καὶ τοῦτο,
ἕωσπερ ἂν τὸ θνητὸν ξυνεστήκῃ ζῷον, μὴ διαπαύεσθαι γιγνόμε- E
νον" τούτῳ δὲ δὴ τῷ γένει τὸν τὰς ἐπωνυμίας θέμενον ἀναπνοὴν

> ‘ / / Μ a \ ‘ la μὲ A

καὶ ἐκπνοὴν λέγομεν θέσθαι τοὔνομα. πᾶν δὲ δὴ τό τ᾽ ἔργον
καὶ τὸ πάθος τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῶν τῷ σώματι γέγονεν ἀρδομένῳ καὶ
> ξ΄ ,ὔ a ¢ , \ » ” n
ἀναψυχομένῳ τρέφεσθαι καὶ ζῆν: ὁπόταν yap εἴσω καὶ ἔξω τῆς
ἀναπνοῆς ἰούσης τὸ πῦρ ἐντὸς ξυνημμένον ἕπηται, διαιωρούμενον
δὲ ἀεὶ διὰ τῆς κοιλίας εἰσελθὸν τὰ σιτία καὶ ποτὰ λάβῃ, τήκει 79 Δ
δή, καὶ κατὰ σμικρὰ διαιροῦν, διὰ τῶν ἐξόδων ἧπερ πορεύεται
διάγον, οἷον ἐκ κρήνης ἐπ᾽ ὀχετοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς φλέβας ἀντλοῦν αὐτά,
ῥεῖν ὥσπερ αὐλῶνος διὰ τοῦ σώματος τὰ τῶν φλεβῶν ποιεῖ ῥεύματα.

XXXVI. Πάλιν δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς ἴδωμεν πάθος, αἷς χρώ-

11 αὐλῶνος διά : δι᾽ αὐλῶνος 9.

7 ἰούσης : οὔσης A.

This is the same as τὰ ἔνδον τοῦ πλοκάνου
above: i.e. the ἔμφυτον θερμόν, or vital
heat residing in the substance of the
body.

3. ἀναπνοὴν Kal ἐκπνοήν] Plato uses
the word ἀναπνοὴ for what was later
termed εἰσπνοή, ἀναπνοὴ being reserved
for the whole process of εἰσπνοὴ + ἐκπνοή.
Aristotle uses ἀναπνοή similarly: de re-
spiratione xxi 480> g καλεῖται δ᾽ ἡ μὲν
εἴσοδος τοῦ ἀέρος ἀναπνοή, ἡ δ᾽ ἔξοδος
ἐκπνοή. The dynamical cause of inspi-
ration and expiration is explained in the
next chapter.

5. ἀρδομένῳ καὶ ἀναψυχομένῳ] It
would appear from this that Plato did
regard respiration as serving the purpose
of tempering the vital heat of the body:
but this is a merely secondary object; its
chief end being to effect the digestion of
the food.

6. τῆς ἀναπνοῆς] Here ἀναπνοὴ is
simply equivalent to the breath.

8, διὰ τῆς κοιλίας εἰσελθόν] The air
and the fire which accompanies it, in
the course of its oscillation to and fro,
encounter the food which has been re-
ceived into the body; and since it is
composed of much finer particles than
the latter, they penetrate and divide the
food, converting it into blood (the red
colour is due to_the tinge imparted by

fire as we find at 80£); and then they
drive the now fluid substance through
the small vessels which they themselves
permeate, and so pump it into the veins.

II. ὥσπερ αὐλῶνος] The body is
compared to an aqueduct through which
the veins pass as pipes or conduits irri-
gating all parts of it. The metaphor
has become a little mixed here; above
the body was likened to the κῆποι which
had to be watered.

79 A—E,¢. xxxvi. Let us more closely
examine the conditions of the process
described in the foregoing chapter. . The
‘cause of it is that there is no void space
in the nature of things. Therefore when
the breath issues forth of the mouth it
thrusts against the neighbouring air,
which transmits the impulse till it is
received by the air in immediate contact
with the body: this then forces its way
in through the pores and replenishes the
space within which the departing air
leaves. Again this newly entered air,
passing out once more through the pores
of the body, in its turn thrusts the outside
air and forces it to pass inward again
through the passages of respiration to
replenish the deserted space: and this
process goes on continually, like a wheel
turning to and fro. The cause of this
oscillation is the vital heat which re-

“79 A] TIMAIOS. 295

which are confined within follow the air as it moves in either
direction: and this never ceases to go on so long as the mortal
creature holds together. To this process he who appointed
names gave, we say, the titles of inspiration and expiration :
and from this condition, both active and passive, it has come
about that our body, deriving moisture and coolness, has its
sustenance and life. For when, as the respiration passes in and
out, the interwoven fire within follows it and entering the belly
swings up and down and meets the food and drink, it dis-
solves them, and reducing them to small particles, drives them
along the channels through which it flows, pumping them into
the veins like spring-water into conduits, and so it makes the
current of the veins flow through the body as through an

aqueduct,
XXXVI.

sides in the body. For the air within
the body, being warmed thereby, rushes
upward through the nouth and nose, and
the cool air surrounding the body rushes
in through the pores. Then this in its
turn, becoming heated, rushes out through
the pores, and the cool external air
comes in through the passages of the
breath. And thus a perpetual alternation
of inspiration and expiration is kept up
for the preservation of life.

Plato’s theory then depends (1) upon
his principle of περίωσις, by which he
has explained the melting of metals &c,
and by which in the next chapter he
explains a variety of natural phenomena ;
(2) upon the vibration of the ὑποδοχή,
which causes every element to strive
towards its proper situation in space.

12. πάλιν δέ] Plato’s account of respi-
ration falls into two parts; in the first
he simply describes the process, in the
second he points out the physical causes
of it. His theory bears a certain resem-
blance to that of Empedokles, which
will be found in a passage quoted by
Aristotle de respiratione vi 473” 9,
275—299 Karsten. According to his
statement, which is not very clear, the

Let us once more examine the process of respira-

blood-vessels are only partially filled with
blood; and when the blood rushes one
way, the air follows through the pores
into the body; when the blood moves in
the other direction, the air is again ex-
pelled through the pores: this he illus-
trates by the analogy of a girl playing
with a clepsydra; she covers the mouth
with her hand and then plunges the
instrument in water: the air, detained in
the vessel by her hand, will not suffer
the water to enter through the perfo-
rations; when she removes her hand
the water enters at the bottom and expels
the air through the mouth: similarly if
the vessel is full of water, the air is
unable to find entrance, but passes in
as the water flows out.

Aristotle criticises Plato’s theory in de
respiratione ν 472 6 foll.: it does not
explain, he says, why only land animals
breathe, or if fishes &c do so also,
how they do it; again it assumes that
ἐκπνοὴ is prior to εἰσπνοή, the contrary
being the case; γίνεται μὲν yap ταῦτα
map’ ἄλληλα, τελευτῶντες δὲ ἐκπνέουσιν,
ὥστ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον εἷναι τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰσπνοήν.
Aristotle’s own mechanical explanation
is given in de resp. xxi 480° 16. More

206 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[79 A—

ey J Ta) - 6 a a > , ὧδ᾽ LA
μενον αἰτίαις τοιοῦτον γέγονεν, oldvrep τὰ viv ἐστίν. οὖν.
᾿ \ , 0, » > a Ὁ / , 9 4 , “
ἐπειδὴ κενὸν οὐδέν ἐστιν, εἰς ὃ τῶν φερομένων δύναιτ᾽ ἂν εἰσελθεῖν B

-“" « an ΝΜ ral ‘
τι, TO δὲ πνεῦμα φέρεται παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔξω, TO μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη παντὶ
δῆ « ᾽ > , 5 \ \ / > “ gS }0 ~. \

HOV, WS οὐκ εἰς κενὸν, αλλὰ TO πλησίον ἐκ τῆς Edpas ὠθεῖ" TO
> ᾽ , > , \ / LR Δ Ἁ \ , \

5. δ᾽ ὠθούμενον ἐξελαύνει TO πλησίον ἀεί, καὶ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν
“ἐν a , > \ “ “ eA θ ‘
ἀνάγκην πᾶν περιελαυνόμενον eis τὴν ἕδραν, ὅθεν ἐξῆλθε τὸ
πνεῦμα, εἰσιὸν ἐκεῖσε καὶ ἀναπληροῦν αὐτὴν ξυνέπεται τῷ πνεύ-

a ia ‘a 7 a
ματι, καὶ τοῦτο ἅμα πᾶν οἷον τροχοῦ περιαγομένου γίγνεται διὰ

\ \ Sho ‘el Ri) St tus δῶ \ - ' ;
τὸ κενὸν μηδὲν εἶναι. διὸ δὴ τὸ τῶν στηθῶν Kal TOD πλεύμονος CO

10 ἔξω μεθιὲν τὸ πνεῦμα πάλιν ὑπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἀέρος, εἴσω
διὰ μανῶν τῶν σαρκῶν δυομένου καὶ περιελαυνομένου, γίγνεται

fal ᾿ We δὲ ? ‘ ¢€ Ψ 13, \ ὃ ‘ lal / Μ
πλῆρες" αὖθις δὲ ἀποτρεπόμενος ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἔξω
ἰὼν εἴσω τὴν ἀναπνοὴν περιωθεῖ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ στόματος καὶ τὴν
τῶν μυκτήρων δίοδον. τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν θετέον

a a a ? \

15 THVOE’ πᾶν ζῷον ἑαυτοῦ τἀντὸς περὶ TO αἷμα καὶ τὰς φλέβας D
θερμότατα ἔχει, οἷον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πηγήν τινα ἐνοῦσαν πυρός" ὃ δὴ

, al a ,
καὶ προσεικάζομεν τῷ τοῦ κύρτου πλέγματι, κατὰ μέσον διατε-

\ a
ταμένον ἐκ πυρὸς πεπλέχθαι πᾶν, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἔξωθεν, ἀέρος.
\ 0 \ ὃ \ \ , > \ Jp SESS , »” \ Ν
τὸ θερμὸν δὴ κατὰ φύσιν εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ χώραν ἔξω πρὸς τὸ
¢ / Zz a a a“
20 ξυγγενὲς ὁμολογητέον ἰέναι: δυοῖν δὲ ταῖν διεξόδοιν οὔσαιν, τῆς
Ν “Ὁ Μ - al
μὲν κατὰ TO σῶμα ἔξω, τῆς δὲ αὖ κατὰ τὸ στόμα Kal τὰς ῥῖνας, καὶ
14 \ \ , ¢ t a
ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ θάτερα ὁρμήσῃ, θάτερα περιωθεῖ: τὸ δὲ περιωσθὲν

9 τὸ ante τοῦ πλεύμονος dant SZ.

τὰἀντός : πάντως A.

cogent arguments against the Platonic
account are adduced by Galen de flac.
Hipp. et Plat. ΝΠ 708 foll.; his chief
objection being that Plato ignores respi-
ration as a voluntary action; also Galen
prefers ὁλκὴ to περίωσις as its cause.

6. περιελαυνόμενον] The outside air
receives as a whole an impulse from the
breath essaying to issue forth. Now the
only region in which it is possible for
it to yield to this impulse is that which
is being vacated by the issuing air. It
matters not therefore in what direction
the originating impulse is given: if room
is to be found outside the body for the
breath as it comes forth, it must be by
an equal quantity of air entering the

16 θερμότατα : θερμότητα A.

15 ἑαυτοῦ: αὑτοῦ SZ.
20 δυοῖν : δυεῖν S.

cavity which it quits.

8. τροχοῦ περιαγομένου] The ‘wheel’
does not move in continuous revolution,
but alternately describes first a semicircle
forward then a semicircle backward usgue
ad infinitum: cf. Galen de plac. VIII
711.

14. τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς) Hither-
to the περίωσις has been the physical law
alleged ; now comes in the other prin-
ciple, the vibration of the ὑποδοχή, which
is the primary motive power producing
respiration. The original motion is due
to the fire within the body which con-
stitutes its vital heat. The air within
the ἐγκύρτια, coming in contact with this
fire, becomes heated ; that is, is mingled

E] TIMAIOS.. 297

tion and the causes which have led to its present conditions.
These are as follows. Since there is no void into which any .
moving body could enter, and since the breath issues forth
from us, the consequence is clear to every one: instead of
entering into a void space it thrusts the neighbouring matter out
of its place. And this, yielding to the thrust, drives before it
that which is immediately nearest ; and all being driven round
by this compulsion enters into the place whence the breath
came forth, and replenishing the same follows after the breath;
and this whole process goes on like the rotation of a wheel,
because there is no void. Therefore when the cavity of the
chest and the lungs send forth the breath, they are again re-
plenished by the air surrounding the body, which penetrates
inwards through the flesh, seeing it is porous, and is forced
round ina circuit. And again when the air returns and passes
forth through the body, it thrusts the breath back again in-
wards through the passages of the mouth and nostrils. The
cause which sets this principle in action we may describe thus.
In every animal the inner parts about the blood and veins are
the hottest, as if there were a fount of fire contained in it, This
is what we compare to the network of the weel, supposing
that all the part extending from the middle to the sides
is woven of fire, but the outer part of air. Now we must.
admit that the heat naturally tends outwards to its own region
and its own kin. And whereas there are two means of egress,
one out through the body, the other by way of the mouth and
nostrils, when it makes for one exit, it impels the air round
towards the other. And the air so impelled falling into the fire

with fire. Now fire, as we know, ever body is forced into the body by the other

seeks to escape upwards to its own region ;
therefore the mixture of air and fire is
impelled to quit the body in search of
its own kind. This it may do by either
of two outlets—by penetrating through
the porous substance of the body, or by
passing upward through the respiratory
passages. Whichever of these passages
it selects, it thrusts against the air
outside, and each particle of air pressing
upon its neighbour, the air nearest the

entrance. The original impulse then is
given by the fire in the body seeking
to escape to its own kindred element.

17. προσεικάζομεν τῷ τοῦ κύρτου
πλέγματι] This seems sufficiently to con-
firm the explanation of the κύρτος given:
above, and the identification of the inner
layer thereof with the vital heat which
by means of the blood-vessels pervades
all the substance of the body.

Io

208

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[79 E—

> ὸ a > an 0 , A δ᾽ > A Ld
εἰς TO πῦρ ἐμπῖπτον θερμαίνεται, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξιὸν ψύχεται. μετα-
2 Ἁ a 0 / \ “~ ‘ ‘ ¢ 7 »
βαλλούσης δὲ τῆς θερμότητος καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἑτέραν ἔξοδον
θερμοτέρων γιγνομένων πάλιν ἐκείνῃ ῥέπον αὖ τὸ θερμότερον
-“ ‘ ¢ a U , Lal \
μᾶλλον, πρὸς τὴν αὑτοῦ φύσιν φερόμενον, περιωθεῖ τὸ κατὰ
/ \ \ \ > \ U \ > \ > \ Pf
5 Odrepa: τὸ δὲ τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχον καὶ Ta αὐτὰ ἀνταποδιδὸν ἀεί,
͵ “ t ” " ᾽ , ¢ 4
κύκλον οὕτω σαλευόμενον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ἀπειργασμένον ὑπ
ἀμφοτέρων τὴν ἀναπνοὴν καὶ ἐκπνοὴν γίγνεσθαι παρέχεται.
XXXVII. Καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ τῶν περὶ τὰς ἰατρικὰς σικίας
παθημάτων αἴτια καὶ τὰ τῆς καταπόσεως τά τε τῶν ῥιπτουμένων,
ὅσα ἀφεθέντα μετέωρα καὶ ὅσα ἐπὶ γῆς φέρεται, ταύτῃ διωκτέον,
καὶ boot φθόγγοι ταχεῖς τε καὶ βραδεῖς ὀξεῖς τε καὶ βαρεῖς

6 κύκλον :

1. μεταβαλλούσης δὲ τῆς θερμότητος]
So far as the theory has yet been set
forth, no reason has been assigned why
the heated air escapes alternately through
the respiratory passages and through the
pores of the body; the wheel might
always turn in the same direction. Plato
now endeavours to supply a cause for this :
but it must be confessed that, if I rightly
apprehend his meaning, it is a very in-
adequate one: however it seems to be as
follows. Let us suppose the process to

' be at this point, that the heated air in

the ἐγκύρτια has just passed up through
the trachea into the outer atmosphere;
accordingly the cool stratum of air sur-
rounding the body has passed in through
the pores to supply its place. Now why
should this newly entered air, when it in
its turn is heated and endeavours to es-
cape, return through the body instead of
following its predecessor up the trachea?
The reason assigned is this: the warm
air on passing forth out of the mouth or
nostrils finds itself plunged in the cool
atmosphere without; at the same time
the air newly arrived in the body is
heated. The preponderance of warmth
is now in the neighbourhood of the outlet
through the flesh: the heated air there-
fore seeks the nearest and easiest way of
escape by passing outward through the
pores of the body, as it had entered;

κύκλῳ 5.

whereupon the περίωσις sends a current of
air down the respiratory passages. Then
precisely the same process takes place at
the other entrance; the air that entered
through the trachea is warmed, and like-
wise seeks to escape by the nearest out-
let, viz. the trachea. Thus the air that
passes into the body by either entrance is
always impelled to return by that same
entrance and not by the other. But this
part of the theory is both obscure and un-
satisfactory, unless some better interpre-
tation of it can be found. Plato’s hypo-
thesis, it will be observed, renders the |
process entirely independent of any mus-
cular action of the body; and Galen’s
criticism is pertinent: ἐν οὐδετέρᾳ δὲ αὐ-
τῶν ὁ Πλάτων προσχρῆται τῇ προαιρέσει,
καίτοι φανερῶς ἐν ἡμῖν ὄντος καὶ τὸ θᾶττον
καὶ βραδύτερον ἔλαττόν τε καὶ πλέον καὶ
πυκνότερον εἰσπνεῦσαί τε καὶ ἐκπνεῦσαι.

79 A—8o 6, c. xxxvii. The same prin-
ciple of circular impulsion will account
for the action of cupping-glasses, for the
process of swallowing, for the motion of
projected bodies, whether through the air
or along the ground, and for the conso-
nance of high and deep notes, which is
produced by the gradual retardation of
the swifter sound until it coincides with
the motion of the slower. To the same
cause is due the flowing of water, the
falling of the thunderbolt, and the force

80 A] ᾿ ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 299

is heated, but that which passes out is cooled. So the heat
changes its position and the parts about the other outlet be-
come warmer ; therefore the heat now has a stronger tendency in
the new direction, seeking its own affinity, and impels the air by
the other passage: and this, undergoing the same change and
reproducing the same process, is thus by these two impulses
converted into a wheel swaying backwards and forwards, and so
it gives rise to respiration.

XXXVII. In the same direction are we to look for the
explanation of the phenomena of medical cupping-glasses and
of swallowing and of projected bodies, whether cast through the
air or moving along the ground; and of sounds too, which
from their swiftness and slowness seem to us shrill or deep,

of attraction exercised by amber and the
loadstone. All these diverse phenomena
are due to the manifold interaction of
these two principles —the absence of void,
which is the cause of the circular impul-
sion, and the vibratory motion which
causes every substance to strive towards
its own peculiar region in space.

8. περὶ tds ἰατρικὰς σικύας] Plato
now applies his two great dynamical
principles to the explanation of various
natural phenomena. He does not work
out the mode of their operation in detail,
but leaves that to be done by the reader,
A full commentary on the present chapter
will be found in Plutarch gwaestiones
platonicae vii.
cupping instruments is this. When the
cup is applied to the flesh, the air within
it becomes warmed and consequently di-
lated ; and escaping through the pores of
the metal, it thrusts the surrounding air,
which in its turn, pressing on the surface
of the body, forces the humours to exude
into the cup: cf. Zimaeus Locrus 102 A.

9. τὰ τῆς KaTamécews] The food,
propelled downwards by the muscles of
the throat, thrusts the air in front of it:
this, escaping through the pores, thrusts
the air outside, which by the περίωσις
presses upon the food from behind and
pushes it downward: and since at every

The explanation of the-

moment of its progress more air is dis-
placed to set the περίωσις in motion, the
downward impulse is continually main-
tained.

τά τε TOV ῥιπτουμένων] The pro-
cess is the same here as in the preceding
instance: if a stone is hurled through the
air, the air displaced in front of the stone
sets up a περίωσις which impels it behind
and keeps it going. The problem which
seemed to the ancient thinkers to demand
solution was, when the stone has left the
hand of the thrower and consequently is
no longer directly receiving any propul-
sion from it, what is it that keeps the
stone moving? what enables it to with-
stand the force of gravitation which
would otherwise cause it to fall perpen-
dicularly earthward? A clear understand-
ing of the point of view from which this
question was regarded will be gained
from Aristotle physica VIII x 266" 27 foll.
Aristotle, who seems to adopt Plato’s ex-
planation, remarks that the propelling
hand communicates to the stone not only
passive motion, but an active power of
moving the air before it: it ceases to be
κινούμενον at the moment it leaves the
hand (relatively to the hand, Aristotle
should have added), but remains κινοῦν
so long as it is in motion.

11. καὶ ὅσοι φθόγγοι] It is not at

300 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [8ο Α---

. ἀν Sow
φαίνονται, τοτὲ μὲν ἀνάρμοστοι φερόμενοι δι’ ἀνομοιότητα τῆς
ἐν ἡμῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν κινήσεως, τοτὲ δὲ ξύμφωνοι δι᾿ ὁμοιότητα. τὰς
γὰρ τῶν προτέρων καὶ θαττόνων οἱ βραδύτεροι κινήσεις ἀποπαυο-

‘ μένας ἤδη τε εἰς ὅμοιον ἐληλυθυίας, αἷς ἵστερον αὐτοὶ προσφερό-

σι

Ιο

μενοι κινοῦσιν ἐκείνας, καταλαμβάνουσι, καταλαμβάνοντες δὲ οὐκ
ἄλλην ἐπεμβάλλοντες ἀνετάραξαν κίνησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν βραδυτέρας
φορᾶς κατὰ τὴν τῆς θάττονος ἀποληγούσης δὲ ὁμοιότητα προσ-
ψαντες μίαν ἐξ ὀξείας καὶ βαρείας ξυνεκεράσαντο πάθην" ὅθεν
ἡδονὴν μὲν τοῖς ἄφροσιν, εὐφροσύνην. δὲ τοῖς ἔμφροσι διὰ τὴν
τῆς θείας ἁρμονίας μίμησιν ἐν θνηταῖς γενομένην φοραῖς παρέσχον.
καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ τῶν ὑδάτων πάντα ῥεύματα, ἔτι δὲ τὰ τῶν κεραυνῶν
πτώματα καὶ τὰ θαυμαζόμενα ἠλέκτρων περὶ τῆς ἕλξεως καὶ

wots applies here.

first obvious how the principle of περί-
But I think it is clear
that Plato does not mean the περίωσις
to account for the consonance of different
sounds, but only for their propagation
from the sounding body to the ear. This
is effected in exactly the same way as the
projection of a stone through the air.
Sound is produced by the vibration of a
certain body of air, or of some other con-
ducting medium: it is propagated by the
transmission of this vibration, or rather,
on Plato’s theory, of this vibrating body
of air through the atmosphere; for it,
like the stone, displaces the air in front,
which keeps perpetually rushing in and
propelling it behind. This interpreta-
tion differs from that given by Plutarch
quaestiones platonicae vii 9, which is, I
think, unquestionably erroneous. He
supposes the περίωσις to account for the
consonance of high and deep notes, and
explains it thus: the acuter sound, travel-
ling faster than the deeper, strikes first
upon the ear; then passing round by the
mepiwo.s, but with gradually diminishing
speed, it overtakes the slower, and as-
similating its motion to that of the latter
reaches the ear again along with it: ὁ δὴ
σφόδρα καὶ συντόνως πληγεὶς προσμίγνυσι
τῇ ἀκοῇ πρῶτος, εἶτα περιιὼν πάλιν καὶ
καταλαμβάνων τὸν βραδύτερον συνέπεται
καὶ συμπαραπέμπει τὴν αἴσθησιν. But

there are grave objections to be brought
against this: (1) it is a totally illegitimate
use of the περίωσις: it is as if a stone
hurled in the air should describe a circular
orbit; (2) Plutarch makes the swifter
sound overtake the slower; but Plato dis-
tinctly speaks of the slower overtaking
the swifter, when the latter is relaxing its
speed. If however we suppose the περί-
wots to be accountable merely for the
transmission of the sounds, the explana-
tion as above is quite plain and simple;
and for the consonance it is not wanted.
Compare Aristotle de audibilibus 804% 4
foll.

2. τὰς γὰρ τῶν προτέρων] The cause
of consonance, according to Plato, is this.
If a high and a low note be sounded to-
gether, the high note, which travels more
swiftly through the air, will reach the
ear first and communicate its vibrations
to it. Presently the deeper note arrives.
But by that time the vibrations of the
higher note, which have been gradually
becoming slower, are synchronous with
the vibrations added by the deeper note,
and.a consonance ensues. If the vibra-
tions of the higher note have not slacken-
ed down to the speed of the lower, dis-
cord is the result instead of concord:
thus if we strike simultaneously two notes
at the interval of a semitone, a sharp dis-
cord is produced, because the two sounds

B

σ

6] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 301

sometimes having no harmony in their movements owing to the
irregularity of the vibrations they produce in us, sometimes
being harmonious through regularity. For the slower sounds
overtake the motions of the first and swifter sounds, when
these are already beginning to die away and have become
assimilated to the motions which the slower on their arrival
impart to them: and on overtaking them they do not produce
discord by the intrusion of an alien movement, but adding the
commencement of a slower motion, which corresponds to that
of the swifter now that the latter is beginning to cease, they
form one harmonious sensation by the blending of shrill and
deep. Thereby they afford pleasure to the foolish, but to the
wise joy, through the imitation of the divine harmony which is
given by mortal motions. And the flowing of all waters, the
fall of thunderbolts, andthe wonderful attracting power of

are so nearly of the same pitch that the
lower reaches the ear before the higher
has had time to slacken at all. Τί is evi-
dent from Plato’s language that he con-
ceived the acuter sound both to travel

more swiftly through the air and to have |

more rapid vibrations: he thus comes
very near the correct explanation of pitch,
but falls into the not unnatural error of
supposing that the more rapid vibration
causes a swifter progress through the air.
His theory of consonance is entirely un-
satisfactory: apart from any other objec-
tion, the process he describes could only
produce unison, not concord, For he
cannot mean merely that the swifter vi-
brations slackened down so as to produce
a due numerical ratio to the slower, since
such a numerical ratio might have as well
existed at first. It is strange that Plato,
with his fondness for ἀναλογία, should not
have based harmony of accords upon this.
It will be observed that the principle of
mepiwots is in no way concerned with the
present hypothesis.

9. ἡδονὴν μὲν τοῖς ἄφροσιν] See note
on 47D. The éudpoves enjoy music
because they recognise that it is based
on the same harmonic ratios as are found

᾿ σύνην.

in the soul: in plainer language, because
it expresses to the ear truths of the un-
seen world. For εὐφροσύνην compare
Cratylus 419D παντὶ γὰρ δῆλον ὡς ἀπὸ
τοῦ εὖ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν τὴν ψυχὴν ξυμ-
φέρεσθαι τοῦτο ἔλαβε τὸ ὄνομα, εὐφερο-
The word expresses a calm en-
joyment, different from the undisciplined
pleasure of the multitude, the ἄπειρος
ἡδονὴ beloved of Philebus.

It. τὰ τῶν ὑδάτων πάντα ῥεύματα]
The cause of the flowing of water is
pretty much the same as that alleged in
588 for the flowing of molten metal,
except that here we have to assume the
original impulse, which there is explained.
It seems strange that Plato makes no
use here of the force of gravitation: per-
haps that is assumed as obviously aux-
iliary; and this chapter is but an exceed-
ingly brief summary.

τῶν κεραυνῶν πτώματα]ο The action
in this instance is precisely identical
with that in the case of the projection of
a stone through the air.

12. τὰ θαυμαζόμενα ἠλέκτρων] The
explanation given by Plutarch is as fol-
lows. Amber contains within it some-
thing φλογοειδὲς ἢ πνευματικόν, a rare and

10

σι

302 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [80 c—

τῶν Ἡρακλείων λίθων, πάντων τούτων ὁλκὴ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδενί
ποτε, τὸ δὲ κενὸν εἶναι μηδὲν περιωθεῖν τε αὑτὰ ταῦτα εἰς ἄλληλα,
τό τε διακρινόμενα καὶ συγκρινόμενα πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν διαμειβόμενα
ἕδραν ἕκαστ᾽ ἰέναι πάντα, τούτοις τοῖς παθήμασι πρὸς ἄλληλα
συμπλεχθεῖσι τεθαυματουργημένα τῷ κατὰ τρόπον ζητοῦντι
φανήσεται.

XXXVIII. Καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς, ὅθεν ὃ λόγος ὥρμησε,
κατὰ ταῦτα καὶ διὰ τούτων γέγονεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν
εἴρηται, τέμνοντος μὲν τὰ σιτία τοῦ πυρός, αἰωρουμένῳ δὲ ἐντὸς
τῷ πνεύματι ξυνεπομένου, τὰς φλέβας τε ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τῇ
ξυναιωρήσει πληροῦντος τῷ τὰ τετμημένα αὐτόθεν ἐπαντλεῖν'
καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ καθ᾽ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα πᾶσι τοῖς ξῴοις τὰ τῆς

4 ἕκαστ᾽: ἕκαστα 8.

9 αἰωρουμένῳ coniecit H. αἰωρουμένου Α5Ζ.

subtle substance, which is released by
friction, the pores of the amber being
expanded. This substance on escaping
and coming into collision with the ad-
jacent air sets up a περίωσις : and the air
impinging from behind drives before it

| any light object in the vicinity, until it

reaches the electrified piece of amber.
Theophrastos seems to confound amber
with the loadstone: de lapidibus ὃ 29 ἐπεὶ
δὲ καὶ τὸ ἤλεκτρον λίθος...μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐπί-
δηλος καὶ φανερωτάτη ἡ τὸν σίδηρον ἄ-
γουσα.

1. τῶν Ἡρακλείων λίθων] This
name is said to have been given to the
loadstone from the town of Herakleia
in Lydia. Plato’s theory of the magnet
is very much the same as in the case of
the amber. There stream off from the
magnet large and heavy particles of air,
which, in the περίωσις that they occa-
sion, themselves strike upon the iron and
drive it towards the magnet. The rea-
son why iron alone is so influenced is,
according to Plutarch, that iron, being
more dense than wood but less so than
gold and other metals, has its pores of
exactly the right size to retain the parti-
cles of air, which thus, instead of slip-
ping off as they do in the case of other
substances, propel the iron before them.

8 ταῦτα: ταὐτὰ AH.
10 τῇ: τε A.

A peculiarity in this theory is that the
air which escapes from the magnet itself
is returned to it by the περίωσις : this is
necessitated by the fact that iron and
nothing else is attracted, iron being ame-
nable to that particular kind of air alone.
It is possible however that Plutarch may
not have exactly represented Plato’s
meaning. On the subject of the load-
stone compare 7072 533 Ὁ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ
λίθῳ, ἣν Εὐριπίδης μὲν Μαγνῆτιν ὠνόμασεν,
οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ Ἡ ρακλείαν. καὶ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ
λίθος οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς δακτυλίους ἄγει
τοὺς σιδηροῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύναμιν ἐντίθησι
τοῖς δακτυλίοις, ὥστ᾽ αὖ δύνασθαι ταὐτὸν
τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἡ λίθος, ἄλλους ἄγειν
δακτυλίους, ὥστ᾽ ἐνίοτε ὁρμαθὸς μακρὸς πάνυ
σιδηρῶν δακτυλίων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἤρτηται"
πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς λίθου ἡ δύ-
ναμις ἀνήρτηται. Compare also Lucretius
VI 998—1064.

ὁλκὴ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν] It is this denial
of ὁλκὴ which Galen chiefly complains
of in Plato’s physics: de plac. VIII
708 ἀναιρεῖ yap ὁλκήν, ἣ πρὸς πολλὰ τῶν
φυσικῶν ἐργῶν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης χρῆται. διὰ
τοῦτο ἠναγκάσθη τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἐνίας οὐκ
ἄνευ τῆς ὁλκῆς γινομένας εἰς περίωσιν ἀνα-
φέρειν.

3. τό τε διακρινόμενα] i.e. under the
pressure of the πίλησις the various bodies

D

D] TIMAIOS. 303

amber and of the loadstone—all these are due to no drawing
power, but to two causes: first there is no void, and the
atoms jostle one upon another ; secondly when they are divided
or contracted they change places and move severally towards
their own region; and by the complication of such conditions
all these wonders arise, as will be plain to him who examines
them by the proper method.

XXXVIII. The process of respiration then, whence this
discussion arose, rests on the principles and causes which have
‘been set forth: fire divides the food, following the air as it
sways up and down within; and through this oscillation it re-
plenishes the veins from the belly by pumping into them from
thence the comminuted food. In this way throughout the whole
body of all animals the streams of nourishment are kept con-

΄

are constantly changing their form and

their appropriate region in space. The
text can hardly be sound here.
5. τεθαυματουργημένα] Owing to

the endless complexity and intricacy of
the interaction which these two forces
exert upon one another, many of their
effects appear to us marvellous, because
we have not the means of tracing the
conditions which gave rise to them.
Compare Zaws 893D διὸ δὴ τῶν θαυ-
μαστῶν ἁπάντων πηγὴ γέγονεν, ἅμα με-
γάλοις καὶ σμικροῖς κύκλοις βραδυτῆτάς τε
καὶ τάχη ὁμολογούμενα πορεύουσα, ἀδύ-
νατον ὡς ἄν τις ἐλπίσειε γίγνεσθαι πάθος.
80 Ὁ--ϑβϑὶ E, ¢. xxxviii, Respiration
then is subsidiary to digestion: the fire
which accompanies the oscillation of the
air comminutes the food, which is then
pumped into the blood-vessels and dis-
tributed throughout the body. The nu-
triment, consisting as it does of different
kinds of vegetables, has naturally a va-
riety of hues; but the action of the fire
reduces it all to a predominant red colour,
Now the microcosm of the human body
has its motions conformable to those of
the great universe: the law that like seeks
to like holds good of it also. So as the
substance of our bodies is continually

being dissolved and evaporated by the
action of the external elements, the food
that is assimilated by virtue of this natural
law proceeds to replenish the void left
by that which is lost: and the body in-
creases or diminishes according as the re-
plenishment exceeds or falls short of the
waste. In a young child the substance
of the body, though soft, has its triangles
true,)and sharp: therefore they readi-
ly overpower and assimilate the blunter
triangles of the nutriment; but as time
goes on, the triangles are blunted and
cannot so well subdue the others; whence
is old age and decay. Finally when the
triangles of the vital marrow can no more
hold out, the bonds of the soul are loosed,
and she flies away rejoicing: for though
death which comes by wounds or sickness
is painful, when it is the result of natural
decay it is painless and brings pleasure
rather than distress.

ἡ. ὅθεν ὃ λόγος ὥρμησε] i.e. the
exposition of the law of περίωσις. Plato
now passes from respiration to the pro-
cesses of nutrition, growth, decay and
death. It seems to me that κατὰ ταῦτα
is clearly to be preferred over κατὰ ταὐτὰ
for the sake of symmetry.

11. ἐπαντλεῖν] See above, 79 A.

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [80 Ε---

304

τροφῆς νάματα οὕτως ἐπίρρυτα γέγονε. νεότμητα δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ
ξυγγενῶν ὄντα, τὰ μὲν καρπῶν, τὰ δὲ χλόης, ἃ θεὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ αὶ
τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐφύτευσεν εἶναι τροφήν, παντοδαπὰ μὲν χρώματα ἴσχει
διὰ τὴν ξύμμιξιν, ἡ δ᾽ ἐρυθρὰ πλείστη περὶ αὐτὸ χρόα διαθεῖ,
5 τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς τομῆς τε καὶ ἐξομόρξεως ἐν ὑγρῷ δεδημιουργημένη
φύσις" ὅθεν τοῦ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ῥέοντος τὸ χρῶμα ἔσχεν οἵαν ὄψιν
διεληλύθαμεν. ὃ καλοῦμεν αἷμα, νομὴν σαρκῶν καὶ ξύμπαντος
τοῦ σώματος, ὅθεν ὑδρευόμενα ἕκαστα πληροῖ τὴν τοῦ κενουμένου 81 A
βάσιν. ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς πληρώσεως ἀποχωρήσεώς τε γίγνεται,
ιοκαθάπερ ἐν τῷ παντὶ παντὸς ἡ φορὰ γέγονεν, ἣν τὸ ξυγγενὲς
πᾶν φέρεται πρὸς ἑαυτό. τὰ μὲν γὰρ δὴ περιεστῶτα ἐκτὸς ἡμᾶς
διανέμει πρὸς ἕκαστον εἶδος τὸ ὁμόφυλον ἀπο-
πέμποντα, τὰ δὲ ἔναιμα αὖ, κερματισθέντα ἐντὸς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ
περιειλημμένα ὥσπερ ὑπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ξυνεστῶτος ἑκάστου τοῦ ζῴου,
15 τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀναγκάζεται μιμεῖσθαι φοράν: πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενὲς B
οὖν φερόμενον ἕκαστον τῶν ἐντὸς μερισθέντων τὸ κενωθὲν τότε
ὅταν μὲν δὴ πλέον τοῦ ἐπιρρέοντος ἀπίῃ,
νέα μὲν οὖν ξύστασις

’ ψι ἂι \
THKEL TE GAEL Και

U > /
πάλιν ἀνεπληρωσεν.
φθίνει πᾶν, ὅταν δὲ ἔλαττον, αὐξάνεται.

1 γέγονε : γεγονέναι ASZ. 12 ἀποπέμποντα : ἀποπέμπον Α5Ζ.

15 τοῦ ante παντὸς delet A.

1. ἐπίρρυτα γέγονε cf. 43 A ἐπίρ- tion of the elements which surround us

ρυτον σῶμα καὶ ἀπόρρυτον.

ἀπὸ ξυγγενῶν] i.e. composed of the
same elements. On the subject of vege-
table diet see note on 77 A.

5. τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς τομῆς τε Kal ἐξ-
ομόρξεως] See the account of the γένεσις
of red in 68 Β. The colour of the blood
is due to the commingling of fire and
moisture: the fire, as it were, prints off
(ἐξομόργνυται) its own colour on the blood,
effacing the other hues.

8. τὴν τοῦ κενουμένου βάσιν] i.e.
the place left vacant by the particles
flying off in the natural process of waste.
βάσιν --τὸ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ βέβηκε, the spot in which
it rests.

9. ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς πληρώσεως] Plato
conceives the human microcosm to work
on just the same principles as the οὐρανὸς
in which it has its being. The vibration
of the ὑποδοχὴ is the force which governs
the circulation of the blood. By the ac-

the substance of the body is perpetually
undergoing transmutation and depletion.
This body is to the blood within it as it
were an enclosing οὐρανός ; and as changes
take place in its substance, the blood is
drawn to and fro according to the affinities
of its particles. Each change that takes
place in any part of the body affects the
affinity of the blood towards that part,
and consequently its tendency to flow in
that direction. Accordingly, as changes
are continually going on in all parts of
the body, the blood is constantly being
hurried to and fro throughout its whole
extent. This action is further supple-
mented by the principle of περίωσις. For
as fast as any vacancy is created by the
waste of the particles which are absorbed
by the surrounding elements, the blood
must rush in to take its place: whence
arises the necessity for a continual supply
of aliment. Such seems to be Plato’s

81 B] TIMAIOS. 305

stantly supplied. And the particles of food, being freshly severed
and from kindred substances—some from fruits and some from
herbs, which God planted just to be our sustenance,—have all
manner of colours owing to their intermixture; but a red hue per-
vades them most of all, through the natural contrivance whereby
the fire divides the food and imprints its own hue upon it:
whence the colour of the fluid that circulates through the body
has the appearance we have described. This we call blood,
which is the sustenance of the flesh and of all the body, and
from which all parts draw moisture to fill up the places that are
left void. And the mode of replenishment and evacuation is
like the motion of all things in the universe, whereby all kindred
substances seek each other. The elements that surround us
without are constantly dissolving our substance and distributing
it to its several kinds, returning each to its own kindred: and
again the particles of blood, being minutely divided within us
and enveloped in every creature by the body, as though by a
heaven surrounding them, are forced to copy the universal
motion. Therefore each of the divided particles within us is
carried to its own kind and thus replenishes again what was left
void. Now when the loss is greater than the replenishment,
everything diminishes, but when less, it increases. The young

general meaning: but the exact part
played respectively by the two principles
of ‘like seeks to like’ and the περίωσις
is not very clearly indicated.

11. τὰ μὲν γὰρ δὴ περιεστῶτα] The
surrounding elements are conceived to
have a solvent effect upon the body: they
convert icosahedrons into octahedrons,
and so forth. Consequently these par-
ticles, on changing their forms, change
their natural homes, and flying off πρὸς
τὸ ὁμόφυλον, leave a deficiency in the
substance of the body.

15. πρὸς τὸ Evyyevés] i.e. the particles
of the blood which are akin to those of
any special portion of the body flow
thither so soon as room is made for them
by the efflux of any particles from that
spot.

18. νέα μὲν οὖν ξύστασις]

Pits

Now fol-

lows the account of αὔξησις and φθίσις.
When the human frame is still young,
the particles of which it is composed,
and especially those of the vital fire, have
all their angles true and keen. The par-
ticles whereof the nutriment is formed
are, on the contrary, comparatively blunt
through age; hence the fiery particles
have no difficulty in dividing them and
performing the work described at 79 A.
Consequently the food is very thoroughly
assimilated and dispersed throughout the
body, and the child grows apace. Not-
withstanding the minute elaboration of
this and several previous chapters, we
read in Aristotle de gen. e¢ corr, 1 ii 315%
29 Πλάτων μὲν οὖν μόνον περὶ γενέσεως
ἐσκέψατο καὶ φθορᾶς, ὅπως ὑπάρχει τοῖς
πράγμασι, καὶ περὶ γενέσεως οὐ πάσης,
ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν στοιχείων: πῶς δὲ σάρκες

20

5

20

306 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [81 B—

τοῦ παντὸς ζῴου, καινὰ τὰ τρίγωνα οἷον ἐκ δρυόχων ἔτι ἔχουσα
τῶν γενῶν, ἰσχυρὰν μὲν τὴν ξύγκλεισιν αὐτῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα
‘ / ἥδ a Μ ϑι ad ς ιν} a
κέκτηται, ξυμπέπηγε δὲ ὁ πᾶς ὄγκος αὐτῆς ἁπαλός, ἅτ᾽ ἐκ μυελοῦ
" / Dee / \ \
μὲν νεωστὶ γεγονυίας, τεθραμμένης δὲ ἐν γάλακτι. τὰ δὴ περίλαμ-
/ > 3 A / μὲ 3 t > 4 x 9 ,
βανόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ τρίγωνα ἔξωθεν ἐπεισελθόντα, ἐξ ὧν ἂν ἡ τά τε
’ a Lol /
σιτία Kal ποτά, τῶν ἑαυτῆς τρυγώνων παλαιότερα ὄντα Kal ἀσθε-
νέστερα καινοῖς ἐπικρατεῖ τέμνουσα, καὶ μέγα ἀπεργάζεται τὸ
ζῷ ἐφ : λλῶν ὁμοί ὅταν δ᾽ ἡ ῥίζα τῶ ὦνων
Gov τρέφουσα ἐκ πολλῶν ὁμοίων. ὅταν δ᾽ ἡ ῥίζα τῶν τριγ
a ? a \
χαλᾷ διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ πρὸς πολλὰ
lal ν᾽
ἠγωνίσθαι, τὰ μὲν τῆς τροφῆς εἰσιόντα οὐκέτι δύναται τέμνειν
εἰς ὁμοιότητα ἑαυτοῖς, αὐτὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐπεισιόντων εὐπετῶς
διαιρεῖται: φθίνει δὴ πᾶν ζῷον ἐν τούτῳ κρατούμενον, γῆράς τε
> , Ἁ / , Va > \ Ὁ ‘ \ \
ὀνομάζεται τὸ πάθος. τέλος δέ, ἐπειδὰν τῶν περὶ τὸν μυελὸν
τριγώνων οἱ ξυναρμοσθέντες μηκέτι ἀντέχωσι δεσμοὶ τῷ πόνῳ
΄ a a Lod 3 a
διιστάμενοι, μεθιᾶσι τοὺς THs ψυχῆς αὖ δεσμούς, ἡ δὲ λυθεῖσα
\ , Poe a 2¢/ a \ \ \ \ ,
κατὰ φύσιν μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἐξέπτατο. πᾶν yap τὸ μὲν Tapa φύσιν
> , ‘ ᾿] e [4 , « ‘ , \ ‘
ἀλγεινόν, τὸ δ᾽ H πέφυκε γιγνόμενον ἡδύ" καὶ θάνατος δὴ κατὰ
ς
ταὐτὰ ὁ μὲν κατὰ νόσους καὶ ὑπὸ τραυμάτων γιγνόμενος ἀλγεινὸς
\ / ¢€ \ ‘ , Fh > \ , A , > ,
καὶ βίαιος, ὁ δὲ μετὰ γήρως ἰὼν ἐπὶ τέλος κατὰ φύσιν ἀπονώτατος

τῶν θανάτων καὶ μᾶλλον μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς γιγνόμενος ἢ λύπης.
5 ἐν αὐτῇ: ἑαυτῆς A. δὲ post ἐπεισελθόντα inserit A.

t
15 διιστάμενοι: διεσταμένοι A. διεσταμένοι HSZ, 19 γήρως : γῆρας SZ.

ἢ ὀστᾶ ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι τῶν τοιούτων, οὐδέν.
ἔτι οὔτε περὶ ἀλλοιώσεως οὔτε περὶ αὐξή-
σεως, τίνα τρόπον ὑπάρχουσι τοῖς πράγμα-
σιν.

1. οἷον ἐκ δρυόχων] 1.6. new-made,
like a ship from the stocks, and tightly
fitting. τῶν γενῶν is construed with τρί-
γωνα.

3. ὁ πᾶς ὄγκος] As a whole the
infantine body is soft, but this of course
does not mean that the particles whereof
it is composed, taken individually, are
soft.

8. ἡ ῥίζα τῶν τριγώνων] This phrase
is somewhat obscure. Stallbaum supposes
it to mean simply the radical triangles.
But as no other triangles can possibly
be in question, this is utterly pointless.
Martin renders it ‘la pointe’; but this
seems to restrict the meaning too much.

I conceive ῥίζα to mean the fundamental
structure of the triangles: the outlines
composing it, its sides and angles, from
long wear and tear, are no longer so true
in form as once they were.

το. τὰ μὲν τῆς τροφῆς] Compare
Hippokrates de prisca medicina vol. 1
p- 27 Κύμη ὅσα μὲν ἰσχυρότερα ἢ οὐ δυ-
νήσεται κρατέειν ἡ φύσις, ἣν ἐσβάληται,
ἀπὸ τουτέων δ᾽ αὐτῶν πόνους τε καὶ νόσους
καὶ θανάτους ἔσεσθαι" ὅσων δ᾽ ἂν δύνηται
ἐπικρατέειν, ἀπὸ τουτέων τροφήν τε καὶ
αὔξησιν καὶ ὑγιείην.

11. αὐτὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] Instead
of dividing and assimilating the particles
of the food, the particles of the body are
themselves divided; and the constitution
being thus generally enfeebled, the con-
dition ensues which we call old age.
Plato has not expressly distinguished be-

σ

D

τξ

E] | TIMAIOS. 307

frame then of the entire creature, having the triangles of its ele-
ments still as if fresh from the workshop, has them firmly linked
one to another; but the whole mass is soft in substance, seeing
that it has been newly formed out of marrow and nurtured upon
milk. Now forasmuch as the triangles of the substances com-
posing the food and drink, which enter from without and are
received within the young creature, are older and feebler than
those of the latter, it divides and subdues them with its new
triangles, and by the assimilation of a large number nourishes
and increases the animal: but when the exact outline of the
triangles is blunted, because they have been for a long time
struggling with many others, they are not able as of old to
comminute and assimilate the entering aliment, but are them-
selves easily divided by the incoming particles. At such a time
every living thing is enfeebled and wastes away ; and this con-
dition is termed old age. Finally when the bonds of the tri-
angles belonging to the marrow no longer hold to their fasten-
ings but snap asunder with the stress, they loose in their turn
the bonds of the soul; and she, being in the course of nature
released, flies away with gladness. For all that is contrary to
nature is painful; but whatsoever takes place in the natural way
is pleasant. On the same principle death which ensues upon
sickness or wounds is painful and violent ; but that which draws
to the natural end in the course of old age is of all deaths the
least distressing and is accompanied rather by pleasure than by
pain.

tween the fiery particles, which do the
work of digestion, and those which enter
into the composition of the body at large.
We must suppose that when the pyramids
of the vital fire become too much blunted
to perform their duty properly, the incom-
ing aliment makes war upon and weakens
the general structure of the body.

14. μηκέτι ἀντέχωσι δεσμοί] Finally,
when the triangles of the marrow itself
become blunted, the bonds of the soul
are loosed, and she flies forth with joy:
or translating into plain prose, the brain
and spinal marrow become no longer a
fit medium for the soul to act upon. For
δεσμοὶ see 73 D.

15. διιστάμενοιῦὐ The form διεστα-
μένοι, adopted by the more recent editors
from A, seems to me very suspicious.
The only parallel quoted, so far as I can
find, is κατεστέαται in Herodotus 1 τού,
where there is a variant κατεστᾶσι, which
Abicht reads. Altogether the word ap-
pears to need more support than it has
yet received.

16. κατὰ φύσιν] The doctrine that
death in the course of nature is pain-
less, if not pleasurable, is conformable
to Plato’s general theory of pleasure and
pain. Pain is the result of a condition
which is παρὰ φύσιν : therefore death,
which is κατὰ φύσιν, cannot be painful.

20—2

308

MAATONO®

[81 E—

XXXIX. Τὸ δὲ τῶν νόσων ὅθεν ξυνίσταται, δῆλόν που καὶ
παντί. τεττάρων γὰρ ὄντων γενῶν, ἐξ ὧν συμπέπηγε τὸ σῶμα.
γῆς πυρὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος, τούτων ἡ παρὰ φύσιν πλεονεξία
καὶ ἔνδεια καὶ τῆς χώρας μετάστασις ἐξ οἰκείας ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίαν

5 γιγνομένη, πυρός τε αὖ καὶ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐπειδὴ γένη πλείονα ἑνὸς
ὄντα τυγχάνει, τὸ μὴ προσῆκον ἕκαστον ἑαυτῷ προσλαμβάνειν
καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα τοιαῦτα στάσεις καὶ νόσους παρέχει' παρὰ φύσιν
γὰρ ἑκάστου γιγνομένου καὶ μεθισταμένου θερμαίνεται μὲν ὅσα
ἂν πρότερον ψύχηται, ξηρὰ δὲ ὄντα εἰς ἵστερον γίγνεται νοτερά,

ιο καὶ κοῦφα δὴ καὶ βαρέα, καὶ πάσας πάντῃ μεταβολὰς δέχεται.
μόνως γὰρ δή, φαμέν, ταὐτὸν ταὐτῷ κατὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ ὡσαύτως
καὶ ἀνὰ λόγον προσγιγνόμενον καὶ ἀπογιγνόμενον ἐάσει ταὐτὸν
ὃν αὑτῷ σῶν καὶ ὑγιὲς μένειν: ὃ δ᾽ ἂν πλημμελήσῃ τι τούτων
ἐκτὸς ἀπιὸν ἢ προσιόν, ἀλλοιότητας παμποικίλας καὶ νόσους
15 φθοράς τε ἀπείρους παρέξεται. δευτέρων δὴ ξυστάσεων αὖ κατὰ

8 ὅσα ἄν : ὅσαπερ ἄν 5.

11 μόνως : μόνον S.

J , ,᾿ ,
ταὐτόν : ταὐτό S.

[5 δευτέρων δὴ : δευτέρων δέ S.

81 E—84 6, ¢. xxxix. A classification
of diseases now follows. These arise (1)
from excess or deficiency of any of the
primary substances of which the body is
formed, viz. fire air water and earth; this
causes disturbance of the natural condi-
tions and consequently pain and sickness:
(2) from disorder in the secondary struc-
tures of the body and reversal of their
natural relations. For naturally the
blood feeds the flesh, and the flesh se-
cretes a fluid which nourishes the bones
and marrow: but in disease the flesh
degenerates and dissolves into the blood,
forming bile of divers kinds and phlegm.
But if the evil affects the flesh alone, the
danger is not so great; more serious is it
when the cement which unites the flesh
to the bones is attacked; for then the
very roots of the flesh are severed, and
it is loosed from the bones and tendons.
Yet graver is the case when the mischief
seizes upon the bones themselves; but
most deadly of all, if the malady is in the
marrow; for then the whole course of the
body’s nature is reversed from the very
beginning.

2, τεττάρων] Plato distinguishes be-
tween the primary and the secondary
structures of the body. The first are
simply the fire air earth and water where-
of it is composed: the second are struc-
tures formed out of these; blood, flesh,
tendons, bone, and marrow. The mala-
dies arising from disorders of the first
class are not here specified; but in 864
we have continued and intermittent fevers
referred hereto; and probably most minor
ailments would be assigned to this cause.
These πρῶται ξυστάσεις are termed in the
Timaeus Locrus 102 C ταὶ ἁπλαῖ δυνάμιες,
θερμότας ἢ ψυχρότας ἢ ὑγρότας ἢ ξηρότας.

5. πυρός τε αὖ καὶ τῶν ἑτέρων] Stall-
baum, joining these words with the
preceding, gives a very unsatisfactory
account of this passage. There is no
difficulty in it, if we expunge the comma
which he places after ἑτέρων and take the
genitives after γένη. Plato is giving two
causes of sickness; the first is the excess
or defect or unnatural situation of some
element; the second (introduced by αὖ)
is that, whereas diverse kinds exist of
each element (cf. 57 6), the wrong sort is

82 B] TIMAIOS.

309

XXXIX. Now the cause whence sicknesses arise is doubt-
less evident to all, For seeing there are four.elements of which
the body is composed, earth fire water and air, any unnatural
excess or defect of these or change of position from their own
to an alien region, and also—since there are more than one
kind of fire and the other elements—the reception by each of
an unfitting kind, and other such causes, all combine to pro-
duce discord and disease. For when any of them changes
its nature and position, the parts that formerly were cool are
heated, and those that were dry become afterwards moist, and
the light become heavy, and all undergo every kind of change.
The only way we allow in which one and the same substance
can remain whole and unchanged and sound is that the same

- element should be added to it or taken away from it on the

᾽

same principle and in the same manner and proportion; and
whatsoever errs in any of these points in its outgoings or in-
comings causes a vast diversity of vicissitudes and diseases and
destructions. Next in the secondary structures which are in a

present. The subject of παρέχει is the len as more correct than Plato's, de plac.

sentence τὸ μὴ TpoonKov...ToLadTa.

7. στάσεις Kal νόσους] Compare
Sophist 228 A νόσον tows καὶ στάσιν οὐ
ταὐτὸν νενόμικας.

8. θερμαίνεται μέν] Compare Hip-
pokrates de natura hominis vol. 1 p. 350
Kiihn πολλὰ γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐόντα,
ἃ ὁκόταν ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων παρὰ φύσιν θερμαί-
νηταί τε καὶ ψύχηται, καὶ ξηραίνηταί τε καὶ
ὑγραίνηται, νούσους τίκτει. This refers,
as appears a little further on, to the four
vital fluids enumerated by Hippokrates
p- 352 τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔχει ἐν
ἑαυτῷ αἷμα καὶ φλέγμα καὶ χολὴν διττήν,
ἤγουν ξανθήν τε καὶ μέλαιναν, καὶ ταῦτ᾽
ἐστὶν αὐτέῳ ἡ φύσις τοῦ σώματος, καὶ διὰ
ταῦτα ἀλγέει καὶ ὑγιαίνει. ὑγιαίνει μὲν
οὖν μάλιστα, ὁκόταν μετρίως ἔχῃ ταῦτα
τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα κρήσιος καὶ δυνάμιος καὶ
τοῦ πλήθεος, καὶ μάλιστα ἢν μεμιγμένα ἢ"
ἀλγέει δέ, ὁκόταν τι τουτέων ἔλασσον ἢ
πλέον ἦ, ἢ χωρισθῇ ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ μὴ
κεκρημένον ἢ τοῖσι ξύμπασι. This state-
ment of Hippokrates is approved by Ga-

Hipp. et Plat. vit 677, 678. Compare
a statement attributed to Alkmaion by
Stobaeus florilegium 100 λέγει δὲ τὰς
νόσους συμπίπτειν, ws μὲν ὑφ᾽ οὗ, δι᾽ ὑπερ-
βολὴν θερμότητος ἢ ξηρότητος, ὡς δὲ ἐξ οὗ,
διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς ἢ ἐνδείας, ὡς δὲ ἐν οἷς,
αἷμα ἢ μυελὸν ἢ ἐγκέφαλον: and again 101
᾿Αλκμαίων ἔφη τῆς μὲν ὑγιείας εἶναι συνεκ-
τικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων ὑγροῦ
ξηροῦ ψυχροῦ θερμοῦ πικροῦ γλυκέος καὶ τῶν
λοιπῶν" τὴν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτοῖς μοναρχίαν νόσοις
παρασκευαστικὴν εἶναι.

11. μόνως γὰρ δή] i.e. each several
part must have a continuous and un-
changing supply in due proportion of the
elements which contribute to its sub-
stance.

15. δευτέρων δὴ ξυστάσεων] The
δεύτεραι ξυστάσεις are the various ὁμοιο-
μερῆ, in Aristotelian terminology, of
which the body is constructed; blood,
flesh, bones ἄς. Galen de plac. VIII 680
is wrong in blaming Plato for making
blood a δευτέρα ξύστασις, since his πρῶται

tn

310 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [82 8---

φύσιν ξυνεστηκυιῶν δευτέρα κατανόησις νοσημάτων τῷ βουλομένῳ σ

γίγνεται ξυννοῆσαι. μυελοῦ γὰρ ἊΣ ἐκείνων ὀστοῦ τε καὶ σαρκὸς
καὶ νεύρου ξυμπαγέντος, ἔτι τε αἵματος ἄλλον μὲν τρόπον, ἐκ δὲ
τῶν αὐτῶν γεγονότος, τῶν μὲν ἄλλων τὰ πλεῖστα ἧπερ τὰ πρόσθεν,
\ \ a a f
τὰ δὲ μέγιστα τῶν νοσημάτων τῇδε χαλεπὰ ξυμπέπτωκεν, ὅταν
/ ς “
ἀνάπαλιν ἡ γένεσις τούτων πορεύηται, τότε ταῦτα διαφθείρεται.
\ / rn “
κατὰ φύσιν γὰρ σάρκες μὲν καὶ νεῦρα ἐξ αἵματος γίγνεται, νεῦρον
\ a A /
μὲν ἐξ ἰνῶν διὰ τὴν ξυγγένειαν, σάρκες δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ παγέντος,
Δ , , tal a ‘ lal
ὃ πήγνυται χωριζόμενον ivdv: τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν νεύρων καὶ σαρκῶν
2 ‘ a / \ \ “ \ \ / » ae Ὰ
ἅπτου αὖ μαχρον καὶ λιπαρὸν ἅμα μὲν τὴν σάρκα κολλᾷ προς
a A , Ν 5 “ ΄
τὴν τῶν ὀστῶν φύσιν αὐτό τε τὸ περὶ τὸν μυελὸν ὀστοῦν τρέφον
αὔξει, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα τῶν ὀστῶν διηθούμενον καθαρώ-
τατον γένος τῶν τριγώνων λειότατόν τε καὶ λιπαρώτατο!.
͵ ie τὴ a > a A , " \ , ‘
λειβόμενον ἀπὸ τῶν ὀστῶν Kal στάζον, ἄρδει τὸν μυελόν: Kal
Ν n » ΄ ς U eA ἡ ΄ . ,
κατὰ ταῦτα μὲν γιγνομένων ἑκάστων ὑγίεια ξυμβαίνει Ta πολλά:
a “ ,
νόσοι δέ, όταν ἐναντίως. ὅταν yap τηκομένη σὰρξ ἀνάπαλιν εἰς
\ la a , ,
τὰς φλέβας τὴν τηκεδόνα ἐξιῇ, τότε μετὰ πνεύματος αἷμα πολύ
᾿ \ lal \ ΄
τε καὶ παντοδαπὸν ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶ χρώμασι καὶ πικρότησι TOLKIA-

3 ἔτι: ἐπί Α.

ξυστάσεις differed from those of Hip-
pokrates and Galen. His distinction is
that each of the πρῶται ξυστάσεις consists
of one element only, a single geometrical
form; whereas a δευτέρα ξύστασις is com-
posite, being formed of two or more πρῶ-
ται ξυστάσεις.

2. ἐξ ἐκείνων] sc. ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων.

3. ἄλλον μὲν τρόπον] That is to say,
the blood is prepared by ἃ process
peculiar to itself, being formed directly
from the aliment by the action of the in-
ternal fire, as described at 79 A: cf. 73 B
—74 D.

4. τὰ πλεῖστα ἧπερ τὰ πρόσθεν] i.e.
the majority of ailments are due to defects
of the πρῶται ξυστάσεις, but the most
serious to those of the δεύτεραι.

6. ἀνάπαλιν ἡ γένεσις] In disease
the order of nature’s process is reversed :
the natural γένεσις is from blood, which
is the. sustenance of the whcle body, suc-
cessively to flesh, tendons, and the oily
fluid which nourishes the bones and
marrow. But sickness causes flesh to

degenerate and liquefy and. pass into the
blood, contrary to ‘the order of nature;
and in severe cases this degeneration
begins higher up, with the bones or even
the vital marrow itself.

8. ἐξ ἰνῶν] That is, from the fibrine
of the blood, which both Plato and
Aristotle distinguished from the serum,
ἰχώρ, though the globules were unknown
to them. In 84 ivay appears to mean
the fibrine of the flesh, not of the blood.
Compare Aristotle historia animalium 111
vi 515> 27 al δὲ ivés εἰσι μεταξὺ νεύρου
καὶ φλεβός. ἔνιαι δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχουσιν ὑγρό-
τητα τὴν τοῦ ἰχῶρος, καὶ διέχουσιν ἀπό τε
τῶν νεύρων πρὸς τὰς φλέβας καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἐκεί-
ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλο γένος
ἰνῶν, ὃ γίνεται μὲν ἐν αἵματι, οὐκ ἐν ἅπαν-
τος δὲ ζῴου αἵματι" ὧν ἐξαιρουμένων ἐκ τοῦ
αἵματος οὐ πήγνυται τὸ αἷμα, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ
ἐξαιρεθῶσι, πήγνυται: cf. 111 xvi 519” 32,
de partibus animalium τι ix 654° 28, and
Il iv 6514 1 ai δ᾽ Wes στερεὸν καὶ γεῶδες,

νων πρὸς τὰ νεῦρα.

ὥστε γίνονται οἷον πυρίαι ἐν τῷ αἵματι καὶ

ζέσιν ποιοῦσιν ἐν τοῖς θυμοῖς : he compares

D

E

Ἐ19. ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 311

natural state of union a second class of diseases may be dis-
cerned by one who would scrutinise them. For whereas marrow
and bone and flesh and sinew are composed of the four elements,
and blood is formed of the same though in a different way, most
of the diseases arise in the manner before explained, but the
gravest afflict them with especial severity in the following way :
that is to say, when the order of their generation is reversed,
these structures are then destroyed. For in the course of nature
flesh and sinews arise from blood, the sinews from the fibrine,
owing to their affinity; the flesh from the clots which are formed
when the fibrine is separated. From the sinews and flesh again
proceeds a glutinous and oily fluid, which not only cements the
flesh to the structure of the bones and itself gives nourishment
and growth to the bone which encloses the marrow, but also so
much of it as filters through the dense substance of the bones,
being formed of the purést and smoothest and most slippery
kind of the triangles, as it distils and oozes from the bones,
irrigates the marrow. When these structures are produced in
this order, health is the result as a rule; but when this is re-
versed, sickness ensues. For when the flesh decomposes and
returns the deliquescent matter to the veins, then is mingled
with air in the veins much blood of manifold kinds, with
diverse hues and bitter qualities, as well as acid and saline

them to the earthy element in mud.

9. ὃ πήγνυται χωριζομένων ἰνῶν]
This is a curious statement: he con-
ceives the flesh to be formed by the con-
cretion of what is left of this blood after
the ἶνες have gone to form νεῦρα.

Io. γλίσχρον kal λιπαρόν] This glu-
tinous and oily secretion of the flesh and
tendons is perhaps identical with the
synovial fluid, which lubricates the joints.
Plato supposes it to form by coagulation
the periosteum, or membrane enclosing
the bones, and therefore to cement to-
gether flesh and bones: it also penetrates
the bony envelope of the spinal column
and nourishes the vital marrow, as well
as the bones which protect it.

12. τὸ δ᾽ αὖ answers ἅμα μέν : while
part of the oily fluid is employed as above,

another part, the finest and smoothest,
filters through to the marrow.

17. μετὰ πνεύματος αἷμα] This indi-
cates that Plato regarded the veins as ducts
for air as well as blood. Aristotle also held
that air passed through the blood-vessels :
see historia animalium 1 xvii 496* 30
ἐπάνω δ᾽ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας πόροι"
οὐδεὶς δ᾽ ἐστὶ κοινὸς πόρος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν
σύναψιν δέχονται τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ
διαπέμπουσιν. The word πόρος is else-
where applied by Aristotle to a nerve ;
but here he is clearly speaking of a blood-
vessel. It was supposed by some autho-
rities after his time that the arteries, as
distinguished from the veins, were filled
with air alone: see Cicero de natura
deorum § 138 eoque modo ex his par-
tibus et sanguis per venas in omne cor-

nn

10

-
σι

20

312 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [82 E—

« /
λόμενον, ἔτι δὲ ὀξείαις καὶ ἁλμυραῖς δυνάμεσι, yords καὶ ἰχῶρας
al / /
καὶ φλέγματα παντοῖα ἴσχει. παλιναίρετα yop πάντα γεγονότα
‘ 7 , ἥν ἂν ar , \ » \
καὶ διεφθαρμένα τὸ τε αἷμα αὐτὸ πρῶτον διόλλυσι, Kal αὐτὰ
, Ν
οὐδεμίαν τροφὴν ἔτι τῷ σώματι παρέχοντα φέρεται πάντῃ διὰ
a na Ul a ‘ , 2 (Ps "“ /
τῶν φλεβῶν, τάξιν τῶν κατὰ φύσιν οὐκέτ᾽ ἴσχοντα περιόδων,
> θ Ν \ > ‘ « a ὃ \ 7 ὃ / > / e a »
ἐχθρὰ μὲν αὐτὰ αὑτοῖς διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἀπόλαυσιν ἑαυτῶν ἔχειν,
a a \ a ’ / \ , ΄
τῷ ξυνεστῶτι δὲ τοῦ σώματος καὶ μένοντι κατὰ χώραν πολέμια,
, Ν , ¢ \ ke A x , a fol
διολλύντα Kal τήκοντα. ὅσον μὲν οὖν ἂν παλαιότατον ὃν τῆς
. ¢ A
σαρκὸς τακῇ, δύσπεπτον γυγνόμενον μελαίνει μὲν ὑπὸ παλαιῶς
ἕ , ὃ \ δὲ \ / ὃ β β “Ὁ θ \ » ‘
υγκαύσεως, διὰ δὲ τὸ πάντῃ διαβεβρῶσθαι πικρὸν ὃν παντὶ
\ , / 3
χαλεπὸν προσπίπτει TOD σώματος, ὅσον av μήπω διεφθαρμένον 1°
καὶ τοτὲ μὲν ἀντὶ τῆς πικρότητος ὀξύτητα ἔσχε τὸ μέλαν χρῶμα,
a a a 4
ἀπολεπτυνθέντος μᾶλλον τοῦ πικροῦ; τοτὲ δὲ ἡ πικρότης αὖ
βαφεῖσα αἵματι χρῶμα ἔσχεν ἐρυθρώτερον, τοῦ δὲ μέλανος τούτῳ
ξυγκεραννυμένου yrowdes Ere δὲ ξυμμίγνυται ξανθὸν χρῶμα
μετὰ τῆς πικρότητος, ὅταν νέα ξυντακῇ σὰρξ ὑπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὴν
φλόγα πυρός. καὶ τὸ μὲν κοινὸν ὄνομα πᾶσι τούτοις ἤ τινες
td a \ > / a lf ΩΝ \ > \
ἰατρῶν που χολὴν ἐπωνόμασαν ἢ καί Tis ὧν δυνατὸς εἰς πολλὰ
> \ | ee / ἀξξς x ἫΝ ? a ἃ / ἘΞΑ, ”
μὲν καὶ ἀνόμοια βλέπειν, ὁρᾶν δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἕν γένος ἐνὸν ἄξιον
> , a \ ? wv t fal ΕΣ a \ \
ἐπωνυμίας πᾶσι" τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ὅσα χολῆς εἴδη λέγεται, κατὰ τὴν
χρόαν ἔσχε λόγον αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἴδιον. ἰχὼρ δέ, ὁ μὲν αἵματος
ay" UN a « \ ,ὔ fal ᾽ , ΝΜ a
ὀρὸς πρᾶος, ὁ δὲ μελαίνης χολῆς ὀξείας τε ἄγριος, ὅταν Evp-
μιγνύηται διὰ θερμότητα ἁλμυρᾷ δυνάμει: καλεῖται δὲ ὀξὺ φλέγμα
5 οὐκέτ᾽ ἴσχοντα : οὐκέτι σχόντα A.

τερον S.
AHSZ.

οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχοντα 8. 14 ἐρυθρώτερον : ἐρυθρό-
15 χλοῶδες dedi ex Cornari correctione et nonnullis codicibus, χολῶδες

pus diffunditur et spiritus per arterias.
Cicero uses the word ‘arteria’ in the
modern sense.

I. χολὰς kal tx@pas kal pdéypara]
The decomposition of the flesh produces
bile and serum and phlegm. By χυλὰς
we must understand morbid conditions or
excessive abundance of that fluid: since
in 71 B, C Plato expressly recognises that
χολὴ is a normal and necessary con-
stituent of the body; which is more than
Aristotle did: cf. de partibus animalium
IV ii 676> 31, 6774 11—22. The same
applies to ἐχῶρας, viz. that an abnormal
condition is to be understood.

2. Tadwalpera]

i.e. ἀνάπαλιν τὴν

γένεσιν ἔχοντα.

5. τάξιν τῶν κατὰ φύσιν] Although
Plato was of course ignorant concerning
the circulation of the blood, he conceived
it to have regular periodic motions.

6. μηδεμίαν ἑαυτῶν ἀπόλαυσιν] i.e.
they do not contribute to each other’s
nourishment.

9. δύσπεπτον] Being old firm flesh,
it yields reluctantly to the decomposing
agent.

μελαίνει μέν] ie. it is blackened
by long-standing inflammation and cor-
rosion, The degeneration of flesh pro-
duces a morbid kind of χολή ; of which
are enumerated four classes, (1) black,

83 A

B

σ

83 6] TIMAIOS, 313

properties; and this contains all kinds of bile and serum and
phlegm. For as all these are going the wrong way and have
become corrupt, first they ruin the blood itself, and furnishing
no nutriment to the body rush in all directions through the
veins, paying no heed to the periods appointed by nature, but
at war one with another, because they have no gcod of each
other; at war also with all that is established and fixed in the
body, which they corrupt and dissolve. Now when the oldest
part of the flesh is decomposed, being hard to soften, it turns
black through long-continued burning, and through being every-
where corroded it is bitter and dangerous to whatever part of
the body it attacks which is not yet corrupted. Sometimes this
black sort is acid instead of bitter, when the bitterness is more
refined away; and again the bitter sort being steeped in blood
gains a redder hue; and when black is mingled with this, it is
greenish : sometimes too’a yellow colour is added to the bitter-
ness, when new flesh is decomposed by the fire of the inflam-
mation. To all these symptoms the general name of dz/e has
been given, either by physicians, or by some one who in looking
at many dissimilar appearances was able to see one universal
quality pervading them all which deserved a name. All other
kinds of bile which are reckoned have their several descriptions
according to their colour. Of lymph, one kind is the mild
serum of blood,—the other is an acrid secretion of black and
acid bile, when that is blended through inflammation with a
saline property: this kind is called acid phlegm. But that

either bitter or acid, produced by the 16. Tov περὶ τὴν φλόγα πυρός] If

degeneration of old flesh, (2) reddish,
where there is an admixture of blood, (3)
green, apparently a combination of the
two former, (4) yellow, from the corro-
sion of newly-formed flesh.

15. xAo@Ses] This reading is clearly
right: when Plato is classifying χολαὲ
according to colour, it were absurd to
call one class χολῶδες. It will be re-
membered too that at 68 C green is de-
rived from a mixture of red and black.
χλοώδες is found in one ms. and the margin
of another, and is also confirmed by
Galen.

φλόγα is right it must signify ‘the in-
flammation’; but it is curiously abrupt,
and I am disposed to agree with Lindau
in suspecting it to be corrupt, though I
cannot approve of his suggested altera-
tion.

17. καὶ τὸ μὲν κοινὸν ὄνομα] All
these different forms have received the
general name of χολή, bestowed either
by medical men (and presumably some-
what at hap-hazard), or more scienti-
fically by a philosopher skilled in dis-
cerning ἕν ἐπὶ πολλοῖς. Compare 68 Ὁ.

23. καλεῖται δὲ ὀξὺ φλέγμα] Of.

σι

-
or

29

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

314 [83 c—

\ a \ > 3 Lame 4 f. > , Sr ἐδ a
TO τοιοῦτον. τὸ δ᾽ av μετ᾽ ἀέρος τηκόμενον ἐκ νέας καὶ ἁπαλῆς
/ , \ > / \ / ε «ς ,
σαρκός, τούτου δὲ ἀνεμωθέντος καὶ ξυμπεριληφθέντος ὑπὸ ὑγρό-
, a - ,
τητος, καὶ πομφολύγων ξυστασῶν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους τούτου καθ᾽
ἑκάστην μὲν ἀοράτων διὰ σμικρότητα, ξυναπασῶν δὲ τὸν ὄγκον
ς , lal a a “
παρεχομένων ὁρατόν, χρῶμα ἐχουσῶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀφροῦ γένεσιν
ἰδεῖν λευκόν, ταύτην πᾶσαν τηκεδόνα ἁπαλῆς σαρκὸς μετὰ πνεύ-
a ,
ματος ξυμπλακεῖσαν λευκὸν εἶναι φλέγμα φαμέν. φλέγματος δὲ
3 ζ 4 ᾿ς Ἃ, e \ U “ ΝΜ A
av νέου ξυνισταμένου ὀρὸς ἱδρὼς καὶ δάκρυον, ὅσα Te ἄλλα τοιαῦτα
σῶμα τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν χεῖται καθαιρόμενον: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ
, n
πάντα νόσων ὄργανα γέγονεν, ὅταν αἷμα μὴ ἐκ τῶν σιτίων Kal
Ὁ , \ , 3 3 > 5 ,ὔ \ ΝΜ Ἁ
ποτῶν πληθύσῃ κατὰ φύσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἐναντίων τὸν ὄγκον παρὰ
τοὺς τῆς φύσεως λαμβάνῃ νόμους.
νόσων τῆς σαρκὸς ἑκάστης, μενόντων δὲ τῶν πυθμένων αὐταῖς
«ς / a a « , ’ / . » ᾽ , /
ἡμίσεια τῆς ξυμφορᾶς ἡ δύναμις" ἀνάληψιν yap ἔτι μετ᾽ εὐπετείας
, ’ “-“ ‘ an ¢
layer τὸ δὲ δὴ σάρκας ὀστοῖς ξυνδοῦν ὁπότ᾽ ἂν νοσήσῃ, Kal μηκέτι

διακρινομένης μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ

ee τα > κα 4 \ η ’ ' > a \ ,
αὐτὸ ἐξ ἰνῶν ἅμα καὶ νεύρων ἀποχωριζόμενον ὀστῷ μὲν τροφή.
\ \ \ ? a! / , ? 7 ὦ a \ /

σαρκὶ δὲ πρὸς ὀστοῦν γίγνηται δεσμός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ λιπαροῦ καὶ λείου
ε nr

καὶ γχλίσχρου τραχὺ καὶ ἁλμυρὸν αὐχμῆσαν ὑπὸ κακῆς διαίτης
a “

γένηται, τότε ταῦτα πάσχον πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον καταψήχεται μὲν

a > 3 a

αὐτὸ πάλιν ὑπὸ Tas σάρκας Kal τὰ νεῦρα, ἀφιστάμενον ἀπὸ τῶν
2 a ol

ὀστῶν, ai δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν ξυνεκπίπτουσαι τά τε νεῦρα γυμνὰ

16 αὐτὸ scripsi: αὖ τὸ ΑΗ5Ζ.
αἷμα AHSZ.

7 ξυμπλακεῖσαν : ξυμπλεκεῖσαν A.
ἅμα, quod suadente Lindavio recepi, probavit nec tamen admisit 5.

φλέγμα two sorts are distinguished, ὀξὺ
and λευκόν. The first is the serum of
μέλαινα χολή, and a morbid humour: the
second, formed by the dissolution of new-
formed flesh and highly aerated, is in its
normal state a natural and healthy se-
cretion, viz. perspiration or tears; but if
produced to excess, it is a source of dis-
ease.

1. ἐκ νέας Kal ἁπαλῆς σαρκός] Ga-
len, while approving Plato’s description
of φλέγμα, dissents from his account of
its origin: see de plac. VIII 699 τὸ δὲ ἐκ
συντήξεως ἁπαλῆς σαρκὸς γενέσθαι ποτὲ
φλέγμα τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων ἐστί : his own
statement is δέδεικται yap ἥ γε τοῦ φλέγ-
patos γένεσις ἐκ τροφῆς φύσει ψυχροτέρας
ἐνδεῶς ὑπὸ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας κατερ-

γασθείσης ἀποτελουμένη.

2. ξυμπεριληφθέντος ὑπὸ ὑγρότητος]
This seems to be a loose way of ex-
pressing that the air-bubbles are enclosed
in the moisture of the φλέγμα.

9. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν] i-e. in the normal
healthy course of life.

11. GAN ἐξ ἐναντίων] i.e. when it
feeds upon the flesh or other structures of
the body, instead of the food : see above,
82 E.

13. μενόντων δὲ τῶν πυθμένων] That
is, if the mischief is comparatively super-
ficial, and the fundamental structure of
the flesh is unhurt, recovery is still easy.

15. τὸ δὲ δὴ σάρκας ὀστοῖς ξυνδοῦν]
sc. the γλίσχρον καὶ λιπαρόν, which by
coagulation forms the periosteum, as ex-

E

844

84 5] TIMAIOS. 315

which is formed in conjunction with air by the liquefaction
of new and tender flesh,—when it is inflated with air en-
veloped by moisture, and through this condition bubbles are
formed, invisible separately because of their smallness, but all
together becoming visible in the mass and presenting a white
colour to view by the formation of froth—this liquefaction of
tender flesh in combination with air we term white phlegm.
And the serum of freshly formed phlegm is sweat and tears,
and whatever other secretions purify the body from day to day.
All these become a means of disease, when the blood is not
replenished from the food and drink in the natural way, but
receives its volume in the contrary manner in despite of nature’s
laws. Now when the flesh is anywhere pierced by disease, but
the foundations of it remain intact, the malady has only half its
power; for there is still the prospect of ready recovery. But
when that which unites the flesh to the bones is diseased, and
in turn no longer by distilling both from the fibres and sinews
nourishes the bones and cements the flesh to them, but
instead of being oily and smooth and glutinous becomes harsh
and saline and shrivelled through an unhealthy habit of life,
under these conditions all that substance crumbles away under
the flesh and the sinews and separates from the bones; while
the flesh, falling away from its foundations, leaves the sinews

plained in 82 Ὁ.

16. αὐτὸ ἐξ ἰνῶν dpa] The reading
of the mss. seems here unquestionably
corrupt. The passage obviously refers
to the substance mentioned immediately
above, the cement which joins flesh and
bones together. But this substance is not
blood, nor is the blood ἐξ ivwy καὶ νεύρων
ἀποχωριζόμενον ; which the cement how-
ever is, provided we understand ἰνῶν here
as signifying the fibrine of the flesh, not
of the blood; see note on 82 D. It is
plain then that αἷμα is wrong; and Lin-
dau’s suggestion dua seems to me a good
one. But furthermore αὖ τὸ surely can-
not be right; for αὖ introduces an anti-
thesis where none exists, and the article
seems to mark the mention of some new
substance, whereas Plato is still speak-

ing of the cement of flesh and bones. I
have therefore made the slight altera-
tion to αὐτό, which may, I think, be
justified as setting off the fluid against
the bones which it nourishes and the flesh
which it fastens to them: it is itself no
longer secreted and it therefore fails to
nourish the bones and cement the flesh:
cf. 82 E76 τε αἷμα αὐτὸ πρῶτον διόλλυσι,
καὶ αὐτὰ οὐδεμίαν τροφὴν ἔτι τῷ σώματι
παρέχοντα φέρεται.

19. καταψήχεται μὲν αὐτό] The pe-
riosteum dries up and crumbles, and the
flesh, no longer cemented to the bones,
falls away from them: cf. Aristotle hés/oria
animalium 11 xiii 519> 5 Ψιλούμενά re τὰ
ὀστᾷ τῶν ὑμένων σφακελίζει.

at. ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν] The ῥίζαι are the
πυθμένες mentioned above in 83 E.

10

--
οι

20

316 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [84 B—
καταλείπουσι καὶ μεστὰ ἅλμης, αὐταὶ δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὴν αἵματος
φορὰν ἐμπεσοῦσαι τὰ πρόσθεν ῥηθέντα νοσήματα πλείω ποιοῦσι.
a ‘ ,
χαλεπῶν δὲ τούτων περὶ τὰ σώματα παθημάτων γυγνομένων μείζω
lal , \
ἔτι γίγνεται Ta πρὸ τούτων, ὅταν ὀστοῦν διὰ πυκνότητα σαρκὸς
ἀναπνοὴν μὴ λαμβάνον ἱκανήν, ὑπ᾽ εὐρῶτος θερμαινόμενον, σφακε-
/

λίσαν μήτε τὴν τροφὴν καταδέχηται πάλιν τε αὐτὸ εἰς ἐκείνην
, , ” ἢ Ces , 4 ae > ,
ἐναντίως in ψηχόμενον, ἡ δ᾽ εἰς σάρκας, σὰρξ δὲ eis αἷμα ἐμπί-
πτουσα τραχύτερα πάντα τῶν πρόσθεν τὰ νοσήματα ἀπεργάζηται:
τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον πάντων, ὅταν ἡ τοῦ μυελοῦ φύσις ἀπ᾽ ἐνδείας ἤ τινος
ὑπερβολῆς νοσήσῃ, τὰ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα πρὸς θάνατον τῶν
"οσημάτων ἀποτελεῖ, πάσης ἀνάπαλιν τῆς τοῦ σώματος φύσεως
ἐξ ἀνάγκης ῥυείσης.

ΧΙ, Τρίτον δ᾽ αὖ νοσημάτων εἶδος τριχῇ δεῖ διανοεῖσθαι

’ ‘ \ ε \ , \ \ , \ \ fal
γιγνόμενον, TO μὲν ὑπὸ πνεύματος, TO δὲ φλέγματος, τὸ δὲ χολῆς.
“ \ \ ς a , Ὁ , / ’ \
ὅταν μὲν yap ὁ τῶν πνευμάτων τῷ σώματι ταμίας πλεύμων μὴ

«ς Ν

καθαρὰς παρέχῃ τὰς διεξόδους ὑπὸ ῥευμάτων φραχθείς, ἔνθα μὲν
οὐκ ἰόν, ἔνθα δὲ πλεῖον ἢ τὸ προσῆκον πνεῦμα εἰσιὸν τὰ μὲν οὐ
τυγχάνοντα “ἀναψυχῆς σήπει, τὰ δὲ τῶν φλεβῶν διαβιαζόμενον
καὶ ξυνεπιστρέφον αὐτὰ τῆκόν τε τὸ σῶμα εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ

/
διάφραγμά τ᾽ ἴσχον ἐναπολαμβάνεται, καὶ μυρία δὴ νοσήματα

18 διαβιαζόμενον: διαβιαζομένων Α. 20 τ᾽ ἴσχον : τί σχόν A.

2. τὰ πρόσθεν ῥηθέντα νοσήματα]
sc. the xoAal and φλέγματα.

4. τὰ πρὸ τούτων] i.e. when the de-
generation begins further back ; the bones
being regarded as posterior in the order
of γένεσις to the flesh.

διὰ πυκνότητα σαρκός] Perhaps then,
after all, if the gods had given our
heads a thick covering of flesh, we might
not have lived any the longer for it.

5. ἀναπνοήν] cf. 85 A, C: ‘ventila-
tion’ seems to be the meaning here.

6. τὴν τροφήν] i.e. the oily fluid
which nourishes them. The bones de-
compose and mingle with this fluid, the
fluid with the flesh, and the flesh with the
blood.

11. πάσης ἀνάπαλιν] The μυελὸς is
the very citadel of life ; so that when the
disease assails that, the foundations of

health are sapped: the course of nature
flows backward from its utmost fount.

84 C—86 A, c. xl. A third class of
maladies remains for consideration : those
engendered by air, by phlegm, and by
bile. When an excessive amount of air
passes into the veins and penetrating
their sides finds its way into the flesh
and is there imprisoned, various evil re-
sults follow; in some cases convulsions
and tetanus, which will hardly yield to
treatment, and diseases of the lungs. By
phlegm are produced leprosies and all
manner of skin-diseases; and when in
conjunction with bile it attacks the head,
epilepsy ensues, which is called the ‘sacred
disease’, because it affects the divinest
part. All kinds of inflammatory dis-
orders, accompanied by pustules and
eruptions, arise from bile; which also

Cc

D

E

E] TIMAIOS. 317

bare and full of brine, and itself falling back into the current of
the blood aggravates the diseases that have been described.
But distressing as are these symptoms which affect the body,
yet more serious are those which are prior in order; when the
bones, owing to denseness of the flesh, cannot get sufficient air
and becoming mouldy and heated decay away, and while they
will not receive their nourishment, crumble down and return by
a reversed process into their nourishing fluid, and that in its turn
passing into flesh, and the flesh into blood, they render all the
diseases more virulent than those already mentioned. The most
desperate case of all is when the substance of the marrow be-
comes diseased by any defect or excess: this produces the most
serious and fatal disorders, seeing that the whole nature of the
body is forced to proceed in a backward course.

XL. A third class of diseases we must conceive as occurring
in three ways: one by the agency of air, the second of phlegm,
the third of bile. For when the lungs, which are the dispensers
of air to the body, do not keep their passages clear, because
they are impeded by catarrhs, the air, failing to pass through
some, and in others entering with a volume unduly great, causes
the decomposition of the parts which lack their supply of air,
and forces its way through the channels of the veins and dis-
locates them, and dissolving the body it is confined amid its
substance, occupying the midriff; and so countless painful
diseases are produced from these causes, accompanied by

seizes upon the fibrine of the blood, and
preventing its due circulation causes chills
and shuddering ; and sometimes penetra-
ting to the vital marrow sets free the
soul: but if its fury be less violent,
it gives rise to diarrhoea and dysen-
tery. Continuous, quotidian, tertian, and
quartan fevers are caused by a super-
abundance of fire, air, water, and earth
respectively predominating in the com-
position of the body.

14. τὸ μὲν ὑπὸ πνεύματος] This class
of diseases is distinct from those caused
by a mere superfluity of air entering into
the composition of the body. We are at
present concerned with the maladies

arising from the confinement of large
quantities of air in places where it has no
right to be.

18. τὰ δὲ τῶν φλεβῶν] Here again the
veins are considered as passages for air :
the ingress of air is normal; it is the ex-
cessive amount which gives rise to dis-
ease : see note on 82 E.

19. εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ] These words
are best taken with ἐναπολαμβάνεται.
But the sentence does not run smoothly,
and I suspect that something has gone
amiss with it. διάφραγμα ἴσχον, if the
words are sound, means taking possession
of the midriff, pressing against it.

tn

15

318 ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ [84 B=

ἐκ τούτων ἀλγεινὰ μετὰ πλήθους ἱδρῶτος ἀπείργασται. πολλάκις
δ᾽ ἐν τῷ σώματι διακριθείσης σαρκὸς πνεῦμα ἐγγενόμενον καὶ
ἀδυνατοῦν ἔξω πορευθῆναι τὰς αὐτὰς τοῖς ἐπεισεληλυθόσιν ὠδῖνας
παρέσχε, μεγίστας δέ, ὅταν περὶ τὰ νεῦρα καὶ τὰ ταύτῃ φλέβια
περιστὰν καὶ ἀνοιδῆσαν τούς τε ἐπιτόνους καὶ τὰ ξυνεχῆ νεῦρα
οὕτως εἰς τὸ ἐξόπισθεν κατατείνῃ τούτοις" ἃ δὴ καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς
συντονίας τοῦ παθήματος τὰ νοσήματα τέτανοί τε καὶ ὀπισθότονοι
προσερρήθησαν. ὧν καὶ τὸ φάρμακον χαλεπόν' πυρετοὶ γὰρ οὖν
δὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐγγιγνόμενοι μάλιστα λύουσι. τὸ δὲ λευκὸν φλέγμα
διὰ τὸ τῶν πομφολύγων πνεῦμα χαλεπὸν ἀποληφθέν, ἔξω δὲ τοῦ
σώματος ἀναπνοὰς ἴσχον, ἠπιώτερον μέν, καταποικίλλει δὲ τὸ
σῶμα λεύκας ἀχφούς τὲ καὶ τὰ τούτων ξυγγενῆ νοσήματα ἀπο-
τίκτον: μετὰ χολῆς δὲ μελαίνης κερασθὲν ἐπὶ τὰς περιόδους τε τὰς
ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ θειοτάτας οὔσας ἐπισκεδαννύμενον καὶ ξυνταράττον
αὐτάς, καθ᾽ ὕπνον μὲν ἰὸν πραότερον, ἐγρηγορόσι δὲ ἐπιτιθέμενον
δυσαπαλλακτότερον' νόσημα δὲ ἱερᾶς ὃν φύσεως ἐνδικώτατα ἱερὸν
λέγεται. φλέγμα δ᾽ ὀξὺ καὶ ἁλμυρὸν πηγὴ πάντων νοσημάτων,
ὅσα. γίγνεται καταρροϊκά" διὰ δὲ τοὺς τόπους, εἰς ods ῥεῖ, παντο-

δαποὺς ὄντας παντοῖα ὀνόματα εἴληφεν. ὅσα δὲ φλεγμαίνειν

I πολλάκις post ἱδρῶτος inserunt AS, 9 ἐγγιγνόμενοι : ἐπιγιγνόμενοι 8.
I. μετὰ πλήθους ἱδρῶτος] Plato evi-
dently has in view consumption and kin-
dred maladies.
2. διακριθείσης σαρκός] In the for-
mer case the air entered from without:

οἵ τε yap τέτανοι καὶ οἱ σπασμοὶ πνεύματος
μέν εἰσι κινήσεις.

8. πυρετοὶ γὰρ οὖν δή] Compare
Hippokrates aphorisms vol. ΠῚ p. 735
Kiihn ὑπὸ σπασμοῦ ἢ τετάνου ἐνοχλουμένῳ

an equally bad, though different, result
is produced when the imprisoned air has
been produced within the body by disso-
lution of the flesh.

5. τούς τε émirévovs] The ἐπίτονει
are the great tendons of the shoulders
and arms.

7. Téravol τε kal ὀπισθότονοι] The
first is the generic term for diseases the
symptoms of which are spasmodic con-
traction of the muscles: ὀπισθύτονος was
a special form in which the muscles are
drawn violently backwards: see Hippo-
krates de morbis vol. 11 p. 303 Kiihn: the
opposite form was ἐμπροσθότονος. Aris-
totle also attributes these disorders to the
action of air: meteorologica 11 viii 366° 25

πυρετὸς ἐπιγενόμενος λύει τὸ νόσημα. Plato
means that in cases which do not end
fatally it is this natural relief, rather
than medical treatment, which saves the
patient’s life.

10. Sid τὸ τῶν πομφολύγων πνεῦμα]
The diseases produced by _the λευκὸν
φλέγμα are ultimately to be traced to
πνεῦμα, since they are due to the air
which is enclosed in the former : they are
less dangerous however, because they are
thrown off at the surface.

12. λεύκας ἄλφους te] These are
diseases of the skin described by Celsus
V xxviii 19.

15. καθ᾽ ὕπνον μὲν ἰὸν πραότερον] ‘In
many epileptics the fits occur during the

85 A

B

85 8] TIMAIOS.

(319

excessive sweat. Often too when the flesh is broken: up, air
is formed in the body, and being unable to find an exit it pro-
duces the same torments as are caused by the air which enters
in; the most severe of all, when gathering and swelling up
around the sinews and the blood-vessels in these parts it strains
the tendons of the shoulders and the muscles attached to them
in a backward direction: and owing to the intense strain pro-
duced in this condition these affections are called tetanus and
opisthotonus. For these the remedy is severe: for in fact fevers
supervening chiefly give relief in such cases. The white phlegm
when intercepted is dangerous owing to the air in the bubbles:
but when it finds an escape to the surface of the body it is more
mild; yet it disfigures the person by engendering scabs and
leprosies and kindred maladies. Sometimes it is mingled with
black bile and is shed upon the revolutions in the head, which
are the most divine, and confounds them; and if this occurs
during sleep, the effects are milder, but if in the waking hours, it
is harder to relieve. This, as affecting the sacred part, is justly
called the sacred disease. Acid and saline phlegm is the source
of all diseases that take the form of catarrh: and these have
received manifold names according to the diverse places in
which the discharge takes place. Inflammations in various parts

' night as well as during the day, but in
some instances they are entirely nocturnal,

ὅθεν γίνεται. φύσιν δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ πρόφασιν

οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐνόμισαν θεῖον εἷναι ὑπὸ ἀπειρίης

and it is well known that in such cases
the disease may long exist and yet re-
main unrecognised either by the patient
or the physician.’ Dr Affleck in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, article 4 21-
lepsy.

16. ἐνδικώτατα ἱερὸν λέγεται) The
| name ἱερὰ νόσος was given to epilepsy
because, owing to the suddenness of the
᾿ attack and its appalling symptoms, it
seemed like the direct visitation of some
divine power, which without warning
| struck down its victim. Hippokrates in
| the true scientific spirit protests against
| this superstition: see de morho sacro vol. 1
p. 587 Kiihn οὐδέν ri μοι δοκέει τῶν ἄλλων
θειοτέρη εἷναι νούσων οὐδὲ ἱερωτέρη, ἀλλὰ
φύσιν μὲν ἔχει ἣν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ νουσήματα

καὶ θαυμασιότητος, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔοικε ἑτέρῃσι
νούσοισι. καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἀπορίην αὐ-
τοῖσι τοῦ μὴ γινώσκειν τὸ θεῖον αὐτῇ διασῴ-
ζεται, κατὰ δὲ τὴν εὐπορίην τοῦ τρόπου
τῆς ἰήσιος ἰῶνται" ἀπολύονται γὰρ ἢ καθαρ-
μοῖσι ἢ ἐπαοιδῇσι. Plato, as his manner
is, adopts the popular appellation, but
gives it a new and higher significance of |

_ his own: it is the sacred disease because

peculiarly affecting the divinest part of
us.

18, καταρροϊκά] i.e.catarrhs, in what-
ever part of the body they may occur.

19. φλεγμαίνειν λέγεται) Notwith-
standing the name φλεγμαίνειν, Plato
would say, inflammations are not owing
to φλέγμα at all, but to χολή.

320 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [85 B—

a , Ἁ
λέγεται τοῦ σώματος, ἀπὸ τοῦ κάεσθαί τε καὶ φλέγεσθαι ͵ διὰ
5 > \ a
χολὴν γέγονε πάντα. λαμβάνουσα μὲν οὖν ἀναπνοὴν ἔξω παντοῖα
: , » ,
ἀναπέμπει φύματα ζέουσα, καθειργνυμένη δ᾽ ἐντὸς πυρίκαυτα
a / , “ a
νοσήματα πολλὰ ἐμποιεῖ, μέγιστον δέ, ὅταν αἵματι καθαρῷ Evyxe-
δρασθεῖσα τὸ τῶν ἰνῶν γένος ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν διαφορῇ τάξεως, αἱ
/ /
διεσπάρησαν μὲν eis αἷμα, ἵνα συμμέτρως λεπτότητος ἴσχοι Kal
πάχους καὶ μήτε διὰ θερμότητα ὡς ὑγρὸν ἐκ μανοῦ τοῦ σώματος
/ / Ε]
ἐκρέοι, μήτ᾽ αὖ πυκνότερον δυσκίνητον ὃν μόλις ἀναστρέφοιτο ἐν
A 2 : cr U
ταῖς φλεψί. καιρὸν δὴ τούτων ἶνες TH τῆς φύσεως γενέσει φυλάτ-
10 τουσιν' ἃς ὅταν τις καὶ τεθνεῶτος αἵματος ἐν ψύξει τε ὄντος πρὸς
᾽ Ω U a a » \ > ~ \
ἀλλήλας συναγάγῃ, διαχεῖται πᾶν τὸ λοιπὸν αἷμα, ἐαθεῖσαι δὲ
a a ee / , -
ταχὺ μετὰ τοῦ περιεστῶτος αὐτὸ ψύχους ξυμπηγνύασι. ταύτην
\ ‘ , > A 2A > “ \ U ὸ ΐ
δὴ τὴν δύναμιν ἐχουσῶν ἰνῶν ἐν αἵματι χολὴ φύσει παλαιὸν αἷμα
γεγονυῖα καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν εἰς τοῦτο τετηκυΐα, θερμὴ καὶ
15 ὑγρὰ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον τὸ πρῶτον ἐμπίπτουσα πήγνυται διὰ τὴν τῶν
EA Uy / \ / / na
ἰνῶν δύναμιν, πηγνυμένη δὲ καὶ βίᾳ κατασβεννυμέιη χειμῶνα
, > / a
καὶ τρόμον ἐντὸς παρέχει' πλείων δ᾽ ἐπιρρέουσα, TH παρ᾽ αὑτῆς
᾽ ΄
θερμότητι κρατήσασα, τὰς ἶνας εἰς ἀταξίαν ζέσασα διέσεισε" καὶ
ἐὰν μὲν ἱκανὴ διὰ τέλους κρατῆσαι γένηται, πρὸς τὸ τοῦ μυελοῦ
20 διαπεράσασα γένος καίουσα ἔλυσε τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτόθεν οἷον
\ / We fs > / “ > > ’ > Ld
νεὼς πείσματα μεθῆκέ τε ἐλευθέραν: ὅταν & ἐλάττων ἢ TO TE
σῶμα ἀντίσχῃ τηκόμενον, αὐτὴ κρατηθεῖσα ἢ κατὰ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα
1/ ΩΝ \ a an > \ U ~ x» \ Ν
ἐξέπεσεν, ἢ διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν εἰς τὴν κάτω ξυνωσθεῖσα ἢ τὴν ἄνω
κοιλίαν, οἷον φυγὰς ἐκ πόλεως στασιασάσης ἐκ τοῦ σώματος
25 ἐκπίπτουσα, διαρροίας καὶ δυσεντερίας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα νοσήματα
, ς a a
πάντα παρέσχετο. TO μὲν οὖν ἐκ πυρὸς ὑπερβολῆς μάλιστα

8 μόλις: μόγις SZ. g τούτων : τοῦτον A. 17 αὑτῆς: αὐτῆς AHS.
22 αὐτή: αὕτη Α.

1. διὰ χολὴν γέγονε πάντα] This mation is much more dangerous.

was, according to Aristotle, the opinion 7. ἐκ μανοῦ τοῦ σώματος ἐκρέοι] i e.
of Anaxagoras and his school: cf. de percolate through the substance of the
partibus animalium αν ii 6775 5 οὐκ ὀρθῶς body.

δὲ ἐοίκασιν οἱ περὶ ᾿Αναξαγόραν ὑπολαμ- it. διαχεῖται πᾶν τὸ λοιπὸν αἷμα]
βάνειν ὡς αἰτίαν οὖσαν [sc. τὴν χολήν] τῶν Hence we see that although Plato con-
ὀξέων νοσημάτων" ὑπερβάλλουσαν yapdmop- ceived that flesh was formed by conden-
ραίνειν πρός Te τὸν πλεύμονα καὶ τὰς φλέ. sation of the ἰχώρ (82 Ὁ), he did not

Bas καὶ τὰ πλευρά. suppose that blood deprived of the ives
2, λαμβάνουσα μὲν οὖν ἀναπνοήν] would coagulate on exposure to the air.
i.e. when it is thrown off in an eruption: 13. παλαιὸν αἷμα γεγονυῖα] The flesh

Plato is aware that the suppressed inflam- is formed of the blood, and χολή (that is,

σ

Ε

864A

86 A] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 321

of the body, so called from the heat and burning that occurs,
are all due to bile. When they have egress, they seethe up and
send forth all kinds of pustules; but if they are suppressed
within, they cause many inflammatory diseases; of which the
worst is when the inflammation entering into pure blood carries ©
away from its proper place the fibrine which was distributed
through the blood in order that it might preserve a due measure
of thinness and thickness and neither be so much liquefied by
heat as to flow out through the porous texture of the body, nor
become sluggish from excessive density and circulate with
difficulty in the veins. Now the fibrine by the nature of its
composition preserves the due mean in these respects. For if
from blood that is dead and beginning to cool the fibrine be
gathered apart, the rest of the blood is dissipated; but if the
fibrine be allowed to remain, by the help of the cold air sur-
rounding, it quickly congéals it. The fibrine then in the blood
having this property, bile which is naturally formed of old blood
and is dissolved again into blood out of the flesh, enters warm
and liquid into the blood, at first gradually, and is condensed by
the power of the fibrine; and as it is condensed and forced to
cool, it produces internal chill and shivering. But when a
greater quantity flows in, it subdues the fibrine with its heat,
and boiling up scatters it abroad ; and if it is able to obtain the
mastery to the end, it penetrates to the substance of the marrow,
and consuming it looses from thence the bonds of the soul, as it
were the moorings of a ship, and sets her free. But when the
bile is too feeble for this, and the body holds out against the
dissolution, itself is vanquished, and either is expelled by an
eruption over the whole body, or is driven through the veins
into the lower or upper belly, like an exile banished from a city
that has been at civil war; and as it issues forth from the body,
it causes diarrhoea and dysentery and all diseases of that kind.
When a body has been stricken with sickness chiefly through

χολὴ οἵ a morbid nature) is formed by
degeneration of the flesh, and hence is
παλαιὸν αἷμα.

16. χειμῶνα καὶ τρόμον] The solidifi-
cation of the χολὴ causes tremor and
shivering on the principle enunciated in

Po T,

62 A,B: τὸ παρὰ φύσιν ξυναγόμενον μάχε-
ται κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ εἰς τοὐναντίον
ἀπωθοῦν.

20. οἷον νεὼς πείσματα] Compare
73 Ὁ καθάπερ ἐξ ἀγκυρῶν βαλλόμενος ἐκ
τούτων πάσης ψυχῆς δεσμούς.

21

cn

322

MAATONO®

[86 A—

νοσῆσαν σῶμα ξυνεχῆ καύματα καὶ πυρετοὺς ἀπεργάζεται, TO
ἂν; ᾽ > , / > ψῃ \ \ Φ

δ᾽ ἐξ ἀέρος ἀμφημερινούς, τριταίους δ᾽ ὕδατος διὰ τὸ νωθέστερον
ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς αὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ γῆς, τετάρτως ὃν νωθέστατον
τούτων, ἐν τετραπλασίαις περιόδοις χρόνου καθαιρόμενον, τεταρ-
ταίους πυρετοὺς ποιῆσαν ἀπαλλάττεται μόγις.

XLI.

Kal τὰ μὲν περὶ τὸ σῶμα νοσήματα ταύτῃ Evy Baiver B

γιγνόμενα, τὰ δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν διὰ σώματος ἕξιν τῇδε. νόσον μὲν
δὴ ψυχῆς ἄνοιαν ξυγχωρητέον, δύο δ᾽ ἀνοίας γένη, τὸ μὲν μανίαν,
» x” YX@Pn yevn μεν μ'

τὸ δὲ ἀμαθίαν.

πᾶν οὖν ὅ τι πάσχων τις πάθος ὁπότερον αὐτῶν
ἴσχει, νόσον προσρητέον, ἡδονὰς δὲ καὶ λύπας ὑπερβαλλούσας τῶν

νόσων μεγίστας θετέον τῇ ψυχῇ" περιχαρὴς γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ὧν
ἢ καὶ τἀναντία ὑπὸ λύπης πάσχων, σπεύδων τὸ μὲν ἑλεῖν ἀκαίρως,

Ἢ \ a vy fA ” > , 3 \ OX , -
τὸ δὲ φυγεῖν, οὔθ᾽ ὁρᾶν οὔτε ἀκούειν ὀρθὸν οὐδὲν δύναται, λυττᾷ

δὲ καὶ λογισμοῦ μετασχεῖν ἥκιστα τότε δὴ δυνατός ἐστι.

3 τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ : τὸ δὲ SZ.

2. ἀμφημερινούς] i.e. cases in which
there is a period of fever and a period of
relaxation in every twenty-four hours.
As Martin observes, the names given to
these recurrent fevers denote, not their
period, but the number of days necessary
for determining the period: thus in a
τριταῖος there is a day of fever and a day
of relief; the fever returning on the third
day marks the period as comprising two
days: similarly in a τεταρταῖος there is a
day of fever and two days of relief, the
fever returning on the fourth day. Galen
de plac. Hipp. εἰ Flat. Vit 697 disputes
Plato’s account of fever, which he ascribes
not to the four elements, but to the four
primary fluids of the body. The ancient
medical writers also mention a species of
tertian fever called ἡμιτριταῖος, the period
of which was thirty-six hours of fever
(more or less) and twelve hours of com-
parative relaxation ; see Celsus III 3, 111 8.

86 B—87 B, ¢. xli. Maladies of the
soul arise from morbid conditions of
the body. Now the sickness of the soul
is foolishness ; and of this there are two
kinds, madness and ignorance. Plea-
sure and pain in excess are the most
calamitous of mental disorders, for they

τὸ δὲ

5 μόγις, ut videtur, A. μόλις Η.

lead a man vehemently to seek one thing
and eschew another without reflection or
understanding. Whenever the seminal
marrow is abundant and vigorous, it
prompts to indulgence in bodily pleasures
which enfeeble the soul. But the profli-
gate are unjustly reproached as criminals:
in truth they are sick in soul. For no
one is willingly evil ; this comes to a man
against his will through derangement.
For when the vicious humours of the
body are pent up therein and find no
vent, the vapours of them rise up and
choke the movements of the soul at all
her seats, causing moroseness and melan-
choly, rashness and cowardice, forgetful-
ness and dulness. And these evils are
further aggravated by bad institutions
and teaching and lack of wholesome
training. Wherefore the teachers are
more to blame than the sinners themselves,
whom we ought to strive to bring into a
healthier habit of mind.

7- ϑιὰ σώματος ἕξιν] The corporeal
ἕξεις which cause sickness to the soul
may be classified in two divisions. (1) sus-
ceptibility to pleasures and pains (these
arise from σώματος ἕξεις, because, al-
though it is the soul, not the body that

6] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 323

excess of fire, it exhibits continued inflammations and fevers;
excess of air causes quotidian fevers; excess of water tertian,
because it is more sluggish than air or fire; excess of earth,
which is by four measures most sluggish of all, being purged
in a fourfold period of time, gives rise to quartan fevers, and is
with difficulty banished.

XLI. Such are the conditions connected with diseases of the
body; those of the soul depend upon bodily habit in the following
way. We must allow that disease of the soul is senselessness; and
of this there are two forms, madness and stupidity. Every con-
dition then in which a man suffers from either of these must be
termed a disease. We must also affirm that the gravest maladies
of the soul are excessive pleasures or pains. For if a man is
under the influence of excessive joy, or, on the other hand, of
extreme pain, and is eager unduly to grasp the one or shun the
other, he is able neither to see nor to hear anything aright ; he is
delirious, and at that moment entirely unable to obey reason.

perceives them, yet they affect the soul
through the body), which blind a man to
his real interest and highest happiness :
(2) physical ill health, which, by enfee-
bling the parts through which the soul
acts upon the body, impedes her actions
and stifles her intelligence. Compare
Phaedo 66 Β μυρίας μὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀσχολίας
παρέχει τὸ σῶμα διὰ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τροφήν"
ἔτι δ᾽ ἄν τινες νόσοι προσπέσωσιν, ἐμποδί-
ζουσιν ἡμῶν τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θήραν.

8. τὸ μὲν μανίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀμαθίαν]
This classification, though not discordant,
is not identical with that given in Sophist
228 A foll. In that passage we have two
εἴδη of κακία in the soul, one being a
νόσος or στάσις, the other αἶσχος or ἀμε-
τρία. The νόσος is πονηρία, the aloxos
is ἄγνοια. Further ἄγνοια is subdivided
into ἀμαθία, defined as τὸ μὴ κατειδότα τι
δοκεῖν εἰδέναι, and τὰ ἄλλα μέρη ἀγνοίας,
which are left unnamed. In the Zimaeus
the distinction between νόσος and αἶσχος
is sunk: for all that belongs to πονηρία in
the Sophist here falls under ἄνοια, whereof
ἀμαθία also is a form. This does not

mean any ethical discrepancy between
the two dialogues; rather the minuter
διαίρεσις of the Sophist is made in further-
ance of the dialectical ends of that dia-
logue, but is needless for the ethical
object of the present passage. ἀμαθία can
hardly be translated by any English
word: it signifies ignorance combined
with dulness which hinders the ἀμαθὴς
from perceiving his ignorance. It must
also be observed that wavia is not simply
‘madness’ in the ordinary sense of the
word: as ἀμαθία is a defect of the θεῖον εἶδος
τῆς ψυχῆς, a failure of reason, so is μανία
a defect of the θνητὸν εἶδος, a want of due
subordination to the θεῖον, leading to in-
continence and the supremacy of the
passions.

II. περιχαρὴς γὰρ ὦν] i.e. excessive
sensitiveness either to bodily pleasure or
pain is a species of madness which dis-
tracts the soul and prevents her from
exercising the reason, impelling a man
blindly to seek the pleasant and shun
the painful without consideration of τὸ
βέλτιστον.

21--2

324 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [86 c—

σπέρμα ὅτῳ Tor) καὶ ῥυῶδες περὶ τὸν μυελὸν γίγνηται καὶ
καθαπερεὶ δένδρον πολυκαρπότερον τοῦ ξυμμέτρου πεφυκὸς 4H,
“πολλὰς μὲν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὠδῖνας, πολλᾶς δ᾽ ἡδονὰς κτώμενος ἐν
ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τόκοις, ἐμμανὴς τὸ
a , a / ‘ ‘ 7 ς Ν , ,
5 πλεῖστον γιγνόμενος τοῦ βίου διὰ τὰς μεγίστας ἡδονὰς Kal λύπας, D
νοσοῦσαν καὶ ἄφρονα ἴσχων ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, οὐχ ὡς
νοσῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἑκὼν κακὸς δοξάζεται" τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἡ περὶ τὰ
ἀφροδίσια ἀκολασία κατὰ τὸ πολὺ μέρος διὰ τὴν ἑνὸς γένους ἕξιν
ὑπὸ μανότητος ὀστῶν ἐν σώματι ῥυώδη καὶ ὑγραίνουσαν νόσος
10 Ψυχῆς γέγονε. καὶ σχεδὸν δὴ πάντα, ὁπόσα ἡδονῶν ἀκράτεια
καὶ ὄνειδος ὡς ἑκόντων λέγεται τῶν κακῶν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς ὀνειδίζεται"
\ \ \ e's > 4 \ \ \ 4 \ a 4
κακὸς μὲν yap ἑκὼν οὐδείς, διὰ δὲ πονηρὰν ἕξιν τινὰ τοῦ σώματος E
CRESS μεν TEP Raw DCO

1 γίγνηται scripsi: γίγνεται AHSZ codicesque omnes.
servant HSZ.
10 ἀκράτεια : ἀκρατία 8.

κῶς post κακὸς cum A omisi.
tuentur, abest κακός.

I. περὶ τὸν μνελόν] Compare 73 C,
gic.

γίγνηται] I believe this slight alter-
ation restores Plato’s sentence. The

vulgate γίγνεται καὶ cannot possibly |

stand; and Hermann’s excision of καὶ
leaves a construction sorely needing de-
fence. Of the omission of dy with the
relative instances are to be found in Attic
prose: see Thucydides Iv xvii 2 ἐπιχώ-
ριον ὃν ἡμῖν, οὗ μὲν βραχεῖς ἀρκῶσι, μὴ
πολλοῖς χρῆσθαι. And above in 57 B we
have the very similar construction πρὶν...
ἐκφύγῃ : and so Laws 873A πρὶν... κοιμίσῃ.

4. τοῖς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τόκοις] i.e.

\ pleasure exists (1) in desire, (2) in the

| gratification of desire.

Note that Plato
says, not that pleasure is ἐπιθυμία, which
would be contrary to his principles, but
that it is ἐν rats ἐπιθυμίαις : it is pleasure
of anticipation. See Philebus 35 E foll.
τόκοις of course signifies the realising of
the anticipation.

8. τὴν ἑνὸς γένους ἕξιν] sc. τοῦ μυε:
hod. «

το. ἀκράτεια καὶ ὄνειδος] The text
seems hitherto to have escaped suspicion ;
but certainly the phraseology is very ex-
tradrdinary: I see however no plausible
correction.

καὶ inclusit H. 7 κα-
in nonnullis codicibus, qui κακῶς

12. κακὸς piv γὰρ ἑκὼν οὐδείς] This
passage is one of the most important
ethical statements in Plato’s writings.
Plato’s position, which he maintains con-

sistently from first to last, that all vice |

and error are involuntary, is clearly to be
distinguished from the Sokratic identifica-
tion of ἀρετὴ with ἐπιστήμη, κακία with
ἀμαθία. In the Platonic doctrine ém-
στήμη is the indispensable condition to
true ἀρετή (not to δημοτικὴ καὶ πολιτικὴ
ἀρετή), and his teaching on this point is
part of a comprehensive theory of deter-
minism. No man, he says, wilfully and
wittingly prefers bad to good. In making
choice between two courses of action

the determining motive is the real or |

apparent preponderance of good in one:
if a man chooses the worse course, it is
because either from physical incapacity
or faulty training, or both combined, his
discernment of good has been dimmed or
distorted. We ought not then to rail
upon him as a villain, but to pity him
as one grievously afflicted and needing
succour: compare Laws 731 C, Ὁ πᾶς δ᾽
ἄδικος οὐχ ἑκὼν ἄδικος... ἀλλὰ ἐλεεινὸς μὲν
πάντως ὅ γε ἄδικος καὶ ὁ τὰ κακὰ ἔχων,
ἐλεεῖν δὲ τὸν μὲν ἰάσιμα ἔχοντα ἐγχωρεῖ
καὶ ἀνείργοντα τὸν θυμὸν πραὕὔνειν καὶ μὴ

ἘΠ ὁ: ; ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 325

In whomsoever the seed in the region of the marrow is abundant
and fluid and like a tree that is fruitful beyond due measure, he
feels from time to time many a sore pang and many a delight
amid his passions and their fruits; and he becomes mad for the
greater part of his life owing to the intensity of pleasures and
pains, keeping his soul in a state of disease and derangement
through the power of the body; he is not however regarded as
sick, but as willingly vicious. But the truth is that incontinence
in sensual pleasures is a disease of the soul for the most part
arising from the fluid and moist condition of one element in
the body owing to porousness of the bones. So it is too with
nearly all intemperance in pleasure; and the reproach attaching
thereto, as if men were willingly vicious, is incorrectly brought
against them. For no one is willingly wicked ; but it is owing

ἀκραχολοῦντα. He admits however that
θυμὸς is a useful ally in desperate cases:
τῷ δ᾽ ἀκράτως καὶ ἀπαραμυθήτως πλημ-
were? καὶ κακῷ ἐφιέναι δεῖ τὴν ὀργήν" διὸ
δὴ θυμοειδῆ πρέπειν καὶ πρᾷόν φαμεν ἑκά-
crore εἶναι δεῖν τὸν ἀγαθόν. Hence it
necessarily follows that all punishment is
either curative or deterrent, never vindic-
tive or retributive; of this there are
many explicit statements ; see Laws 854 Ὁ,
862 Ὁ, E, and especially 934 A; Phaedo
113 D, E, Gorgias 477 A, 505 C, 525 B.
The greatest benefit we can confer upon
the wicked is to punish them and so
deliver them from their wickedness. Even
' the punishment of death inflicted upon
_ incurable criminals is regarded not only
as a protection to society and as a warn-
ing to the evil-disposed, but also as a
deliverance to the offender himself from
a life of guilt and misery : cf. Zaws 958A
οἷσι δὲ ὄντως ἐπικεκλωσμέναι, θάνατον ἴαμα
ταῖς οὕτω διατεθείσαις ψυχαῖς διανέμοντες,
also 8546.

Now this view of vice, that it is an
involuntary affection of the soul, will be
seen to be an inevitable inference from
Plato’s ontology; and it well illustrates
how admirably the various parts of his
system fit together. Soul, as such, is
good entirely. Absolute being, absolute

thought, and absolute goodness are one
and the same. Therefore from the abso-
lute or universal soul can come no evil.
The particular soul is derived from the
universal soul, whence she has her es-
sence: therefore her nature, gua soul,
is entirely good. No evil therefore
can arise from the voluntary choice of
the soul. Evil then must of necessity
arise from the conditions of her limita-
tion, which takes the form of bodily en-
vironment. And it is clear that all
defects in this respect are due either to
physical aberrations or faulty treatment.
Therefore Plato’s ethical is necessitated
by his ontological theory. And the In-
terpreter’s declaration in the Repudlic
αἰτία ἑλομένου, θεὸς ἀναίτιος not only is
not inconsistent with the maxim κακὸς
ἑκὼν οὐδείς, but is inevitably implied in
it: each statement in fact involves the
other and could not be true without it.
In the region of sensibles ugliness and
deformity are due to the imperfect
manner in which the senses convey to
us representations of the ideas: a perfect
symbol of an idea would be perfectly
beautiful ; all imperfection being due to
divergence from the type. So also moral
deformity is due to divergence from the
type ; and the choice of evil arises from

on

10

=
σι

20

326 IAATONOS [86 E—

\ > ’ \ ¢ \ 7 , \ \ rn
καὶ ἀπαίδευτον τροφὴν 6 κακὸς γίγνεται κακός, παντὶ δὲ ταῦτα
ἐχθρὰ καὶ ἄκοντι προσγίγνεται. καὶ πάλιν δὴ τὸ περὶ τὰς λύπας
« ‘ ᾽ ‘ \ “ \ / A ‘
ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ ταὐτὰ διὰ σῶμα πολλὴν ἴσχει κακίαν. ὅπου yap
x» e lal os A ς a , , ὁ
ἂν οἱ τῶν ὀξέων καὶ τῶν ἁλυκῶν φλεγμάτων καὶ ὅσοι πικροὶ καὶ

, \ \ \ el , » Ν ay /
χολώδεις χυμοὶ κατὰ TO σῶμα πλανηθέντες ἔξω μὲν μὴ λάβωσιν

ἀναπνοήν, ἐντὸς δὲ εἱλλόμενοι τὴν ἀφ᾽ αὑτῶν ἀτμίδα τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς 87 Α΄.

a , Lal
φορᾷ ξυμμίξαντες ἀνακερασθῶσι, παντοδαπὰ νοσήματα ψυχῆς
> nr a ν φ \ , \ / \
ἐμποιοῦσι μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον καὶ ἐλάττω Kal πλείω, πρός TE TOUS

- , - a » »
τρεῖς τόπους ἐνεχθέντα τῆς ψυχῆς, πρὸς ὃν ἂν ἕκαστ᾽ αὐτῶν
προσπίπτῃ, ποικίλλει μὲν εἴδη δυσκολίας καὶ δυσθυμίας παντο-

’ , “
δαπά, ποικίλλει δὲ θρασύτητός τε καὶ δειλίας, ἔτι δὲ λήθης ἅμα
καὶ δυσμαθίας. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὅταν οὕτω κακῶς παγέντων
a \ , ‘ , 07 ‘ 7
πολιτεῖαι κακαὶ καὶ λόγοι κατὰ πόλεις ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ
λεχθῶσιν, ἔτι δὲ μαθήματα μηδαμῇ τούτων ἰατικὰ ἐκ νέων μαν-
θάνηται, ταύτῃ κακοὶ πάντες οἱ κακοὶ διὰ δύο ἀκουσιώτατα
᾽
γιγνόμεθα ὧν αἰτιατέον μὲν τοὺς φυτεύοντας ἀεὶ τῶν φυτευομένων

nr / / u
μᾶλλον Kai τοὺς τρέφοντας τῶν τρεφομένων, προθυμητέον μήν,

n ,
ὅπῃ τις δύναται, καὶ διὰ τροφῆς καὶ δι’ ἐπιτηδευμάτων μαθημάτων

τε φυγεῖν μὲν κακίαν, τοὐναντίον δὲ ἑλεῖν.

A \ s ᾿Ὶ
ταῦτα μὲν οὖν δὴ

τρόπος ἄλλος λόγων.
2 ἄκοντι : κακόν τι Α5Ζ. οἱ: 9 A. 12 δυσμαθίας : δυσμαθείας H.
imperfect apprehension of the type. All nation of μᾶλλον καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον with ἧττον

men necessarily desire what is good: but
many causes combine to distort their ap-
prehension of the good: whence arises
vice.

2. ἐχθρὰ kal ἄκοντι] Cornarius’ cor-
rection of κακόν τι into ἄκοντι seems
nearly as certain as an emendation can
be; and I can only wonder at Stall-
baum’s defence of the old reading. Per-
haps Plato wrote the words asa crasis,
κἄκοντι: this would readily become xa-
κόν τι, after which the insertion of καὶ
before it would follow as a matter of
course.

τὸ περὶ tds λύπας] Here then we
see what Plato means by calling pains
ἀγαθῶν φυγαὶ in 69 D.

8. μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον] I apprehend
that these words apply to the intensity of
the attack, ἐλάττω καὶ πλείω to the gravity
ofthe disorder. There is a similar combi-

καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἔλαττον in Phaedo 93 Β.

πρός τε τοὺς τρεῖς τόπους] i.e. the
seats of the three εἴδη of the soul, the
liver, heart, and head: attacking the first,
the vapours produce δυσκολία and δυσθυ-
μία, attacking the ‘heart, θρασύτης and
δειλία, attacking the brain, they cause
λήθη and δυσμαθία. The view that mental
deficiencies are frequently due to bodily
infirmity can be traced back to Sokrates:
cf. Xenophon memorabilia 111 xii 6 ἐν
πάσαις δὲ ταῖς τοῦ σώματος χρείαις πολὺ
διαφέρει ὡς βέλτιστα τὸ σῶμα ἔχειν" καὶ
γὰρ ἐν ᾧ δοκεῖς ἐλαχίστην σώματος χρείαν
εἶναι, ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι, τίς οὐκ οἷδεν ὅτι
καὶ ἐν τούτῳ πολλοὶ μεγάλα σφάλλονται διὰ
τὸ μὴ ὑγιαίνειν τὸ σῶμα; καὶ λήθη δὲ καὶ
ἀθυμία καὶ δυσκολία καὶ μανία πολλάκις
πολλοῖς διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος καχεξίαν εἰς
τὴν διάνοιαν ἐμπίπτουσιν οὕτως, ὥστε καὶ
τὰς ἐπιστήμας ἐκβάλλειν.

87 B] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 327

to some bad habit of body and unenlightened training that the
wicked man becomes wicked; and these are always unwelcome
and imposed against his will. And where pains are concerned,
the soul likewise derives much evil from the body. For where
the humours of acid and salt phlegms and those that are bitter
and bilious roam about the body and find no outlet to the sur-
face, but being pent up within and blending their own exhala-
tions with the movement of the soul are mingled therewith, they
induce all kinds of mental diseases, more or less violent and
serious: and rushing to the three regions of the soul, in the part
which each attacks they multiply manifold forms of moroseness
and melancholy, of rashness and timidity, of forgetfulness and
dulness. And when, besides these vicious conditions, there are
added bad governments and bad principles maintained in public
and private speech; when moreover no studies to be an antidote
are pursued from youth up, then it is that all of us who are
wicked become so, owing to two causes entirely beyond our own
control. The blame must lie rather with those who train than
with those who are trained, with the educators than the educa-
ted: however we must use our utmost zeal by education, pur-
suits, and studies to shun vice and embrace virtue. This subject
however belongs to a different branch of inquiry.

το. ποικίλλει μὲν εἴδη] This comes 19. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν δή] i.e. the evil

to the same thing as γεννᾷ ποικίλα εἴδη.

14. λεχθῶσιν] There is an obvious
zeugma here: with πολιτεῖαι we must
mentally supply something like ξυστῶσιν.
ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ is used as in 88 A.

16. ὧν αἰτιατέον] Compare the fa-
mous passage in Republic 492 A ἢ καὶ σὺ
ἡγεῖ ὥσπερ ol πολλοί, διαφθειρομένους
τινὰς εἶναι ὑπὸ σοφιστῶν νέους, δια-
φθείροντας δέ τινας σοφιστὰς ἰδιωτικούς,
ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον λόγου, ἄλλ᾽ οὐκ αὐτοὺς
τοὺς ταῦτα λέγοντας μεγίστους μὲν εἷναι
σοφιστάς, παιδεύειν δὲ τελεώτατα καὶ ἀπερ-
γάζεσθαι οἵους βούλονται εἶναι καὶ νέους
καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας;
Of course, on the other hand, the same
allowance must be made to the teachers
also, that they do not educate badly from
preference of the bad, but because they
know no better.

results of physical imperfection and bad
training. The discussion of this subject,
Plato says, is τρόπος ἄλλος λόγων, that is
to say, it belongs to an ethical treatise.
87C—8g D, c. xlii. But it isa pleasanter
task to describe the means whereby the
body is preserved and strengthened. All
that is good is fair, all that is fair is sym-
metrical. Now we take great heed to
lesser symmetries, but the most important
of all, the symmetry of soul and body,
we utterly neglect. Neither should the
body be too weak for the soul, nor the
soul too weak for the body. Just as
some bodily disproportion is the cause of
pain and fatigue to the sufferer, so it ‘is
here: either the soul wears out the body
in her pursuit of knowledge, or the body
hampers and stifles the soul. The only
safeguard is to give due exercise both to

328
XLII.

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[87 c—

, , / » ON / f
σωμάτων καὶ διανοήσεων θεραπείας als αἰτίαις σῴζεται, πάλιν

εἰκὸς καὶ πρέπον ἀνταποδοῦναι"
’ an ΩΝ a n ΕΙΣ ,
πέρι μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν KaKwY LaYEL λόγον.
fel > “
5 τὸ δὲ καλὸν οὐκ ἄμετρον" καὶ ζῷον οὖν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐσόμενον
ξυμμετριῶν δὲ τὰ μὲν σμικρὰ διαισθανόμενοι

ξύμμετρον θετέον.
ξυλλογιζόμεθα, τὰ δὲ κυριώτατα

δικαιότερον γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν
πᾶν δὴ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καλόν,

\ / > / »
καὶ μέγιστα ἀλογίστως ἔχομεν.

πρὸς γὰρ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσους ἀρετάς τε καὶ κακίας οὐδεμία ξυμμε-
lal es εἶ “Ὁ >
τρία καὶ ἀμετρία μείζων ἢ ψυχῆς αὐτῆς πρὸς σῶμα auto: ὧν
a a ld \ Ul
10 οὐδὲν σκοποῦμεν οὐδ᾽ ἐννοοῦμεν, OTL ψυχὴν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ πάντῃ

{ “ > “

᾿ μεγάλην ἀσθενέστερον καὶ ἔλαττον εἶδος ὅταν ὀχῇ, καὶ ὅταν αὖ
᾽ \ a \ a .

τοὐναντίον ξυμπαγῆτον τούτω, οὐ καλὸν ὅλον τὸ ζῷον ἀξύμμετρον

!
|

\

yap ταῖς μεγίσταις ξυμμετρίαις"

\ \ > / » ,
TO δὲ εναντίιὼς EXOV TTAVT@V

΄ - ,ὕ an t A > /
θεαμάτων τῷ δυναμένῳ καθορᾶν κάλλιστον καὶ ἐρασμιώτατον.

Ι Ϊ > ς δὰ a , <<2 ese ” € a
15 OLOV OUVV UTTEPOKEAES ἢ καὶ τινὰ ETEPAV ὑπέρεξιν ἄμετρον EAUT@

| τὸ σῶμα ὃν ἅμα μὲν αἰσχρόν, ἅμα δ᾽ ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῶν πόνων
πολλοὺς μὲν κόπους, πολλὰ δὲ σπάσματα καὶ διὰ τὴν παραφο-
ρότητα πτώματα παρέχον μυρίων κακῶν αἴτιον ἑαυτῷ" ταὐτὸν δὴ
διανοητέον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ξυναμφοτέρου, ζῷον ὃ καλοῦμεν, ὡς ὅταν
οτε ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχὴ κρείττων otca σώματος περιθύμως. ἵ ἴσχῃ, δια-

σείουσα πᾶν αὐτὸ ἔνδοθεν νόσων ἐμπίπλησι, καὶ ὅταν εἴς τινας 88 Α

μαθήσεις καὶ ζητήσεις συντόνως ἴῃ, κατατήκει, διδαχάς T αὖ καὶ

μάχας ἐν λόγοις ποιουμένη δημοσίᾳ καὶ ἰδίᾳ δι’ ἐρίδων καὶ φιλο-

IO σκοποῦμεν : ἐσκοποῦμεν A.

body and to soul: the student must
practise gymnastic, the athlete must cul-
tivate his mind. We must in this matter
follow the law of the universe. For the
human body is subject to external in-
fluences, which, if left to themselves,
quickly destroy it: but if it be exercised
on the plan of the universal movement,
it will be enabled to resist them; for by
exercise the cognate and congenial par-
ticles are brought together, and the un-
like and discordant are prevented from
preying on each other. The best kind
of exercise is when the body is moved
by its own agency; it is less good if the
agent is some external force, especially
if only part of the body is moved: simi-

Il ὀχῇ:
22 συντόνως:

ἐχῇ A.
εὐτόνως A.

15 ὑπέρεξιν : ὑπὲρ ἕξιν A.

larly of purifications the best is wrought
by gymnastic, the next best by conveyance
in vehicles ; while that by drugs should
only be employed in case of positive
necessity. For every malady has its own
natural period, which it is best not to
disturb with medicine; and so has every
individual and every species. Nature
then should be suffered to take her own
course and not be vexed by leechcraft.

3. ϑικαιότερον)] We are endeavour-
ing to trace how νοῦς ordered all things
ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον: therefore it is more
appropriate to set forth ἀγαθὰ than κακά.

5. τὸ δὲ καλὸν οὐκ ἄμετρον] So the
good is resolved into the beautiful, and
beauty into proportion and symmetry, in

Τὸ δὲ τούτων ἀντίστροφον αὖ, τὸ περὶ tas τῶν C

D

88 A] TIMAIOS.

329

XLII. The counterpart to what has been said, the treatment
of body and mind and the principles by which they are pre-
served, were the proper and fitting complement of our dis-
course: for it is more just to dwell upon good than upon evil.
All that is good is fair, and what is fair is not disproportionate.
Accordingly an animal that is to be fair must, we affirm, be
well-proportioned. Now the smaller proportions we discern and
reason upon them; but of the greatest and most momentous we
take no account. For in view of health and sickness and virtue
and vice no proportion or disproportion is more important than
that existing between body and soul themselves: yet we pay no
heed to these, nor do we reflect that if a feebler and smaller
frame be the vehicle of a soul that is strong and mighty in all
respects; or if the relation between the two be reversed, then
the entire creature is not fair; for it is defective in the most
essential proportions. But the opposite condition is to him who
can discern it of all sights the fairest and loveliest. For ex-
ample, a body which possesses legs of excessive length or which
is unsymmetrical owing to any other disproportion, is not only
ugly, but in taking its share of labour brings infinite distress
on itself, suffering frequent fatigue and spasms, and often falling
in consequence of inability to control its motions: the same
then we must suppose to hold good of the combination of soul
and body which we call an animal; when the soul in it is more
powerful than the body and of ardent temperament, she agitates it
and fills it from within with sickness; and when she impetuously
pursues some study or research, she wastes the body away:
and in giving instruction and conducting discussions private or

Philebus 64 © viv δὴ καταπέφευγεν ἡμῖν
ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ δύναμις els τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ
φύσιν" μετριότης γὰρ καὶ ξυμμετρία κάλλος
δήπου καὶ ἀρετὴ πανταχοῦ ξυμβαίνει γίγ-
νεσθαι.

τὸ τοιοῦτον] SC. καλόν.

11. ὅταν ὀχῇ] Cf. 69C ὄχημά τε πᾶν
τὸ σῶμα ἔδοσαν.

12. ἀξύμμετρον γὰρ ταῖς μεγίσταις
ξυμμετρίαις)] The expression is remark-
able. I cannot cite an instance which
seems to me exactly parallel.

18. ταὐτὸν δὴ διανοητέον] Compare

Republic 535D φιλοπονίᾳ οὐ δεῖ χωλὸν
elva τὸν ἁψόμενον, τὰ μὲν ἡμίσεα φιλό-
πονον, τὰ δ᾽ ἡμίσεα ἄπονον, ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο,
ὅταν τις φιλογυμναστὴς μὲν καὶ φιλόθηρος
ἡ καὶ πάντα τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος φιλοπονῇ,
φιλομαθὴς δὲ μή, μηδὲ φιλήκοος μηδὲ ζη-
τητικός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις μισοπονῇ"
χωλὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ τἀναντία τούτου μεταβε-
βληκὼς τὴν φιλοπονίαν.

20. περιθύμως toxy] This simply
means impetuous or masterful, without
any special reference to the θυμοειδές.

23. ϑημοσίᾳ καὶ ἰδίᾳ] Plato evi-

σι

Io

15

330

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ

[88 α---

νεικίας γιγνομένων διάπυρον αὐτὸ ποιοῦσα λύει, καὶ ῥεύματα ἐπά-
γουσα, τῶν λεγομένων ἰατρῶν ἀπατῶσα τοὺς πλείστους, τἀναντία
αἰτιᾶσθαι ποιεῖ σῶμά τε ὅταν αὖ μέγα καὶ ὑπέρψυχον σμικρᾷ
ξυμφυὲς ἀσθενεῖ τε διανοίᾳ γένηται, διττῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐσῶν φύσει B
κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους, διὰ σῶμα μὲν τροφῆς, διὰ δὲ τὸ θειότατον τῶν ἐν
ἡμῖν φρονήσεως, αἱ τοῦ κρείττονος κινήσεις κρατοῦσαι καὶ τὸ μὲν
σφέτερον αὔξουσαι, τὸ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς κωφὸν καὶ δυσμαθὲς ἀμνῆμόν
τε ποιοῦσαι, τὴν μεγίστην νόσον ἀμαθίαν ἐναπεργάζονται. μία δὴ
σωτηρία πρὸς ἄμφω, μήτε τὴν ψυχὴν ἄνευ σώματος κινεῖν μήτε
σῶμα ἄνευ ψυχῆς, ἵνα ἀμυνομένω γίγνησθον ἰσορρόπω καὶ ὑγιῆ.
τὸν δὴ μαθηματικὸν ἤ τινα ἄλλην σφόδρα μελέτην διανοίᾳ κατερ-

, \ \ a ,
γαζόμενον καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀποδοτέον κίνησιν, γυμναστικῇ

x a / 3 “ > a , \ cal

προσομιλοῦντα, τόν τε αὖ σῶμα ἐπιμελῶς πλάττοντα τὰς τῆς
a > /

ψυχῆς ἀνταποδοτέον κινήσεις, μουσικῇ Kal πάσῃ φιλοσοφίᾳ προσ-

χρώμενον, εἰ μέλλει δικαίως τις ἅμα μὲν καλός, ἅμα δὲ ἀγαθὸς

> A“

ὀρθώς κεκλήσεσθαι. κατὰ δὲ ταὐτὰ ταῦτα Kal τὰ μέρη θεραπευτέον,
a \ 3 a

TO τοῦ παντὸς ἀπομιμούμενον εἶδος. TOD yap σώματος ὑπὸ τῶν

dently means forensic oratory on the
one hand and eristic discussions on the
other, cf. Sophist 225 B, 268 B: dialectic
seems to be excluded by δι᾽ ἐρίδων, per-
haps because the calm and dispassionate
temper in which the true philosopher
conducts his arguments is less likely to
lead to injury of his health.

2. τἀναντία αἰτιᾶσθαι)͵ The phy-
sicians set down to purely physical causes
what is really due to the action of a
vigorous mind upon a body which is too
feeble for it. Martin falls into a strange
error in imagining that Plato would ac-
tually sacrifice the vigour and excellence
of the soul in order to preserve due pro-
portion with the body—‘les qualités de
l’ame ne sauraient jamais étre ni devenir
trop belles’. What Plato says is that
the model {or is the union of a fair and
vigorous soul with a fair and vigorous
body; and if the body is too weak for
the soul, unfortunate results are likely
to happen. For this reason the body
ought to receive due attention and train-
ing that it may be preserved in such

health and vigour as to render it a fitting
vehicle for the soul, But nothing can
be more alien to the whole spirit of Plato’s
thought than the notion that the soul
is not to be cultivated to the highest
degree, even though she have the mis-
fortune to be united to an inferior body.
We can never make the soul ‘trop belle’;
but we must not neglect to keep her
corporeal habitation fit for her resi-
dence.

3. ὑπέρψυχον] i.e. too great for the
soul. This reading is indubitably right,
although according to the general analogy
the word would mean ‘having an excess
of soul’, like ὑπέρθυμος, and ὑπερσκελὲς
above. The old reading was ὑπέρψυχρον,
which is found in some mss.

7. τὸ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς] Compare the
passage of the Phaedo 66 B quoted above.
The teaching of the present passage is
not in any way at variance with the
doctrine of the /Phaedo that the soul
should withdraw herself so far as she
can from the company of the body. How-
ever completely the body may be in

——— —_

Cj TIMAIOS. 331

public in a spirit of contention and rivalry, she inflames and
weakens its fabric and brings on chills ; and thus deceiving most
of the so-called physicians induces them to assign causes for the
malady which are really in no way concerned with it. When on
the other hand a large body, too great for the soul, is joined
with a small and feeble mind,—two kinds of appetites being
natural to mankind, on account of the body a craving for nourish-
ment and on account of the divinest part of us for knowledge—
the motions of the stronger prevail and strengthen their faculty,
but that of the soul they render dull and slow of learning and of
recollection, and so produce stupidity, the most grievous of
maladies. There is but one safeguard against both these mis-
fortunes: neither should the soul be exercised without the body
nor the body without the soul, in order that they may be a
match for each other and attain balance and health. So the
mathematician, or whosoever is intensely absorbed in any intel-
lectual study, must allow corresponding exercise to his body,
submitting to athletic training ; while he who is careful in forming
his body must in turn give due exercise to his soul, calling in
the aid of art and of all philosophy, if he is justly to be called
at once fair and in the true sense good. The same treatment
too should be applied to the separate parts, in imitation of the
fashion of the All. For as the body is inflamed and cooled

subjection to the soul, it must be kept pwudlic 377 C τοὺς δ᾽ ἐγκριθέντας πείσομεν

as healthy as possible, else it impedes
the activity of the intellect: neglect of
the body actually hinders the withdrawal
of the soul, since her companion is per-
petually forcing itself upon her notice
with its maladies. At the same time
when Plato is, as here, treating physically
of the perfection of the ¢@ov, he naturally
lays more stress than in the Phaedo upon
the attention due to the body. For the
Phaedo gives us a ‘study of death’, the
Timaeus a theory of life.

13. Tov τε αὖ σῶμα ἐπιμελῶς πλάτ-
τοντὰῇὶ This sentence is, I think, suf-

ficient to show the superfluity of the di- ᾿

verse emendations that have been pro-
posed in Phaedo 82D ἀλλὰ μὴ σώμά τι
(or σώματα) πλάττοντες. Compare Le-

Tas Tpopots te καὶ μητέρας λέγειν τοῖς
παισί, καὶ πλάττειν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν τοῖς
μύθοις πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ σώματα ταῖς
χερσίν.

17. τὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἀπομιμούμενον
εἶδος] i.e. imitating the vibration of the
ὑποδοχή, which sifts the elements into
their appropriate regions.

ὑπὸ τῶν εἰσιόντων] This seems to
refer to the action of fire and air upon
the nutriment received into the body:
see 79 A. It is notable that Plato makes
the temperature dependent upon internal
agencies, assigning to the external merely
variation’ of dryness and moisture: did
he know, for instance, that the tempera-
ture of the blood is normally almost un-
affected by the temperature of the air?

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [88 p—

332

Ν “
εἰσιόντων καομένου τε ἐντὸς καὶ ψυχομένου, καὶ πάλιν ὑπὸ τῶν D
Μ / \ ¢ , ὶ \ , Φ Ld 0.
ἔξωθεν ξηραινομένου καὶ vypawopévov καὶ τὰ τούτοις ἀκόλουθα
. a ς

πάσχοντος vm ἀμφοτέρων τῶν κινήσεων, ὅταν μέν τις ἡσυχίαν
ἄγον τὸ σῶμα παραδιδῷ ταῖς κινήσεσι, κρατηθὲν διώλετο, ἐὰν δὲ
ἥν τε τροφὸν καὶ τιθήνην τοῦ παντὸς προσείπομεν μιμῆταί τις, καὶ

σι

\ “Ὁ , \ δέ « “ Ν 2A lal δὲ ὶ
τὸ σῶμα μάλιστα μὲν μηδέποτε ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν ἐᾷ, κινῇ δὲ κα
σεισμοὺς ἀεί τινας ἐμποιῶν αὐτῷ διὰ παντὸς τὰς ἐντὸς καὶ ἐκτὸς E
ἀμύνηται κατὰ φύσιν κινήσεις, καὶ μετρίως σείων τά τε περὶ τὸ
σῶμα πλανώμενα παθήματα καὶ μέρη κατὰ ξυγγενείας εἰς τάξιν

lo κατακοσμῇ πρὸς ἄλληλα ἃ τὸ ήσθεν λό ὃν L τοῦ
μὴ πρὸς ἄλληλα, κατὰ τὸν πρόσθεν λόγον, ὃν περὶ τοῦ

\ / 3 > \ o> 5 \ , >/ ,
παντὸς ἐλέγομεν, οὐκ ἐχθρὸν Tap ἐχθρὸν τιθέμενον ἐάσει πολέμους
ἐντίκτειν τῷ σώματι καὶ νόσους, ἀλλὰ φίλον παρὰ φίλον τεθὲν
ὑγίειαν ἀπεργαζόμενον παρέξει. τῶν δ᾽ αὖ κινήσεων ἡ ἐν ἑαυτῷ
ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἀρίστη κίνησις" μάλιστα γὰρ τῇ διανοητικῇ καὶ τῇ τοῦ
\ , ἢ ΡΝ 6 ee. ἢ " , ἂς Ἢ
παντὸς κινήσει ξυγγενής" ἡ δὲ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου χείρων χειρίστη δὲ ἡ
κειμένου τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἄγοντος ἡσυχίαν δι’ ἑτέρων αὐτὸ κατὰ
μέρη κινοῦσα.

ς \ \ a / a+ ¥ 7 πὸ δ \ a > ,
ἡ μὲν διὰ τῶν γυμνασίων ἀρίστη, δευτέρα δὲ ἡ διὰ τῶν αἰωρήσεων

89 A
15
διὸ δὴ τῶν καθάρσεων καὶ ξυστάσεων τοῦ σώματος

κατά τε τοὺς πλοῦς καὶ ὅπῃ περ ἂν ὀχήσεις ἄκοποι γίγνωνται"
20 τρίτον δὲ εἶδος κινήσεως σφόδρα ποτὲ ἀναγκαζομένῳ χρήσιμον,
ἄλλως δὲ οὐδαμῶς τῷ νοῦν ἔχοντι προσδεκτέον, τὸ τῆς φαρμα- B
κευτικῆς καθάρσεως γυγνόμενον ἰατρικόν. τὰ γὰρ νοσήματα,
ὅσα μὴ μεγάλους ἔχει κινδύνους, οὐκ ἐρεθιστέον φαρμακείαις.

5 Te post ἣν delet 85.

1. ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] i.e. by the cir-
cumfluent elements: see 81 A.

6. μάλιστα μέν] These words sug-
gest a δεύτερος πλοῦς, implied but not
expressed—‘if possible keep the body
in constant activity, or at least as nearly
so as may be’.

7. σεισμοὺς ἀεί τινας] Plato’s mean-
ing is that the natural and voluntary
motions of the body will do for it
what the vibration of the ὑποδοχὴ does
for the universe; that is to say, it will
sift things into their right places. The
various forces which act upon the body
tend to dissolve its substance and confuse
it at random, and thus produce sickness
and discomfort by the juxtaposition of
uncongenial and incongruous particles.

It ἐλέγομεν : λέγομεν A.

This is counteracted by the natural move-
ment of the body, which restores the due
relative position of the particles: thus if
ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν a particle of water is
changed into one of air, and so we have
air where water ought to be, the motion
of the body sends the air where it ought
to be and supplies its former place with
water. In such manner equilibrium and
health are preserved.

9. παθήματα Kal μέρη] A some-
what curious collocation. The παθήματα
are roaming about the body seeking ἀνα-
πνοή, which the σεισμοὶ enable them to
find: the μέρη are the elemental particles,
which are thus shifted each into its proper
place.

13. τῶν δ᾽ αὖ κινήσεων] The modes

89 B] TIMAIOS‘. 333

within by the particles that enter, and again is dried and
moistened by those that are outside, and by the agency of these
two forces suffers all that ensues upon these conditions, if we
submit the body passively to the forces aforesaid, it is overcome
and destroyed: but if we imitate what we have called the fostress
and nurse of the All, and allow the body, if possible, never to be
inactive, but keep it astir and, exciting continual vibrations in it,
furnish it with the natural defence against the motions from
without and within ; and by moderately exercising it bring into
orderly relation with each other according to their affinities
the affections and particles that are going astray in the body;
then, as we have already described in speaking of the universe,
we shall not suffer mutually hostile particles to be side by side
and to engender discord and disease in the body, but we shall
set friend beside friend so as to bring about a healthy state.
Of all motions that which arises in any body by its own action
is the best (for it is most nearly allied to the motion of thought
and of the All), but that which is brought about by other
agency is inferior; and the worst of all is that which, while the
body is lying still, is produced by other agents which move
it piecemeal. Accordingly of all modes of purifying and
restoring the body gymnastic is the best; the next best is
any swinging motion such as of sailing or any other con-
veyance of the body which does not tire it: a third kind is
useful sometimes under absolute necessity, but in no other cir-
cumstances should be employed by a judicious person, I mean
medical purgation effected by drugs. No disease, not in-
volving imminent danger, should be irritated by drugs. For

in which the body may be exercised are
threefold: (1) when it moves itself as a
whole; (2) when it is moved as a whole
by some external agency ; (3) when parts
are moved by external agency, the rest
remaining stationary. The first and best
is gymnastic; the second travelling in a
boat or any other means of conveyance;
the third includes the action of medical
cathartics, which are to be avoided, un-
less absolutely necessary. Compare Laws
789 C τὰ σώματα πάντα ὑπὸ τῶν σεισμῶν
τε καὶ κινήσεων κινούμενα ἄκοπα ὀνίναται

πάντων, ὅσα τε ὑπὸ ἑαυτῶν ἢ καὶ ἐν αἰώραις
ἢ καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἵππων ὀχού-
μενα καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων ὁπωσοῦν δὴ φερομένων
τῶν σωμάτων κινεῖται.

18. αἰωρήσεων] This refers probably
to a gymnastic machine called aldpa, a
kind of swing.

23. οὐκ ἐρεθιστέον φαρμακείαις] Com-
pare Hippokrates aphorisms, vol. II p.
711 Kiihn τὰ κρινόμενα καὶ τὰ κεκριμένα
ἀρτίως μὴ κινέειν μηδὲ νεωτερποιέειν μήτε
φαρμακίοισι μήτε ἄλλοισι ἐρεθισμοῖσι, ἀλλ᾽
ἐᾶν.

334 TIAATONOS [89 B—

πᾶσα yap ξύστασις νόσων τρόπον τινὰ TH τῶν ζῴων φύσει προσέοικε.
καὶ γὰρ ἡ τούτων ξύνοδος ἔχουσα τεταγμένους τοῦ βίου γίγνεται
χρόνους τοῦ τε γένους ξύμπαντος καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ζῷον εἱμαρμένον
ἕκαστον ἔχον τὸν βίον φύεται, χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης παθημάτων" C
5 τὰ γὰρ τρίγωνα εὐθὺς Kat’ ἀρχὰς ἑκάστου δύναμιν ἔχοντα ξυνί-
σταται μέχρι τινὸς χρόνου δυνατὰ ἐξαρκεῖν, οὗ βίου οὐκ ἄν ποτέ
τις εἰς τὸ πέραν ἔτι βιῴη. τρόπος οὖν ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ
νοσήματα ξυστάσεως" ἣν ὅταν τις παρὰ τὴν εἱμαρμένην τοῦ χρόνου
φθείρῃ φαρμακείαις, ἅμα ἐκ σμικρῶν μεγάλα καὶ πολλὰ ἐξ ὀλίγων
Io νοσήματα φιλεῖ γίγνεσθαι. διὸ παιδαγωγεῖν δεῖ διαίταις πάντα τὰ
τοιαῦτα, Kal’ ὅσον ἂν ἢ τῳ σχολή, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ φαρμακεύοντα κακὸν D
δίσκολον ἐρεθιστέον.
XLIII. Καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ κοινοῦ ζῴου καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ μέρους, ἧ τις ἂν καὶ διαπαιδαγωγῶν καὶ διαπαιδαγωγούμενος
15 ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ μάλιστ᾽ ἂν κατὰ λόγον ζῴη, ταύτῃ λελέχθω: τὸ δὲ δὴ
παιδαγωγῆσον αὐτὸ μᾶλλόν που καὶ πρότερον παρασκευαστέον εἰς
δύναμιν ὅ τι κάλλιστον καὶ ἄριστον εἰς τὴν παιδαγωγίαν εἶναι.
δι᾿ ἀκριβείας μὲν οὖν περὶ τούτων διελθεῖν ἱκανὸν ἂν γένοιτο αὐτὸ
καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μόνον épyov' τὸ δ᾽ ἐν παρέργῳ κατὰ τὰ πρόσθεν ἑπόμενος E

3 kar αὐτό: καθ᾽ αὐτὸ SZ.

I. πᾶσα γὰρ ξύστασι5] Every form
of disease has a certain correspondence
with the constitution of animals. For as
there are fixed periods for which both the
individual and the species will endure, but
no longer, seeing that the elementary
triangles are calculated to hold out a
certain definite time against the forces of
dissolution, even so every disease has its
fixed period to run; and if this be rashly
interfered with by medicine, a slight ail-
ment may easily be converted into a
dangerous sickness. Compare the dis-
cussion on medical treatment in Repudlic
405 D foll.

2. ἡ τούτων ξύνοδο5)] Their con-
junction, i. e. their composition or consti-
tution.

3. τοῦ τε γένους ξύμπαντος] Plato’s
statement that the species wears out as
well as the individual is very notable.
Although he does not explain the cause
why a species becomes extinct, we may

19 τὰ πρόσθεν : τὸ πρόσθεν A.

well suppose him to conceive that in
course of generations the triangles trans-
mitted by the parent to the offspring are
no longer fresh and accurate; so that
every succeeding generation becomes
more feeble, and finally the race dis-
appears.

4. χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης παθημάτων]
i.e. apart from accidents or illness. This
use of the word ἀνάγκη falls in with the
explanation of it offered above on p. 166.

10. διὸ παιδαγωγεῖν] That is, we
should guide the disease, not drive it ; and
by suitable diet and mode of life suffer it
to run its course in the easiest and safest
way.

11. καθ᾽ ὅσον ἂν ἦ τῳ σχολή] i.e.
he must not pay exclusive attention to it
so as to leave no time for mental culture.

89 D—9o D, ¢. xliii. Man then being
formed of body and soul united, his guide
is the soul: therefore must he diligently
take heed to her well-being. And where-

E] ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ. 335

every form of sickness has a certain correspondence to the
nature of living creatures. Their constitution is so ordered as
to have definite periods of life both for the kind and for the
individual, which has its own fixed span of existence, always
excepting inevitable accidents. For the triangles of each
creature are composed at the very outset with the capacity of
holding out for a certain definite time; beyond which its life
cannot be prolonged. The same applies also to the constitution
of diseases ; if these are interfered with by medicine to the dis-
regard of their appointed period, it often happens that a few
slight maladies are rendered numerous and grave. Wherefore
we should guide all such sicknesses by careful living, so far as
we have time to attend to it, and not provoke a troublesome
mischief by medical treatment.

XLIII. Now so far as concerns the animate creature and
the bodily part of it, how a man, guiding the latter and by him-
self being guided, should live a most rational life, let this dis-
cussion suffice. But the part which is to guide the body must
beforehand be trained with still greater care to be most perfect
and efficient for education. To deal with this subject minutely
would in itself be a sufficient task: but if we may merely touch
upon it in conformity with our previous discourse, we should

as there are three forms of soul existing
in man, that form will be the most power-
ful which is most fully exercised. Where-
fore he must be careful to give freest ac-
tivity to that divinest part, which is his
guiding genius, and which lifts him up
towards his birthplace in the heavens.
For he whose care is for earthly lusts
and ambitions will become, so far as that
may be, mortal altogether, he and all his
thoughts; but whoso sets his heart upon
knowledge and truth, he, so far as man
may attain to immortality, will be im-
mortal and supremely blessed. And this
he must ensue by dwelling in thought up-
on the eternal truth; and making his soul
like to that she contemplates, so he will
fulfil the perfect life.

13. τοῦ κοινοῦ ζῴου] i.e. the living
creature consisting of soul and body
united, the ξυναμφότερον.

14. διαπαιδαγωγῶν καὶ διαπαιδαγω-
γούμενος] Stallbaum gives a strange per-
version of this passage. He desires to
read) im’ αὐτοῦ for ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ, giving the
truly remarkable result that man must
he guided by his body! ‘Cette mon-
strueuse altération du texte’, as Martin
not too forcibly terms it, is unworthy of
discussion. The vulgate is obviously
right; the sense being that a man must ,
train his bodily part and be trained by
himself, that is, by his true self, the soul.

15. τὸ δὲ δὴ παιδαγωγῆσον] This
is of course ψυχή.

18. δι᾽ ἀκριβείας] Such an exposition
does in fact occupy nearly a whole book,
the seventh, of the Repudlic ; where we
have the following programme laid down:
(1) arithmetic, (2) plane geometry, (3)
solid geometry, (4) astronomy, (5) har-
mony, (6) dialectic,

336 IAATQNOS [89 E—

ἄν τις οὐκ ἄπο τρόπου τῇδε σκοπῶν ὧδε TO λόγῳ διαπεράναιτ᾽ ἄν.

, a a al
καθάπερ εἴπομεν πολλάκις, ὅτι τρία τριχῇ ψυχῆς ἐν ἡμῖν εἴδη
κατῴκισται, τυγχάνει δὲ ἕκαστον κινήσεις ἔχον, οὕτω κατὰ ταὐτὰ

Ἁ “Ὁ « A U ε ‘ \ \ > Lal > > /
καὶ νῦν ws διὰ βραχυτάτων ῥητέον, ὅτε. τὸ μὲν αὐτῶν ἐν ἀργίᾳ
A ς a
Te διάγον καὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεων ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀσθενέστατον ἀνάγκη
/ ]
γίγνεσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν γυμνασίοις ἐρρωμενέστατον᾽ διὸ φυλακτέον,
|
ο΄ ὅπως ἂν ἔχωσι Tas κινήσεις πρὸς ἄλληλα συμμέτρους. TO δὲ περὶ 90 A
τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε, ὡς
» ρον 7 \ ς ἐδ “ a id > lal Ν
ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκε, τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲν
Lal A “
10 ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἄκρῳ τῷ σώματι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ Evyyéveray ἀπὸ
a 7 a ΝΜ « wv \ > Μ > \ ᾽ , > !
γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν ὡς ὄντας φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιον, ὀρθό-
/ e > lal , δ ς , lal "Ὁ , »”
Tata λέγοντες" ἐκεῖθεν yap, ὅθεν ἡ πρώτη THs ψυχῆς γένεσις Edu,
\ a \ \ SOF F's CoA > \ ? a 5 \
τὸ θεῖον τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥίζαν ἡμῶν ἀνακρεμαννὺν ὀρθοῖ πᾶν τὸ B
σῶμα. τῷ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἢ περὶ φιλονεικίας τετευτα-
15 κότι καὶ ταῦτα διαπονοῦντι σφόδρα πάντα τὰ δόγματα ἀνάγκη
θνητὰ ἐγγεγονέναι, καὶ παντάπασι καθ᾽ ὅσον μάλιστα δυνατὸν
| θνητῷ γίγνεσθαι, τούτου μηδὲ σμικρὸν ἐλλείπειν, ἅτε τὸ τοιοῦτον
| ηὐξηκότι τῷ δὲ περὶ φιλομαθίαν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀληθεῖς φρονήσεις
ἐσπουδακότι καὶ ταῦτα μάλιστα τῶν αὑτοῦ γεγυμνασμένῳ φρονεῖν C
20 μὲν ἀθάνατα καὶ θεῖα, ἄνπερ ἀληθείας ἐφάπτηται, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη

7 δὴ post τὸ δὲ addit 8. 14. ἐπιθυμίας : προθυμίας Α. περὶ ante φιλονεικίας
omittunt SZ. 18 φιλομαθίαν : φιλομάθειαν SZ. τὰς ἀληθεῖς : τὰς τῆς ἀληθείας 8.

the intellect δαίμων, does not of course
mean that it is ἐκτός. Also Plutarch,

2. τρία τριχῇ] This seems a fa-
vourite phrase with Plato; see above, *

52D, ὄν τε καὶ χώραν καὶ γένεσιν εἶναι,
τρία τριχῇ. Compare too Sophist 266 Ὁ
τίθημι δύο διχῇ ποιητικῆς εἴδη.

7. πρὸς ἄλληλα συμμέτρους] Not
in equal measure, but properly propor-
tioned to their relative merits, so that the
highest εἶδος may be supreme, and the
two lower in due subordination.

8. ὡς dpa αὐτὸ δαίμονα] Compare
Plutarch de genio Socratis ὃ 22 τὸ μὲν οὖν
ὑποβρύχιον ἐν τῷ σώματι ψυχὴ λέγεται"
τὸ δὲ φθορᾶς λειφθὲν οἱ πολλοὶ νοῦν καλοῦν-
τες ἐντὸς εἶναι νομίζουσιν αὑτῶν, ὥσπερ ἐν
τοῖς ἐσόπτροις τὰ φαινόμενα κατ᾽ ἀνταύ-
yerav’ οἱ δ᾽ ὀρθῶς ὑπονοοῦντες ὡς ἐκτὸς
ὄντα δαίμονα προσαγορεύουσι. Plutarch
here deviates in more than one point
from Plato’s doctrine. Plato, in calling

like many of the later, especially neopla-
tonist, writers, draws an unplatonic dis-
tinction between νοῦς and ψυχή, although
a little above he has used correcter lan-
guage. In Plato νοῦς is simply ψυχὴ
exercising her own unimpeded functions.
Plato gives us to understand that the
true δαίμων ὃν ἕκαστος εἴληχεν is our Own
mind: we are to look for guidance not
to any external source, but to ourselves,
to the divinest part of our nature.

10, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ ξυγγένειαν]
See 41 D, E. The affinity of the highest
part of the soul to the skies is poetically
assigned as the cause why man alone of
all animals walks upright: compare ΟἹ E
foll. It is amusing to compare the prosaic
and matter-of-fact treatment of the same

|

90 6] TIMAIOS. 337

- find a consistent answer to the question from the following

reflections. As we have often said, three forms .of soul with
threefold functions are implanted in us, and each of these has its
proper motions. Accordingly we may say as briefly as possible
that whichever of these continues in idleness and keeps its own
motions inactive, this must needs become the weakest ; but that
which is in constant exercise waxes strongest: wherefore we
must see that they exercise their motions in due proportion.
As to the supreme form of soul that is within us, we must
believe that God has given it to each of us as a guiding genius—
even that which we say, and say truly, dwells in the summit of
our body and raises us from earth towards our celestial affinity,
seeing we are of no earthly, but of heavenly growth: since to
heaven, whence in the beginning was the birth of our soul, the
diviner part attaches the head or root of us and makes our whole
body upright. Now whoso is busied with appetites or ambitions
and labours hard after these, all the thoughts of his heart must
be altogether mortal; and so far as it is possible for him to be-
come utterly mortal, he falls no whit short of this; for this is
what he has been fostering. But he whose heart has been set
on the love of learning and on true wisdom, and has chiefly
exercised this part of himself, this man must without fail have
thoughts that are immortal and divine, if he lay hold upon

subject by Sokrates: Xenophon memora-
bilia 1 iv τι.

13. τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥίζαν ἡμῶν]
The significance of this bold and beau-
tiful metaphor is that, as a plant draws
its sustenance through its roots from its
native earth, so does the soul draw her
spiritual sustenance through the head
from her native heavens. Very different
is the spirit of Aristotle’s comparison, de
anima 11 iv 416% 4 ὡς ἡ κεφαλὴ τῶν ζῴων
οὕτως αἱ ῥίζαι τῶν φυτῶν : the analogy
only refers to physical nutriment, cf. 1 i
412>3 al δὲ ῥίζαι τῷ στόματι ἀνάλογον"
ἄμφω γὰρ ἕλκει τὴν τροφήν : and similarly
Galen de plac. Hipp. εἰ Plat. V 524
ὁποῖον γάρ τι τοῖς ζῴοις ἐστὶ τὸ στόμα, τοι-
ovrov τοῖς φυτοῖς τὸ πέρας τῆς ῥιζώσεως
ἀτεχνῶς φάναι δοκεῖ στοματίων πολλῶν

P. T.

ἑλκόντων ἐκ τῆς γῆς τροφὴν ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως
δεδημιουργημένην.

16. - καθ᾽ ὅσον μάλιστα δυνατόν] Do
what he will, he cannot become altogether
θνητός, because, to whatever degraded
form of organic life he may descend, he
always has the d@dvaros-dpxh which the
δημιουργὸς delivered to the gods. τὸ Tot-
οὔτον Ξετὸ θνητόν.

19. φρονεῖν μὲν ἀθάνατα] Compare.
Symposium 212 Α ἢ οὐκ ἐνθυμεῖ, ἔφη, ὅτι
ἐνταῦθα αὐτῷ μοναχοῦ γενήσεται, ὁρῶντι
ᾧ ὁρατὸν τὸ καλόν, τίκτειν οὐκ εἴδωλα
ἀρετῆς, ἅτε οὐκ εἰδώλου ἐφαπτομένῳ, ἀλλ᾽
ἀληθῆ, ἅτε τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἐφαπτομένῳ" τε-
κόντι δὲ ἀρετὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ θρεψαμένῳ
ὑπάρχει θεοφιλεῖ γενέσθαι, καὶ εἴπερ τῳ
ἄλλῳ ἀνθρώπων, ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἐκείνῳ ; see
too Aristotle icomachean ethics X vii

22

\

ΝΜ / ΝΜ
15 ἔοικε τέλος ἔχειν.

, 2 a δ / /
20 φυοντο ἐν TH δευτέρᾳ γενέσει.

338 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [90 c—

mov, καθ᾽ ὅσον δ᾽ αὖ μετασχεῖν ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις ἀθανασίας ἐν-"

δέχεται, τούτου μηδὲν μέρος ἀπολείπειν, ἅτε δὲ ἀεὶ θεραπεύοντα τὸ
θεῖον ἔχοντά τε αὐτὸν εὖ κεκοσμημένον τὸν δαίμονα ξύνοικον ἐν
αὑτῷ. διαφερόντως εὐδαίμονα εἶναι. θεραπεία δὲ δὴ παντὶ πάντως
5 μία, τὰς οἰκείας ἑκάστῳ τροφὰς καὶ κινήσεις ἀποδιδόναι" τῷ δ᾽ ἐν
ἡμῖν θείῳ ξυγγενεῖς εἰσὶ κινήσεις αἱ τοῦ παντὸς διανοήσεις καὶ
περιφοραΐ ταύταις δὴ ξυνεπόμενον ἕκαστον δεῖ τὰς περὶ τὴν γένεσιν
ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ διεφθαρμένας ἡμῶν περιόδους ἐξορθοῦντα διὰ τὸ
καταμανθάνειν τὰς τοῦ παντὸς ἁρμονίας τε καὶ περιφορὰς τῷ

10 κατανοουμένῳ τὸ κατανοοῦν ἐξομοιῶσαι κατὰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν φύσιν,

« / \ UA ΝΜ a , ? , ς \ Ὁ
ὁμοιώσαντα δὲ τέλος ἔχειν τοῦ προτεθέντος ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ θεῶν
Ε \

ἀρίστου βίου πρός Te τὸν παρόντα Kal τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον.

D

XLIV. Καὶ δὴ καὶ ta νῦν ἡμῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραγγελθέντα E

ὃ θ ον ὶ a \ ’ / > 0 / “ δὸ
ιεξελθεῖν περὶ τοῦ παντὸς μέχρι γενέσεως ἀνθρωπίνης σχεδὸν
τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα Coa ἣ γέγονεν αὖ, διὰ βραχέων
ἐπιμνῃστέον, ὃ μή τις ἀνάγκη μηκύνειν οὕτω γὰρ ἐμμετρώτερός
ΓΝ ς lel / \ / ῇ 5 AQ? 3 a.
τις av αὑτῷ δόξειε περὶ τοὺς τούτων λόγους εἶναι. THO οὖν TO
lal Μ , al , > “Ὁ “ x
τοιοῦτον ἔστω λεγόμενον. τῶν γενομένων ἀνδρῶν ὅσοι δειλοὶ καὶ
\ / *O7 fal \ / \ ed a lal
τὸν βίον ἀδίκως διῆλθον, κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα γυναῖκες μετε-
a \
καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον δὴ τὸν χρόνον διὰ
fal \ \ a / ΝΜ 5 , a \ \ >
ταῦτα θεοὶ τὸν τῆς ξυνουσίας ἔρωτα ἐτεκτήναντο, ζῷον τὸ μὲν ἐν

3 μάλα post εὖ addit 5, 4 πάντως: παντὸς 8.
16 ἐμμετρώτερος : ἐμμετρότερος HS.

1177” 30 εἰ δὴ θεῖον ὁ νοῦς πρὸς τὸν ἀν-
θρωπον, καὶ ὁ κατὰ τοῦτον βίος θεῖος πρὸς
τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον" οὐ χρὴ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς
παραινοῦντας ἀνθρώπινα φρονεῖν ἄνθρωπον
ὄντα οὐδὲ θνητὰ τὸν θνητόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον
ἐνδέχεται ἀθανατίζειν καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν
πρὸς τὸ ζῆν κατὰ τὸ κράτιστον τῶν ἐν
αὑτῷ. A sentence worthy of Plato him-
self. ῷ

4. εὐδαίμονα] i.e. εὐδαίμων signifies
ὁ ἔχων τὸν δαίμονα εὖ κεκοσμημένον.

θεράπεια δὲ δὴ παντί] sc. τῆς ψυχῆς

, εἴδει.

6. ξυγγενεῖς εἰσὶ κινήσεις) cf. 478
τὰς περιφορὰς τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διανοήσεως
ξυγγενεῖς ἐκείναις οὔσας, ἀκινήτοις τεταραγ-
μένας. Plato frequently fuses in his lan-
guage the symbol with what it symbolises,
the περιφορὰ with the διανόησιξ.

7. τὰς περὶ τὴν γένεσιν] The πε-
ρίοδοι are distorted by the inflowing and
outflowing stream of nutrition; see 43 A
foll.

10. κατὰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν φύσιν] i.e.
according to its original and proper nature
gua soul, before contamination by con-
tact with matter: the priority being of
course logical.

goE—9g2 C, ¢. xliv. And now our tale
is well-nigh told. For in the first gene-
ration the gods made men, and in the
second women: and they caused love
to arise between man and woman and
a desire of continuing their race. And
afterwards from such as followed not after
wisdom and truth sprang the fowls of the
air and the beasts of the field, whose
heads are turned earthwards, because

991A

gt Al ΤΊΜΑΙΟΣ. 330

the truth; and so far as it lies in human nature to possess im-
mortality, he lacks nothing thereof; and seeing that he ever
cherishes the divinest part and keeps in good estate the guardian
spirit that dwells in him, he must be happy above all. And the
care of this is always the same for every man, to wit that he
assign to every part its proper exercise and nourishment. To
the divine part of us are akin the thoughts and revolutions of
the All: these every man should follow, restoring the revolu-
tions in the head, that are marred through our earthly birth, by
learning to know the harmonies and revolutions of the All, so as
to render the thinking soul like the object of its thought ac-
cording to her primal nature: and when he has made it like, so
shall he have the fulfilment of that most excellent life that was
set by the gods before mankind for time present and time to
come. 5

XLIV. Thus then the task laid upon us at the begin-
ning, to set forth the nature of the universe down to the gene-
ration of man, seems wellnigh to have reached its fulfilment.
For the manner of the generation of other animals we may deal
with in brief, so there be no need to speak at length: thus shall
we in our own eyes preserve due measure in our account of
them. Let us then state it in this way. Of those who were
born as men, such as were cowardly and spent their life in
unrighteousness, were, according to the probable account, trans-
formed into women at the second incarnation. At that time
the gods for these reasons invented the love of sexual inter-
course, in that they created one kind of animate nature in men

they have let their reason sleep. And
below these were creatures of many legs,
and worms that crawl on their belly; and,
yet lower, the fish that for their foolish-
ness may not even breathe pure air, and
all living things whose habitation is in
the water. Yet these are ever changing
their rank, rising or falling as their un-
derstanding grows more or less. And
so was the universe completed and all
that is therein, one and only-begotten,
the most fair and perfect image of its
eternal maker.

19. ἀδίκως διῆλθον] Compare Laws

781A ὃ καὶ ἄλλως γένος ἡμῶν τῶν ἀνθρώ-
πων λαθραιότερον μᾶλλον καὶ “ἐπικλοπώ-
τερον, τὸ θῆλυ, διὰ τὸ ἀσθενές. Assuredly
women treated on the Athenian system
would have been either more or less than
human, had they not developed some
tendency in this direction. Plato how-
ever is apparently the only Greek thinker
who saw the cause of the evil and pro-
posed a remedy.

21. ζῷον] This curious quasi-per-
sonification of sexual impulse as an ani-
mate being is manifestly to be understood
as mythical.

22—2

340

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[91 A—

δ’ ἣν Α Ὶ > nr \ / ΕΙΣ tal ͵
ἡμῖν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς γυναιξὶ συστήσαντες ἔμψυχον, τοιῷδε τρόπῳ
ποιήσαντες ἑκάτερον. τὴν τοῦ ποτοῦ διέξοδον, 7 διὰ τοῦ πλεύμονος

\ ‘ a

TO πόμα ὑπὸ τοὺς νεφροὺς εἰς THY κύστιν ἐλθὸν Kal τῷ πνεύματι
Ox θὲ / ὃ /, / > \ > -“ xX
ipbev ξυνεκπέμπει δεχομένη, ξυνέτρησαν eis τὸν ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς
lel \
5 κατὰ τὸν αὐχένα καὶ διὰ τῆς ῥάχεως μυελὸν ξυμπεπηγότα, dv δὴ
/ ? a / 4 »” +e δ' Νοῦς * ‘
σπέρμα ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν λόγοις εἴπομεν ὁ δέ, ἅτ᾽ ἔμψυχος ὧν Kai
λαβὼν ἀναπνοὴν τοῦθ᾽ ἧπερ ἀνέπνευσε, τῆς ἐκροῆς ζωτικὴν ἐπιθυ-

/ > / Mm rn al »” 9 ἔχ,
μίαν ἐμποίησας avT@ του γέενναν ερῶτα ATTETEAECE.

διὸ δὴ τῶν

\ » - \ \ A -“ eo] / , bl / 4 >
μὲν ἀνδρῶν τὸ περὶ THY τῶν αἰδοίων φύσιν ἀπειθές Te καὶ αὐτο-
fal , »
το κρατὲς γεγονός, οἷον ζῷον ἀνυπήκοον τοῦ λόγου, πάντων δι᾽ ἐπιθυ-
/ > , > a fis 4 ὦ eg? 8 a \ 9 A /
plas οἰστρώδεις ἐπιχειρεῖ κρατεῖν" ai δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς γυναιξὶν αὖ μῆτραί
τε καὶ ὑστέραι λεγόμεναι διὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα, ζῷον ἐπιθυμητικὸν C
ρ ὝΟΜΕ t 3. ὲ μη 7
\ \ iA ,
ἐνὸν τῆς παιδοποιίας, ὅταν ἄκαρπον παρὰ τὴν ὥραν χρόνον πολὺν
4 5 \ , , \
γίγνηται, χαλεπῶς ἀγανακτοῦν φέρει, καὶ πλανώμενον πάντῃ κατὰ
A rn ? re τς
15 τὸ σῶμα, τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος διεξόδους ἀποφράττον, ἀναπνεῖν οὐκ
/ \
ἐῶν, εἰς ἀπορίας τὰς ἐσχάτας ἐμβάλλει Kal νόσους παντοδαπὰς
, ς > ’ \ ὩΣ!
ἄλλας παρέχει: μέχριπερ ἂν ἑκατέρων ἡ ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὁ ἔρως
/ « >
ξυνδυάζοντες, οἷον ἀπὸ δένδρων καρπὸν κατοδρέψαντες, ὡς εἰς Ὁ
v \ , 9. ee , δὰ, /
ἄρουραν τὴν μήτραν ἀόρατα ὑπὸ σμικρότητος Kal ἀδιάπλαστα
a / / / / > \ Ε]
20 ζῷα κατασπείραντες καὶ πάλιν διακρίναντες μεγάλα ἐντὸς ἐκ-
θρέψωνται καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς φῶς ἀγαγόντες ζῴων ἀποτελέσωσι
©

γένεσιν.

tal “ / >
γυναῖκες μὲν οὖν καὶ τὸ θῆλυ πᾶν οὕτω γέγονε" τὸ δὲ

rn > / an ‘ ’ \ a \ , >
TOV ὀρνέων φῦλον μετερρυθμίζετο, ἀντὲ τριχῶν πτερὰ vor, ἐκ
τῶν ἀκάκων ἀνδρῶν, κούφων δέ, καὶ μετεωρολογικῶν μέν, ἡγου-
5 μένων δὲ δι’ ὄψεως τὰς περὶ τούτων ἀποδείξεις βεβαιοτάτας εἶναι E

3 πόμα: πῶμα SZ,

18 ξυνδυάζοντες scripsi ex Hermanni coniectura.

ξυνδια-

γαγόντες H, et, teste Bastio, A: Bekkerus autem ξυναγαγόντες in A legisse videtur,

ἐξαγαγόντες SZ.
ταῦτα 5.

2. Sid τοῦ πλεύμονος] See 70 Ὁ,

6. ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν λόγοις] 73 C,
Ἴ4Α; cf. 866: and in the contrary sense
Aristotle de partibus animalium 11 vi
651° 20.

7. λαβὼν ἀναπνοὴν τοῦθ It is
possible that some error may lurk here:
but if we alter τοῦθ᾽ to ταύτῃ, as Stall-
baum proposes, αὐτῷ is left without any
reference.

13. παρὰ τὴν ὥραν] I think Stall-
baum is certainly mistaken in paraphrasing

καταδρέψαντες : xara δρέψαντες ASZ,

21 μετὰ τοῦτο : μετὰ

this ‘per tempus, quo vires maxime vi-
gent’. Lindau more correctly gives
‘praeter pubertatem’: compare Crifas
113 Ὁ ἤδη δ᾽ ἐς ἀνδρὸς ὥραν ἡκούσης τῆς
κόρης, i.e. when she was old enough to
be married.

14. πλανώμενον] This refers to the
metaphorical {gov above. Compare 88 E
τά Te περὶ τὸ σῶμα πλανώμενα παθή-
ματα.

18. ξυνδυάζοντες] This correction of
Hermann’s appears to me a happy one,

E] TIMAIOX. 341

and another in women, which two they formed in the following
way. To the channel of the drink, where it receives the fluid
passing down through the lungs beneath the kidneys into the
bladder and sends it forth by pressure of the air, they opened a
passage into the column of marrow which runs from the head
down the neck and along the spine, and which we have already
termed the seed. This, being quick with soul and finding an
outlet, gave to the part where it found the outlet a lively desire
of egress and produced a longing to generate. Wherefore the
nature of the generative part in man is disobedient and head-
strong, like a creature that will not listen to reason, and en-
deavours to have all its will because of its frantic passions; and
again for the same reason what is called the matrix and womb
in women, which is in them a living nature appetent of child-
bearing, when it is a long time fruitless beyond the due season,
is distressed and sorely disturbed, and straying about in the
body and cutting off the passages of the breath it impedes
respiration and brings the sufferer into the extremest anguish
and provokes all manner of diseases besides; until the passion
and love of both unite them, and, as it were plucking fruit from
a tree, sow in the womb, as if in a field, living things invisible
for smallness and unformed, and again separating them nourish
them within till they grow large, and finally bringing them to
light complete the birth of a living creature. Such is the nature
of women and all that is female. The tribe of birds was trans-
formed, by growing feathers instead of hair, from men that were -
harmless but light-minded ; who were students of the heavenly
bodies, but fancied in their simpleness that the demonstrations
were most sure concerning them which they obtained through

The reading of A, ξυνδιαγαγόντες, is
senseless, and equally so is ἐξαγαγόντες.
As to συναγαγόντες, which would other-
wise suit well enough, the aorist can
hardly be tolerated, nor has this reading
very good authority. The word in A
is an easy corruption of ξυνδυάζοντες, and
the other readings look like attempts at
correcting it.

22. τὸ δὲ τῶν ὀρνέων] In birds are
incarnate the souls of harmless silly peo-

ple, astronomers who fancy that astro-
nomy means nothing more than what
they see with their eyes. The class of
persons indicated is clearly enough shown
by Republic 529A foll. I can see no
reason for supposing with Martin that
the Ionian philosophers are meant. With
the epithet κούφων compare Sophocles
Antigone 343 Kovpovdwy τε φῦλον ὀρνί-
θων.

25. δι᾽ ὄψεως] Cf. Republic 529 A kw-

342 ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ οι E—

δι᾿ εὐήθειαν. τὸ δ᾽ αὖ πεζὸν καὶ θηριῶδες γέγονεν ἐκ τῶν μηδὲν
προσχρωμένων φιλοσοφίᾳ μηδὲ ἀθρούντων τῆς περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν
φύσεως πέρι μηδέν, διὰ τὸ μηκέτι ταῖς ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ χρῆσθαι
περιόδοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς περὶ τὰ στήθη τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόσιν ἕπεσθαι
5 μέρεσιν. ἐκ τούτων οὖν τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων τά T ἐμπρόσθια κῶλα
καὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς εἰς γῆν ἑλκόμενα ὑπὸ ξυγγενείας ἤρεισαν, προμή-
Kes τε καὶ παντοίας ἔσχον τὰς κορυφάς, ὅπῃ συνεθλίφθησαν
ὑπὸ ἀργίας ἑκάστων αἱ περιφοραί: τετράπουν τε τὸ γένος αὐτῶν 92 A
ἐκ ταύτης ἐφύετο καὶ πολύπουν τῆς προφάσεως, θεοῦ βάσεις
10 ὑποτιθέντος πλείους τοῖς μᾶλλον ἄφροσιν, ὡς μᾶλλον ἐπὶ γῆν
ἕλκοιντο. τοῖς & ἀφρονεστάτοις αὐτῶν τούτων καὶ παντάπασι
πρὸς γῆν πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κατατεινομένοις ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι ποδῶν χρείας
τὸ δὲ
τέταρτον γένος ἔνυδρον γέγονεν ἐκ τῶν μάλιστα ἀνοητοτάτων καὶ
ἀμαθεστάτων, ods οὐδ᾽ ἀναπνοῆς καθαρᾶς ἔτι ἠξίωσαν οἱ μετα-
πλάττοντες, ὡς τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸ πλημμελείας πάσης ἀκαθάρτως
ἐχόντων, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ λεπτῆς καὶ καθαρᾶς ἀναπνοῆς ἀέρος εἰς ὕδατος
θολερὰν καὶ βαθεῖαν ἔωσαν ἀνάπνευσιν' ὅθεν ἰχθύων ἔθνος καὶ τὸ Β

" " ae. \ , > - Ee s
οὔσης, ἄποδα αὐτὰ καὶ ἰλυσπώμενα ἐπὶ γῆς ἐγέννησαν.

15

- 3 , , “ Ν / ’ > /
τῶν ὀστρέων ξυναπάντων τε boa ἔνυδρα γέγονε, δίκην ἀμαθίας

δυνεύεις γὰρ καὶ εἴ τις ἐν dpopy ποικίλ-
ματα θεώμενος ἀνακύπτων καταμανθάνοι τι,
ἡγεῖσθαι ἂν αὐτὸν νοήσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὄμμασι
θεωρεῖν.

It is remarkable that the compiler of
the Zimaeus Locrus treats transmigra-
tion and retribution as a mere fable,
though a fable which is useful as a de-
terrent from vice: cf. 104 D εἰ δέ κά τις
σκλαρὸς kal ἀπειθής, τῷ δ᾽ ἑπέσθω κόλασις
ἅ τ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων καὶ ἁ ἐκ τῶν λόγων, σύν-
Tova ἐπάγοισα δείματά τε ὑπουράνια καὶ τὰ
καθ᾽ “Λιδεω, ὅθι κολάσιες ἀπαραίτητοι ἀπό-
κεινται δυσδαίμοσι νερτέροις, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα
ἐπαινέω τὸν ᾿Ιωνικὸν ποιητὰν ἐκ παλαιᾶς
ποιεῦντα τοὺς évayéas’ ὡς γὰρ τὰ σώματα
νοσώδεσί ποκα ὑγιάζομες, αἴ κα μὴ εἴκῃ
τοῖς ὑγιεινοτάτοις, οὕτω τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπείρ-
Ὕομες ψευδέσι λόγοις, εἴ κα μὴ ἄγηται ἀλα-
θέσι. λέγοιντο δ᾽ ἂν ἀναγκαίως τιμωρίαι
ξέναι, ὡς μετενδυομέναν τἂν ψυχᾶν τῶν μὲν
δειλῶν ἐς γυναικέα σκάνεα ποθ᾽ ὕβριν ἐκδι-
δόμενα, τῶν δὲ μιαιφόνων ἐς θηρίων σώματα
ποτὶ κόλασιν, λάγνων δὲ ἐς συῶν ἢ κάπρων

μορφάς, κούφων δὲ καὶ μετεώρων ἐς πτηνῶν
ἀεροπόρων, ἀργῶν δὲ καὶ ἀπράκτων ἀμαθῶν
τε καὶ ἀνοήτων ἐς τὰν τῶν ἐνύδρων ἰδέαν.
Compare Phaedo 81 Ἑ, foll.

5. ἐκ τούτων οὖν τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων]
There is an interesting parallel in Aris-
totle de partibus animalium Iv x 686% 25
ὁ μὲν οὖν ἄνθρωπος ἀντὶ σκελῶν Kal ποδῶν
τῶν προσθίων βραχίονας καὶ τὰς καλουμένας
ἔχει χεῖρας, ὀρθὸν ydp ἐστι μόνον τῶν ζῴων
διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι
θείαν" ἔργον δὲ τοῦ θειοτάτου τὸ νοεῖν καὶ
φρονεῖν" τοῦτο δὲ οὐ ῥᾷδιον πολλοῦ τοῦ ἄνω-
θεν ἐπικειμένου σώματος" τὸ γὰρ βάρος δυσ-
κίνητον ποιεῖ τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ τὴν κοινὴν
αἴσθησιν. διὸ πλείους γενομένου τοῦ βάρους
καὶ τοῦ σωματοειδοῦς ἀνάγκη ῥέπειν τὰ
σώματα εἰς τὴν γῆν, ὥστε πρὸς τὴν ἀσ-
φάλειαν ἀντὶ βραχιόνων καὶ χειρῶν τοὺς
προσθίους πόδας ὑπέθηκεν ἡ φύσις τοῖς
τετράποσιν. τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ὀπισθίους δύο
πᾶσιν ἀναγκαῖον τοῖς πορευτικοῖς ἔχειν, τὰ
δὲ τοιαῦτα τετράποδα ἐγένετο οὐ δυναμένης
φέρειν τὸ βάρος τῆς ψυχῆς.

92 B] ΤΙΜΑΙ͂ΟΣ. 343

the sight. And the race of brutes that walk on dry land comes
from those who sought not the aid of philosophy at all nor
inquired into the nature of the universe, because they used no
longer the revolutions in the head, but followed as their guides
the parts of the soul that are in the breast. From these practices
their front limbs and their heads were by their natural affinity
drawn towards the ground and there supported ; and their heads
were lengthened out and took all sorts of forms, just as the orbits
in each were crushed out of shape through disuse. For the same
reason such races were made four-footed and many-footed ; for
God gave many props to the more senseless creatures, that
they might the more be drawn earthward. As to the most
senseless of all, whose whole bodies were altogether stretched
at length on the earth, seeing they had no longer any need
of feet, God made them footless to crawl upon the ground. And
the fourth class that lives in the water was formed of the most
utterly foolish and senseless of all, whom they that transfigured
them thought not worthy even of pure respiration, because their
soul was polluted with all manner of iniquity; but in place of
inhaling the fine pure element of air they were thrust into the
turbid and lowly respiration of water. Hence is the tribe of
fishes and of all shell-fish that live in the water; which have the

6. προμήκεις τε kal παντοίας] Their
heads were elongated, because the circles
of the brain were distorted into an ellip-

merely because it respires under water ;
and water-snails are probably as intelligent
as land-snails. It is possible, as Martin

tical form: the proper and typical shape
of the head is spherical, emulating the
figure of the universe: see 44D, 730, E;
and for the effect of the κῦμα τῆς τροφῆς
upon the shape of the head see note on
76 A.

12. πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κατατεινομένοις]
Plato’s theory pays small regard to the
‘wisdom of the serpent’: however, as
the serpent has an exceptional gift of
holding its head upright, perhaps we may
allow it to be promoted a few grades on
that account.

15. os οὐδ᾽ ἀναπνοῆς καθαρᾶς ἔτι
ἠξίωσαν] It seems a little hard upon an
animal so highly organised as the fish to
be placed nearly at the bottom of the scale

suggests, that Plato may have taken the
hint from Diogenes of Apollonia: see
Theophrastos de sensu ὃ 44 φρονεῖν δέ,
ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη, τῷ ἀέρι καθαρῷ καὶ ξηρῷ"
κωλύειν γὰρ τὴν ἰκμάδα τὸν νοῦν, διὸ καὶ
ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς μέθαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς
πλησμοναῖς ἧττον φρονεῖν. ὅτι δὲ ἡ ὑγρότης
ἀφαιρεῖται τὸν νοῦν σημεῖον, ὅτι τὰ ἄλλα
ζῷα χείρω τὴν διάνοιαν ἀναπνεῖν τε γὰρ
τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀέρα καὶ τροφὴν ὑγροτέραν
προσφέρεσθαι. τοὺς δὲ ὄρνιθας ἀναπνεῖν
μὲν καθαρόν, φύσιν δὲ ὁμοίαν ἔχειν τοῖς
ἰχθύσι: καὶ γὰρ τὴν σάρκα στιφρὰν καὶ
τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ διιέναι διὰ παντὸς ἀλλὰ
ἑστάναι περὶ τὴν κοιλίαν. Compare He-
rakleitos fr. 74 Bywater αὔη ψυχὴ σοφω-
τάτη καὶ ἀρίστη: and fr. 73.

344

ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ

[92 B—

ἐσχάτης ἐσχάτας οἰκήσεις εἰληχότων. καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα δὴ πάντα
τότε καὶ νῦν διαμείβεται τὰ ζῷα εἰς ἄλληλα, νοῦ καὶ ἀνοίας
ἀποβολῇ καὶ κτήσει μεταβαλλόμενα. |

Kai 6) καὶ τέλος περὶ τοῦ παντὸς viv ἤδη τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν C
5 φῶμεν ἔχειν" θνητὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀθάνατα Coa λαβὼν καὶ ξυμπληρωθεὶς
ὅδε ὁ κόσμος οὕτω, ζῷον ὁρατὸν τὰ ὁρατὰ περιέχον, εἰκὼν τοῦ
ποιητοῦ, θεὸς αἰσθητός, μέγιστος καὶ ἄριστος καλλιστός τε καὶ
τελεώτατος γέγονεν, εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενὴς ὦν.

ἡ ποιητοῦ dedi cum A,

I. ἐσχάτας οἰκήσεις] This means not
the habitation of the ἔβα in the water,
but the habitation of the soul in the
bodies of fishes, molluscs and the like.
It is plain from this passage also that
Plato did not contemplate the entrance
of a soul which had once been human
into any vegetable form: not that there
is any physical reason against this, but
for the cause pointed out on 77 A.

2. δϑιαμείβεται τὰ ζῷα] This pas-
sage is important, as clearly indicating
that Plato does not admit any state of
hopeless degradation. The animals are
perpetually changing places as they ad-
vance or recede in intelligence: what is
a bird in one incarnation may become a
fish in another, and vice versa. Even
the oyster may, in course of ages of evo-
lution, become once more a human being.
Hence it is evident that the everlasting
vengeance wreaked upon desperate crimi-
nals in the Republic, Phaedo and Gorgias
is merely part of the pictorial represen-
tation. How far the present scheme of
transmigration is intended to be accepted
literally is a matter exceedingly difficult
of determination. It has no essential
connexion with the Platonic ontology; nor
again is it obviously inconsistent there-
with. The continuance of individual
personalities which it presumes is not
material to Plato’s theory, which requires
that all soul shall be eternal and shall
exist in a multitude of separate conscious
beings, as well as in its universal unity;
but it does not require that the same

νοητοῦ HSZ.

consciousness shall exist as such in suc-
cessive embodiments. The question be-
longs to that mythical borderland of the
Platonic philosophy where it is not al-
ways possible to draw the line with cer-
tainty between the literal and the alle-
gorical..

6. εἰκὼν τοῦ ποιητοῦ About the
genuineness of this reading, which has
the support, besides A, of Vat. 173, I
can feel no doubt whatsoever. Had
Plato written νοητοῦ, it is in the last de-
gree improbable that a phrase so familiar
and constantly recurring should have
been altered into the far more difficult
ποιητοῦ. On the other hand, assuming
Plato to have written ποιητοῦ, the word
was, I may venture to say, positively
certain to be altered in some way: for,
the scribe or annotator would argue,
the κόσμος is not the image of its maker,
but of the νοητὸν ζῷον from which the
maker copied it: therefore νοητοῦ is the
word. Add to this the probability that
some readers would suppose it to be the
genitive of ποιητός (a supposition which
Lindau actually entertains), and we have
so potent causes of corruption that it is
surprising that a single manuscript has
preserved the true reading. The word
ποιητοῦ must necessarily be unintelligible
to any student of the dialogue who had
not arrived at some such conclusion
about the nature of the δημιουργὸς as that
which I have done my best to defend.

Adopting then ποιητοῦ, we have of
course but one possible inference to draw ;

C] TIMAIOS¥. 345

uttermost dwelling-place in penalty for the uttermost folly. In
such manner then and now all creatures change places one with
another, rising or falling with the loss or gain of understanding
or of folly.

And now let us declare that our discourse concerning this
All has reached its end. Having received all mortal and
immortal creatures and being therewithal replenished, this uni-
verse hath thus come into being, living and visible, containing
all things that are visible, the image of its maker, a god per-
ceptible, most mighty and good, most fair and perfect, even this

one and only-begotten world that is.

the δημιουργὸς and the αὐτὸ for are one
and the same; the δημιουργὸς being sim-
ply a mythical duplicate of the αὐτὸ ξῴον,
the introduction of which was_necessi-
tated by the poetical and narrative form
of the exposition. Both the δημιουργὸς
and the αὐτὸ {Gov represent the primal
unity, considered as though not yet plu-
ralised, which must evolve and manifest
itself under the form of plurality and so
be a truly existent One. And surely
nothing can be more thoroughly charac-
teristic of Plato, than that, after talking
parables throughout, he should at the
very end of the dialogue drop one single
word, φωνᾶεν συνετοῖσι, which was to
open our eyes to the fact that he did
speak in parables; that if we desire to
understand the philosopher, we must be
in sympathy with the poet.

8. εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενὴς ὧν] It
is worth while to note how closely the
phraseology of the concluding five lines
corresponds with that of 30 C—31 B:

compare especially the words in 31 B εἷς
ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανὸς γεγονὼς ἔστι τε καὶ
ἔτ᾽ ἔσται. Plato doubtless designs by
thus echoing his former language to as-
sure us that the promise made in the
beginning has been fulfilled, that the
nature of the universe has been expounded
precisely to the effect indicated in the
sixth chapter, and that not a single point
has been omitted. This very minute
correspondence serves to render the one
important deviation, εἰκὼν τοῦ ποιητοῦ,
all the more strikingly significant. Mark
too the emphatic stress which falls upon
the two closing words of the dialogue, μο-
νογενὴς ὦν. In them is virtually summed
up Plato’s whole system of idealistic
monism: this one universe ylyveral re
καὶ ἔστι, it is create and uncreate, tem-
poral and eternal, the sum total and
unity of all modes of existence; in the
words of the Platonic Parmenides πάντα
πάντως ἐστί τε καὶ οὐκ ἔστι.

pf ΓΝ
Seen τ At

INDEX I.

A

ἀγαθῶν φυγάς, 236

ἀγγεῖα ἀέρος, 242

ἀδάμας, 214

ἀδιάπλαστα ζῴα, 340

ἀήθει λόγῳ, 188

ἀθάνατα φρονεῖν, 336

ἀιδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα, 118
αἰθήρ, 212

αἴσθησις, Plato’s etymology of, 148
αἴσθησις and πάθημα distinguished, 235
αἰσθητὰ or αἰσθητικά, 226
αἰσθητικόν, not αἰσθητόν, 246

αἰτία ἑλομένου, 325

αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, 118

αἰωρήσεις, 332

ἀκάκων ἀνδρῶν, κούφων δέ, 340
ἀκοή, 246

ἀκολασία due to physical causes, 324
ἄκρατα καὶ πρῶτα σώματα, 206
ἀκρόπολις =the head, 258
.ἀλείμματα, 178

ἀληθὴς δόξα, 180

ἅλμα μαλακόν, 260

ἄλογον μετέχον πῃ λόγου, 262
ἁλουργόν, 250

ἁλυκόν, 240

ἀλύτως ὕδατι, 218

ἄλφους, 318

ἁλῶν θεοφιλὲς σῶμα, 220

ἅμα or αἷμα, 314

ἀμαθία, 322

ἀμβλυτάτη τῶν ἐπιπέδων γωνιῶν, 194
ἀμέριστος οὐσία, 106

ἅμμα τῶν φλεβῶν, 258

ἀμφημερινοὶ πυρετοί, 322

ἂν omitted with the relative, 324

ἄν, position of, 82

ἀναγκαῖα καὶ ἄριστα, 280
ἀναγκαῖον and θεῖον, 252
ἀνάγκη, 166

ἀναίσθητον πάθημα, 234
ἀναλικμώμενα or ἀνικμώμενα, 186
ἀναλογία, 96

ἀνάμνησις, 142

ἀνάπαλιν ἡ γένεσις, 310
ἀναπνοή, 294

dvamvon=free egress, 314
ἀναψυχῆς, 316

ἄνοια, 322

ἀντίας...πλαγίας.. ὑπτίας, 150
ἀντίπους, 230

ἄνω, 228

ἄνω κοιλία, 270

ἀνωμαλότης, 208

ἀξύμμετρον ταῖς μεγίσταις ξυμμετρίαις, 328
ἀπάθεια of the ὑποδοχή, 176
᾿Απατούρια, 66

ἄπειρον, 24

ἄπειρον πνεῦμα, LOL

ἀπείρους, play on, 198

ἀπήρξατο or ἀπειργάζετο, 130
ἀπορροαί, 157

ἀποτομή, 11ἰ

ἄρθρα a form of θάτερον, 274
ἀρτηρία, 260

ἀρχαί, three, maintained by Galen, 257
ἀρχὴν εἴτε ἀρχάς, 168

αὐλῶνος, 294

αὔξησις καὶ φθίσις, 206

ἄυπνος φύσις, 184

αὐστηρόν, 240

αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ, 230

αὐτὸ ζῷον, 41, 95

348 INDEX 1.

αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γέγονεν ἑαυτῆς, 184 E
ἀφομοιωθέντα ἐντός, 158 ἐγκαύματα, 82
ἄφρονε ξυμβούλω, “56 ἐγκέφαλος, 272

Β ἐγκύρτια, 292

εἴδεσί τε καὶ ἀριθμοῖς, 188
εἰδῶν φίλοι, 22

εἰκὼν αἰῶνος, 118

εἰκὼν τοῦ ποιητοῦ, 344
εἵλλεσθαι, εἱλεῖσθαι, 132
εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα, 176
ἐκγόνῳ, 176

βαρύ, 228

Βενδίδεια, 55
βιᾶται, 232

βίου ζωή, 152
βλεφάρων φύσις, 158
βραχέος, 80

ἀν ἐκμαγεῖον, 176 Ξ
γένη and εἴδη, 206 " ἴῃ sense of napkin, 268
γλαυκόν, 252 ἐκόλλησεν ὁμοιότητι, 278
γλισχρὸν καὶ λιπαρόν, 310 ἐκ τρίτου, 192
γλυκύ, 242 ἔλαιον, 216
γόμφοι, 146 ἕλικα, 126

ἐμφαίνεσθαι, ἔμφασις, 159

ἐναντία καὶ πλάγια, 232

ἐναντίαν εἰληχότας αὐτῷ δύναμιν, 124
ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν ὕψη λαβοῦσα, 160

Δ

δαίμων =the intellect, 336
δάκρυον, 250

δεξαμένης or δεξαμενῆς, 188 ἐνιαυτὸς ὁ τέλεος, 128

δέρμα, 280 ἐν μέρους εἴδει, 94

δεσμοὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, 270 ἔντερα, 270

δεχομένη, 206 ἐξαρπασθέν, peculiar construction of, 220
δημιουργός, 37 ἐπανακύκλησις, 134

διαιωνίας φύσεως, 122 ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους, 74

διαζωγραφῶν, τοῦ ἐπίπνοια, 264

διάμετρος, 104 ἐπίρρυτον σῶμα καὶ ἀπόρρυτον, 148

διαρροίας καὶ δυσεντερίας, 320 ἐπιτόνους, 318

διαφανῆ, 248 ἐπίτριτα, ἐπόγδοα, 108
διάφραγμα, 256 ἐπιχειρητῇ παντὸς ἔρωτι, 256
διάφραγμά τ᾽ ἴσχον, 316 Ἑρμοῦ ἱερόν, 122

διαχεῖν, 158

διαχυτικὸν μέχρι φύσεως, 216
διεγένοντο, 70

διέξοδος, 168

διιστάμενοι or διεσταμένοι, 306

δι’ οὖν or δύ᾽ οὖν, 244

διόψεως or τῶν δι᾽ ὄψεως, 136
διυλασμένα, 254

διχῇ κατὰ τὰ ἐναντία προϊέναι, 126
δοκιμεῖα, δοκίμια, 240

ἐρυθρόν, 250

ἔστι, wrongly applied to γένεσις, 120
ἔσχατα, 230

evdaluova=ed τὸν δαίμονα ἔχοντα, 338
εὐπαραγωγόν, 256

εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον, said of the maker, 86
εὐφροσύνη, 300

ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον, 152
ἑωσφόρος, 122

δόξα ἀληθής, 180 Ζ
δορυφορικὴ οἴκησις, 258 ζέσιν τε καὶ ζύμωσιν, 242
δοχάς, 264 ζυγόν, 232

δριμύ, 240 ζύμωμα, 276

δρυόχων, 306 ζῷα, ideas of, 34

δύναμις Ξκεϑδαθαγα root, 192 ζῴον ἐπιθυμητικὸν τῆς παιδοποιίας, 340

INDEX I.

H

ἡγεμονοῦν, ἡγεμονικόν, 140

ἡδοναὶ καὶ λῦπαι, 234

ἡδονὴ contrasted with εὐφροσύνη, 300

ἡ φέρειν πέφυκε, 166

ἤλεκτρον, 300

ἥμερα δένδρα, 286

ἥμερον---ἡμέρα, play on, 154

ἡμιόλια, 108

ἡμιτριταῖοι πυρετοί, 322

ἣν, ἔσται, wrongly applied to ἀΐδιος οὐ-
σία, 120

ἥπατος ἰδέα, 262

Ἡρακλεῖοι λίθοι, 302

Ἡρακλέους στῆλαι, 78

Θ

θάτερον, 43, 44, 106, 274

θεῖον and ἀναγκαῖον, 252

θεοὶ θεῶν, 136

θεοσεβέστατον ζῴων, 142

θερμόν, etymology of, 226

θνητὸν εἶδος ψυχῆς, 256

θρέμμα ἄγριον, said of the ἐπιθυμητικον,
260

θρεπτικὴ ψυχή, 263

θρίξ, 282

θυμιατικὰ σώματα, 224

θώραξ, “56

ἰατρικαὶ σικύαι, 298
ἱδρὼς καὶ δάκρυον, 314
ἱερὸν νόσημα, 318
ἴλλεσθαι, 132
ἰλυσπώμενα, 342
tes, 310
ἰός, 214
ἴσατις, 250
ἰσοπαλές, 230
ἰσόπλευρα τρίγωνα, 192
ἰχθύες, 342
ἴχνη αὑτῶν ἅττα, 188
ἰχώρ, 312

Κ
καθ᾽ ὃν εἴληχε, 230

καλὸν = ξύμμετρον, 328
καπνός, 244

349

κατὰ διάμετρον, 194

κατακορές, 250

κατὰ μῆκος στραφὲν τοῦ προσώπου, 160
κατὰ νοῦν, 114

κατὰ πλευράν, κατὰ διάμετρον, 112
κατεσκευασμένα γράμμασι, 72
κάτω, 228

κάτω κοιλία, 270

κενόν, Pythagorean, ror
κέραμος, 220

κερματίζειν, 226

κεφαλή, astronomical term, 129
κίκι, 216

κίνησις and στάσις, 208

κόσμος, play on, 130

κουρεῶτις, 66

κοῦφον, 228

κρύσταλλος, 216

κυανοῦν, 250

κῦμα ὃ τὴν τροφὴν παρέχει, 148
κύρτος, 290

κύτος τῆς ψυχῆς, 150

Λ
λαμπρόν, 250
λεῖμμα, 111
λεῖον, 234
λέμμα μεῖζον, 280
λεύκας, 318
λευκόν, 248
λίθων χυτὰ εἴδη, 224
λιπαραῖος λίθος, 220
λίτρον, 220, 240
λοβόν, 264
λογισμῷ τινὶ νόθῳ, 184
λογιστικὸν = object of reason, 116
λόγος, 116, 180
λόγων νᾶμα, 280
λυόμενος, 70
λῦπαι καὶ ἡδοναί, 234

Μ

μάλαγμα, Hermann’s conjecture, 260
μαλακόν, 228

μανία, 322

μαντεία, 264, 266

μάντεις and προφῆται distinguished, 266
μαρμαρυγαί, 250

μειζόνως διῃρημένη, 170

350

pels, 128

μέλαν, 248

μέλαν χρῶμα ἔχων λίθος, 220

μέλι, 218

μέρη καὶ μέλη, 284

μετ᾽ ἀναισθησίας ἁπτόν, 184

μεταξὺ κορυφῆς τοῦ τε ὀμφαλοῦ, 246
μεταξὺ τιθεμένου, 176
μεταρρυθμισθέντος, 158
μετεωρολογικοί, 340

μέτριος παιδιά, said of science, 214
μητέρα καὶ ὑποδοχήν, 178

μίμησις instead of μέθεξις, 171
μιμητικὸν ἔθνος, 62

μονογενὴς wy, significance of, 345
μουσικῆς φωνῇ χρήσιμον, 164
μυελός, 270

μυλῖται λίθοι, 220

νεῦρα, 274

νεὼς πείσματα, 320

νοητοῦ or ποιητοῦ, 41, 344
νοητῶν, peculiar use of, 114
νόθος λογισμός, 184 ©

νόσοι, 308

νόσων ξύστασις, 334

νοῦς βασιλεύς, 30

νοῦς καὶ δόξα ἀληθής, 180

“πὶ
i

ξανθόν, 250

0

ὄγκων εἴτε δυνάμεων, οὔ
ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω, 4
ὁδὸς = μέθοδος, 189

ὁδὸς πρὸς τὸ ξυγγενές, 232
ὀδυρόμενος ἂν θρηνοῖ μάτην, 164
ὄζος χρυσοῦ, 214

οἱ κρείττους =the gods, 286
olvos, 216

- ὀλιγίστας or ὀλιγοστάς, 200
ὀλισθήμασιν ὕδατος, 148
ὁλκὴ denied, 302
ὁλόκληρος, 152

ὁμαλότης, 208

ὁμίχλη, 212, 244

ὁμοιότητι not = ὁμοίως, 279

INDEX I.

ὁμώνυμον, 182

ὀνείρωξις, 184

ὄνυχες, 284

ὀξύ, 242

ὀπισθότονοι, 318

ὁπός, 218

ὄργανα χρόνου, 142, 146

ὅρος ὁρισθεὶς μέγας διὰ βραχέων, 180
ὄρφνινον, 250

ὀσμαί, 244

ὀστοῦν, 272

ὄστρεα, 342

οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν ἄδικος, 324

οὐρανῷ ξυγγένεια, 336

οὐσία, 106

οὐσίας ἁμῶς γέ πως ἀντεχομένην, 184
οὔ τι μὲν δή, 138

ὄχημα, 142, 254

II
πάθημα, peculiar sense of, 225, 249

» distinguished from αἴσθησις, 235

παλιναίρετα, 312
πανσπερμία, 272
παραβολάς, 134
παραδείγματα, 31
παράλλαξις, 70
παρεμφαῖνον, 178

πάχνη, 216

πειθοῦς ἔμφρονος, 166
πέμπτη οὐσία, 199
πεπηγὸς γένος, 212

πέρας, πέρας ἔχον, 24. 177
περίβολον or περὶ ὅλον, 272
περιφερόμενον ὁμοίως or ὅμοιον, 174
περίωσις, 294

πηλοῦ κάρτα βραχέος, 8ο
πικρόν, 240

πίλησις, 210°

πιστόν, 184

πλανητὰ Or πλανῆται, 122
πλανωμένη αἰτία, 166
πλάστιγγας, 232

πλάττειν σῶμα, 330
πλέγμα, 290

ποιητοῦ OY νοητοῦ, 21, 344
ποικίλου πάσας ποικιλίας 176
πομφόλυγες, 242

πορείαν or πορεῖα, 154

ποταμὸς = γένεσις, 148
πράσιον, 252

προλελεπτυσμένων ὑπὸ σηπεδόνος, 240

πρόμηκες, 102

πρόνοια τῆς ψυχῆς, 154
προοίμιον---νόμον, 00
προστυχόντος τε καὶ εἰκῇ, 104
προσχωρήσεις, 134
προφῆται, 266
πυθμένες σαρκός, 314
πύλας, 264

πυραμίς, 200

πυρετοί, 322

πυρρόν, 250

papal, 280

ῥῖγος, 228

ῥίζα τῶν τριγώνων, 306
ῥίζαν ἡμῶν =the brain, 336
pon, 212

ῥυθμός, 164

ῥυπτικά, 240

σάρξ, 274

σικύαι, 298

σκεδαστὴ οὐσία, 116
σκληρόν, 228

σπληνὸς μανότης, 268

στὰς Or πᾶς, 198,

στάσις and κίνησις, 208
στάσεις καὶ νόσους, 308
στέγειν =keep in, 290
στοιχεῖα, 168

στρυφνόν, 240

σύγκρισις καὶ διάκρισις, 240
συλλαβῆς εἴδεσι, 268
συμμεταίτια, 162

συμφυὲς with genitive, 236
συνάψεσιν, 234
συνδυάζοντες, 340
συνηρμόσθαι, middle, 202
συννόμου οἴκησιν ἄστρου, 144
σύνοδος =constitution, 334
συστάντα, 202

συστάσεις πρῶται, δεύτεραι, 308
συστάτῳ σώματι, 100
σφακελίζειν, 274, 316

INDEX I.

σφίγγει, 208
σχῇ κεφαλήν, 130
σῶμα ἐπιμελῶς πλάττοντα, 330

T

τὰ Ov ἀνάγκης γιγνόμενα, 166
τὰ διὰ νοῦ δεδημιουργημένα, 166
ταλαντουμένην, 186

ταὐτόν, τοῦ

τε, displacement of, 135
τέλεον ἐνιαυτόν, 128

τέτανοι, 318

τεταρταῖοι πυρετοί, 322
τετρακτύς, geometrical, 107
THY τοῦ κρατίστου φρόνησιν, 130
τιθασῶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔσχε, 286
τιθήνη γενέσεως, 172, 186

τὸ τῆς χώρας ἀεί, 182

τὸ τυχὸν ἄτακτον, 162

τόδε καὶ τοῦτο καὶ τῷδε, 174
τοιοῦτον Opposed to τοῦτο, 172
τραχύ, 234

τρία τριχῇ, 186, 336

τριπλῆν κατὰ δύναμιν, 192
τριταῖοι πυρετοί, 322

τρίτος ἄνθρωπος, 20

τρόμος, 228

τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν, τοῦ

᾿ τροχοῦ περιαγομένου, 296

τύχη, 164

τῷ ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ τρόπον ἤθει, 146
τῷ λόγῳ γεγονότας, 84

τῶν πάντων ἀεί τε ὄντων, τ78

T

ὕαλος, 224

ὑγρόν, etymology of, 216

ὑγρὸν ὕδωρ, 212

ὑδραγωγίαν, 290

ὕλη, the Aristotelian, 183
» =wood, 254

ὑπαρξάμενος, 140

ὑπερσκελές, 328

ὑπέρψυχον, 330

ὑποδοχή, 170

ὑποθετέον, ὑποτεθέντα, 226

ὕψη λαβοῦσα, 169

352 INDEX I.

Φ χολή, 312
φαιόν, 250 χορείας, 134
φάτνη, 260 χρόαι, 248
φθόγγοι, 300 χρόνου εἴδη, μέρη, 120
φθόνος, go χρυσοῦ ὄζος, 214
φλέβια perform the function of nerves, 240 χυμοί, 216, 238
φλέγμα, 314 xurov ὕδωρ, 212
φρένες, 256 xwpa, 44, 182
φρόνησις τοῦ κρατίστου, 130 ἣν
egal 236 ψυχὰς ἰσαρίθμους τοῖς ἄστροις, 140
ve - ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου, 42
φωνή, 246

ψυχή, relation to νοῦς, 92

φωρασαι, 232 ψυχῆς ὅσον θνητόν, 224

x 3» θνητὸν εἶδος, 256
υχρόν, 228 ξ
χάλαζα, 216 ¥
xt, 111 2
χιών, 216 ὡς ἀποδοθησόμενα πάλιν, 146
χλοῶδες or χολῶδες, 312 ὠχρόν, 250

Ψ παν»

INDEX II.

A

Absolute knowledge impossible, 48
Accords of sound, 300
Acids, action of, 242
Acoustics, 108
Adamant, 214
Air, varieties of, 212
Alkali, 220, 240
Allegory, 36
Amasis, 68
Amber, phenomena of, 302
Anaxagoras, 9
se and causation, 10
ἣν defects of, 11
BS. his deficiencies made good, 188
Animal and vegetable, 286
Aorta, 289
Apaturia, 67
Appuleius on the origin of the world, 92
Aristotle, his incorrect criticism of Plato,
105, 175, 179, 184, 190, 202, 229
Ha his classification of the soul’s
functions, 262
F his views on dreams, 264
ἐξ Pe re the brain, 27
Arteries, supposed to be filled with air, 311
», not distinguished from veins, 258
Artificer, the, 37
s» looks to the eternal type, 88
5 his works immortal, 139
Astringent, 240
Astronomers become birds, 340
Athenion quoted concerning salt, 222
Athens, the ancient, 74
Atlantis, 78
Attraction, 228

Boek.

B

Bastard reasoning, 184
Becoming, 4
Bile, several kinds of, 312
Black, 248
Black stone, 220
Blood, why it is red, 304
» ὙΠ] not coagulate if the fibrine be
removed, 320
Blue, 250, 252
Bones, formation of, 252
Bones and hair insensible, 236
Brain, 272
Birds, origin of, 340
Bronze, 214

Cc

Cataclysms and conflagrations, 70

Catarrhs, 318

Categories, 116

Cathartics, worst means of κίνησις, 332

Causation, 10, 160, 167

Causes, divine and necessary, 232

Chaotic motion, 92, 254

Circle of the Same, of the Other, 112

Circular impulsion, 296

Classes without corresponding ideas, 25

Climate, its influence on character, 77

Cold, explanation of, 226

Colours, 248

Concave mirrors, 160

Consonance, 300

Constant sum of things, 147

Constriction of the universe, 208

Continuity first conceived by Herakleitos,
4

354 INDEX II.

Cooling, 212

Cosmic soul, 42

Creation, motive of, gt
Cube, 196

Cupping instruments, 298

D

Daremberg, 201
Death, natural, is painless, 306
Demokritos, his notion of ἀνάγκη, 167

3 his theory that like seeks
like, 187
Sr his infinity of κόσμοι, 198

Destruction of records, 72
Determinism, 324
Diaphragm, 256

Digestion, 294

Diseases, origin of, 308 foll.

»» have their natural course, 334
Dissolution, divers modes of, 222
Divination, 266
Dodecahedron, 197
Downward and upward, 228
Dreams, 158
Drink passes through the lungs, 258
Dropides, 64

E
Earth, question of her rotation, 132
4, forms of, 218
East on the right hand, 212
Education, effects of bad, 326
Egypt considered part of Asia, 76
Egyptian institutions, similar to those of
ancient Athens, 76
Eleaticism, 6
τῇ defects of, 8
5 complementary to Heraklei-
teanism, 8
Elements, ideas of the four, 34
Ἦ before generation of universe,
168
τ interchangeability of, 172,192,

+ why not completely sorted, 208
Empedokles, 13
ae his doctrine of vision, 1 57
γι: his theory of respiration, 294
Envy of the gods, οἱ ie

Epilepsy, 318
Equilateral triangles, 192
Essence, 106
Eternity contrasted with time, 120
Euripides Phoentssae, allusion to, 164
Evil, defect in presentation of the type, 33
» inevitable, 92
»» responsibility for, 144
Exercise, three modes of, 332
Extension, 45
Eyes, 154

F

Fever re‘ieves tetanus, 318
Fevers, quotidian, &c., 322°
Fibrine, 310
Fire, varieties of, 210

», its properties explained, 226
Fishes, condemned to respire in water, 342
Five κόσμοι or one? 198
Flesh, formation of, 276
Freewill and necessity, 324
Front and back, 154
Frost, 216
Fusion, 212

G

Galen on Plato’s theory of respiration, 291
Genealogy of Plato, 65

God irresponsible for evil, 144

‘Gods of Gods’, 137

Gold, 214

Glass, 224

Gravity, Plato’s theory of, 228

Green, 252

Grey, 250

Hail, 216
Hair, 282
Hard, 228
Harmony allied to the proportions of the
soul, 164
Head, spherical shape of, 154
», the seat of intelligence, 256
1» Why not covered with flesh, 278
Heads of beasts, why elongated, 342
Hearing, final cause of, 164
» theory of, 246

ν.1 aed

INDEX TI].

Heat, explanation of, 226
Herakleitean language, 174
Herakleitos, 4
Hermokrates, 63

Honey, 218

Ice, 216
Icosahedron, 196
Idea with but one particular, 94
Ideal theory, earlier, 16

” τ », deficiencies thereof, 18
Ideas, six classes of, in the Republic, 16

45 Of σκευαστά, 23

», Of things evil, 25

», regarded as types, 31

», their plurality inevitable, 34

», restricted to (ga? 34

», and the cosniic soul, 44 ‘

»» question of their existence raised,

180

»» pass not into aught else, 182
Image, must exist in another, 184 ᾿
Immateriality conceived first by Plato, 17
Indirect interrogation, double, 135
Inexact language, 120
Infants, abeyance of reason with, 148
Interchange of elements, 172
Interpreters, 266
Intestines, functions of, 270
Inversion of right and left, 150

By * 3 in mirrors, 160

Jon, the, quoted about the magnet, 302
Ionian school, 3
Isosceles, the primal, 292

J

Juices, 216
kK
Knowledge, province of, 48

EL

Lava, 220

Leprosies, 318

Light and heavy, 228

Like does not alter like, 204

Limit to duration of species and individual,

334

355

Liver, its functions, 262
»» its connexion with divination, 266
Loadstone, 302
Lokris, the Epizephyrian, 62
Lungs, function of, 258
Lymph, 312

M

Madness a condition of inspiration, 266
Magnet, 302
Maladies of the soul, 322
Man, the most god-fearing of animals, 142
Many and one, unknown to man, 252
Marrow, 270

»» disease of, fatal, 322
Martin, his theory of Plato’s ἐπίπεδα, 203
Matter, subjectivity of, 30

», requires an αἰτία, 86

», ho independent power, 166

», resolved into space, 183
Means, 98

», | harmonical and arithmetical, 108

Medicines, use of, discouraged, 332
Melting, 212
Mercury, 124
Metals, forms of water, 212
Metempsychosis, 144, 342
Microcosm, the human body, 304
Midriff, 256
Mind, universal, 28, 29
Mirrors, 158

+» concave, 160
Mixed substances, 222
Molten gold, simile of, 174
Mortal kind of soul, 256
Motion, how continued, 208

», of the ὑποδοχή, 106

Motions, the seven, 102, 148
Mouth, functions of, 280

», compared to roots of plant, 337
Moving bodies, how propelled, 299
Music, use of, 164
Musical intervals, 108

N
Nails, 283
Natural science, place of, 214
Neith, 68

Nerves, unknown to Plato, 274

356 5
Nile, cause of its inundation, 71.
Numbers, plane and solid, 96

ἣν derived from the heavenly
bodies, 162

O

Octahedron, 196

Odours, sweet, are pure pleasures, 238
»» not to be classified, 244

Oil, 216

Old age explained, 306

One in the many, 252

Opinion, 180

Other, 43, 44, 106

r

Pain and pleasure, explanation of, 236
Panathenaia, time of celebrating, 66
Parmenides, 6
Parmenides, the, 20
Pentagon, 197
Petron of Himera, 198
Phaethon, myth of, 70
Philebus, the, 24 ;
Philosophy, chief result of sight, 162
Phoroneus, 70
Physics, 46
Planes, 202
Plane numbers, 96
Planets, their relative distance from the
earth, 113
», their names, 123
Plants, nature of, 284
Plato, two stages of his thought, 14
» his Herakleiteanism, 15, 36
» _ his teleology, 17
», always confines himself to subject
in hand, 171
»» his corpuscular theory, 192
», his determinism necessitated by his
ontology, 325
Politicus, myth in the, 102
Portal vein, 264
Pottery, 220
Predication, 16
Preplatonic contribution to Platonism, 2,
12
Projection explained, 299
Prophecy, 266

INDEX 77

Proportion, 96

Protagoras, 13
Punishment, theory of, 325
Purple, 250

Pyramid, 194
Pythagoreans, 12

Q

Quadrupeds, origin of, 342
Quickness of apprehension incompatible
with dense flesh, 278

Quotidian, tertian and quartan fevers, 322

R

Reason and true opinion shown to be
different, 180

Red, 250

Reflections, 158

Relativity, 21

Republic, its metaphysical side ignored, 56

Respiration, 292

Rhythm, 164

Ritual terms, 152

Rotation of the earth, 132

Rough, 234

Sais, 68
Salt, 220
Same, 106
» applied to ὑποδοχή, 176
Saps, 216
Scale, the Platonic, 109
Scalene, the rectangular, 192
Seers cannot interpret their own sayings,
266
Self-consciousness, 256
Seneca quoted on mirrors, 159
Sensation, physical theory of, 234
Sex, origin of, 340
Sifting of the elements, 186
Sinews, 274
Singular, instead of plural, 154-
Skin, the, 280
Sleep, 158
Smell, theory of, 242
Smooth, 234
Snow, 216

|
|

INDEX Il. Ὁ 357

Soft, 228
Sokrates, 14
Solid numbers, 96
Solidification, 212
Solon, his poetry, 68
» his Egyptian travels, 68
Sophist, the, 22
Sophists, 13
Soul, prior to body, 104
»» mortal kind of, 256
»» diseases of, 322
», and body, symmetry of, 328
a ᾿ to be equally exercised,
330
Souls assigned to the stars, 141
_y, all have an equal chance, 142
», sowed among the planets, 146
Sound, 246, 300
Space, 44, 182 ;
Speech, final cause of, 164
Spirals, 126
Spleen, 268
Stone, how formed, 218
», soluble, 224
Subsidiary causes, 160
Substrate, 172
” its permanence, 176
i its formlessness, 176
re compared to a mother, 176
Sutures, Hippokrates on the, 281
Sweet, 242
Symbolical apprehensivn, 30, 32
Symmetry, 328
Synovial fluid, 311

T

Tastes, various, 240
Tetanus, 318
Tetrahedron, 195
Theaetetus, the, 21
Theogony, 136
Thought, the sole existence, 28
᾿ pluralised, 29
τῇ identified with its object, 115
Threefold division of existence, 176
Thunderbolts, 301
Timaeus, 63
Timaeus, the, importance attached to it
by ancient authorities, 1

Timaeus, the, key to the Platonic system, 2
Ἔ questions left to be answered
by, 27
= metaphysic of, 28 foll.
»» allegorical method of, 36
+ physical theories of, 46
Time, in a sense eternal, 119
» contrasted with eternity, 120
», coeval with the universe, 120, 122
Transmigration, 144, 342
Transparent, 248
Triangles, the primal, 190
»» variation in their size, 206
Type cannot exist in the image, 184

U
Unguents, simile of, 178
Unity and plurality, 29
Universe has no beginning in time, 86
» the copy of a type, 88
» its unity, 94, 198
Up and down, 228
Upright posture of man, 336

Vv

Variation in size of triangles, 206

Vegetable food, 285, 304

Veins, the channel of communication, 259
», of the head cross, 289

Vena cava, 264

Venus and Mercury, motions of, 124

Vengeance, not admitted by Plato, 325

Verjuice, 218

Vertebral column, 272

Vibration of the ὑποδοχή, 186

Vice involuntary, 324

Violet, 250

Vision, 154

Visual current, 156
ae »» not subject to pleasure or
pain, 236

Void, absence of, 210

Volcanic stones, 220

W
Water, liquid and fusible, 212
Wax, 224
Weels, 291

Weighing, 232

358 INDEX 71

White, 248 ᾿
Wine, 216 Year, the great, 129
Winnowing fans, 186 Yellow, 250
Woman, false position of, in Plato’s eae

theory, 144 Ζ

Words, their relation to their subject, 88

World-soul, 42 Zeller’s theory of ideas and particulars, 182

», platonische Studien quoted, 184
Xx Zeno, 6
Xenophanes, 6 Zodiac, 197

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BYC. J. CLAY, M.A, AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

CLASSICAL LIBRARY.

TEXTS EDITED WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES FOR THE
USE OF ADVANCED STUDENTS.

fEschylus.—THE EUMENIDES. The Greek Text, with Intro-
duction, English Notes, and Verse Translation. By BERNARD DRAKE, M.A.
8vo. 5S.
THE “SEVEN AGAINST THEBES.” Edited, with Introduction,
Commentary, and Translation, by A. W. VERRALL, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Aristotle.—THE POLITICS. Edited, after Susemint, by R. Ὁ.
Hicks, M.A. 8vo. [Ln the Press.
AN INTRODUCTION TO ARISTOTLE’S RHETORIC. With
; Analysis, Notes, and Appendices. By E. M. Cope, M.A. 8vo. 145.
Babrius.—Edited, with Introductory Dissertations, Critical Notes,

Commentary and Lexicon. By Rev. W. GUNION RUTHERFORD, M.A., LL.D.
8vo. 125. 6d.

Cicero.—THE ACADEMICA. The Text revised and explained
by J. 5. Rerp, M.L., Litt.D, 8vo. 15s.
Ctesias.—THE FRAGMENTS OF CTESIAS. Edited, with Intro-
duction and Notes, by J. E. GILMoRE, M.A, 8vo. [2 preparation.
Euripides.—MEDEA. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by
A. W. VERRALL, M.A. 8vo. 75. 6d.
IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by
E. B. ENGLAND, M.A. 8vo. (J preparation.
Herodotus.—BOOKS I.—III. THE ANCIENT EMPIRES OF
THE EAST. Edited, with Notes, Introductions, and Appendices, by A. H.
SaycE, LL.D. 8vo. 16s.
BOOKS IV.—IX. Edited by RecinatpD W. Macan, M.A. ϑνο.
[Zn preparation.
Homer.—THE ILIAD. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by
WALTER LeEaF, M.A. 8vo. Vol. 1. Books I.—XII. 145.
(Vol. II. ἐπι the press.
Juvenal.—_THIRTEEN SATIRES OF JUVENAL. With a Com-
mentary. By Professor JOHN E. B. Mayor, M.A. Crown 8vo. _
*,* Vol. I. Fourth Edition, Revised and enlarged. τος. 6d. Vol. II.
Second Edition. os. 6d.
Phrynichus.—THE NEW PHRYNICHUS;; being a Revised Text

of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus. With Introduction and Com-
mentary by Rev. W. GUNION RUTHERFORD, M.A., LL.D. 8vo. 18s.

Pindar.—THE OLYMPIAN AND PYTHIAN ODES. Edited,

with an Introductory Essay, Notes, and Indexes, by Professor BAsIL GILDER-
SLEEVE. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.

Plato.—PHADO. Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Appen-
dices, by R. D. ARCHER-HIND, M.A. 8vo. 8s. 6d.
PHADO. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by W. D. GEppDEs,
LL.D. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 8». 6d.
Tacitus.—THE ANNALS. Edited, with Introductions and Notes,
by Professor G. O. HOLBROOKE, M.A. With Maps. 8vo. 16s.

THE HISTORIES. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Rev.
W. A. Spooner, M.A., and H. M. SPOONER, M.A. 8vo. [/n preparation.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.

CLASSICAL LIBRARY.
COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS,

Aristotle.—THE POLITICS. Translated by Rev. J. E. C. WELL-
DON, M.A. Crown 8vo. 105. δώ.

THE RHETORIC. Translated, with an Analysis and Critical Notes,
by the same. Crown 8vo, 75. 6d.

Aristophanes.—THE BIRDS. ‘Translated into English Verse, with
Introduction, Notes, and Appendices, by Professor B. H. KENNEDY, D.D.
Crown 8vo. 6s. Help Notes to the same, for the use of Students, rs. 6d.

Attic Orators.—FROM ANTIPHON TO ISAEOS. By Professor
R. Ὁ. JesB, M.A., LL.D. 2 vols. 8vo. 255.

Cicero.—THE ACADEMICS. Translated by J. 5. Rem, M.L.
8vo. 55. 6d.

SELECT LETTERS. After the Edition of ALBERT Watson, M.A.
Translated by G. E. Jeans, M.A. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.

Homer.—THE ILIAD. Translated into English Prose. By ANDREW

LANG, M.A., WALTER LEAF, M.A.jand Ernest Myers, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 125. 6d.
THE ODYSSEY. Done into English by Professor 5. H. BurcHeEr,
M.A.,and ANDREW LANG, M.A. Seventh and Cheaper Edition, Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d.

Juvenal.—THIRTEEN SATIRES. Translated into English after
the Text of J. E. B. MAyor by ALEXANDER LEEPER, M.A, Crown 8vo. 35. 6d,

Livy.—BOOKS XXI.—XXV. Translated by ALFRED JOHN CHURCH,
M.A., and WILLIAM JACKSON BropriBB, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Pindar.—THE EXTANT ODES OF PINDAR. Translated into
English, with an Introduction and Notes, by ERNEST Myers, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 55.

Plato._-THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. Translated into English,
with an Analysis and Notes, by J. Lu. Davirs, M.A., and ἢ). J. VAUGHAN,

M.A. 18mo. 45. 6d. wef
EUTHYPHRO, APOLOGY, CRITO, AND PH/EDO, Translated

by F. J. CHurcH. 18mo, 45. 6d.

Polybius.—THE HISTORIES. Translated, with Introduction and
Notes, by E. S. SHUCKBURGH, M.A. 8vo. [21 preparation,

Tacitus. Translated by A. J. CHurcH, M.A., and W. J. Broprisp,
M.A. With Notes and Maps. New Edition. Crown 8vo. THE ANNALS.
7s. 6d. THE HISTORY. 6s. THE AGRICOLA AND GERMANY,
WITH THE DIALOGUE ON ORATORY. 4s. δώ.

Theocritus, Bion and Moschus. Rendered into English Prose,

with Introductory Essay, by A. LANG, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Virgil—THE A‘NEID. Translated by J. W. Mackxart, M.A.
Crown 8yo. 7s. 6d.

Xenophon.—COMPLETE WORKS. Translated, with Introduction
and Essays, by H. G. Dakyns, M.A. Four Volumes. Cr. 8vo. [ln the press.

CLASSICAL SERIES.
RECENT AND FORTHCOMING VOLUMES.
Ovid.—-METAMORPHOSES. BOOKS XIII. anp XIV. Edited by
C. Simmons, M.A. 45. 6d.
Plato.—LACHES. Edited with Introduction and Notes by M. T.
TATHAM, M.A. [Zit the press.
THE REPUBLIC, I.—V. Ed. by T. H. Warren, M.A. [/mmediately.
Polybius.—THE HISTORIES. Translated, with Introduction and
Notes, by E. S. SHUCKBURGH, M.A. | Zmmediately.
Tacitus.—_THE HISTORIES. BOOKS I. anp II. Edited by A.
D, GopLey, M.A. 55.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.

University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.

ὁ © 2 |

AUG 1% ut)