Chapter XXXVIII: Timæus and Kritias (1)

[Side-note: Persons and scheme of the Timæus and Kritias.]

Though the Republic of Plato appears as a substantive composition, not including in itself any promise of an intended sequel--yet the Timæus and Kritias are introduced by Plato as constituting a sequel to the Republic. Timæus the Pythagorean philosopher of Lokri, the Athenian Kritias, and Hermokrates, are now introduced, as having been the listeners while Sokrates was recounting his long conversation of ten Books, first with Thrasymachus, next with Glaukon and Adeimantus. The portion of that conversation, which described the theory of a model commonwealth, is recapitulated in its main characteristics: and Sokrates now claims from the two listeners some requital for the treat which he has afforded to them. He desires to see the citizens, whose training he has described at length, and whom he has brought up to the stage of mature capacity--exhibited by some one else as living, acting, and affording some brilliant evidence of courage and military discipline.[1] Kritias undertakes to satisfy his demand, by recounting a glorious achievement of the ancient citizens of Attica, who had once rescued Europe from an inroad of countless and almost irresistible invaders, pouring in from the vast island of Atlantis in the Western Ocean. This exploit is supposed to have been performed nearly 10,000 years before; and though lost out of the memory of the Athenians themselves, to have been commemorated and still preserved in the more ancient records of Sais in Egypt, and handed down through Solon by a family tradition to Kritias. But it is agreed between Kritias and Timæus,[2] that before the former enters upon his quasi-historical or mythical recital about the invasion from Atlantis, the latter shall deliver an expository discourse, upon a subject very different and of far greater magnitude. Unfortunately the narrative promised by Kritias stands before us only as a fragment. There is reason to believe that Plato never completed it.[3] But the discourse assigned to Timæus was finished, and still remains, as a valuable record of ancient philosophy.

[Footnote 1: Plato, Timæus, p. 20 B.]

[Footnote 2: Plato, Timæus, p. 27 A.]

[Footnote 3: Plutarch, Solon, c. 33.

Another discourse appears to have been contemplated by Plato, to be delivered by Hermokrates after Kritias had concluded (Plato, Timæus, p. 20 A; Kritias, p. 108). But nothing of this was probably ever composed.]

[Side-note: The Timæus is the earliest ancient physical theory, which we possess in the words of its author.]

For us, modern readers, the Timæus of Plato possesses a species of interest which it did not possess either for the contemporaries of its author, or for the ancient world generally. We read in it a system--at least the sketch of a system--of universal philosophy, the earliest that has come to us in the words of the author himself. Among the many other systems, anterior or simultaneous--those of Thales and the other Ionic philosophers, of Herakleitus, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Empedokles, Anaxagoras, Demokritus--not one remains to us as it was promulgated by its original author or supporters. We know all of them only in fragments and through the criticisms of others: fragments always scanty--criticisms generally dissentient, often harsh, sometimes unfair, introduced by the critic to illustrate opposing doctrines of his own. Here, however, the Platonic system is made known to us, not in this fragmentary and half-attested form, but in the full exposition which Plato himself deemed sufficient for it. This is a remarkable peculiarity.

[Side-note: Position** and character of the Pythagorean Timæus.]

Timæus is extolled by Sokrates as combining the character of a statesman with that of a philosopher: as being of distinguished wealth and family in his native city (the Epizephyrian Lokri), where he had exercised the leading political functions:--and as having attained besides, the highest excellence in science, astronomical as well as physical.[4] We know from other sources (though Plato omits to tell us so, according to his usual undefined manner of designating contemporaries) that he was of the Pythagorean school. Much of the exposition assigned to him is founded on Pythagorean principles, though blended by Plato with other doctrines, either his own or borrowed elsewhere. Timæus undertakes to requite Sokrates by giving a discourse respecting "The Nature of the Universe"; beginning at the genesis of the Kosmos, and ending with the constitution of man.[5] This is to serve as an historical or mythical introduction to the Platonic Republic recently described; wherein Sokrates had set forth the education and discipline proper for man when located as an inhabitant of the earth. Neither during the exposition of Timæus, nor after it, does Sokrates make any remark. But the commencement of the Kritias (which is evidently intended as a second part or continuation of the Timæus) contains, first, a prayer from Timæus that the Gods will pardon the defects of his preceding discourse and help him to amend them--next an emphatic commendation bestowed by Sokrates upon the discourse: thus supplying that recognition which is not found in the first part.[6]

[Footnote 4: Plato, Timæus, pp. 20 A, 27 A.]

[Footnote 5: Plato, Timæus, p. 27 A. [Greek: e)/doxe ga\r ê(mi=n Ti/maion me/n, a(/te a)stronomikô/taton ê(mô=n, kai\ _peri\ phu/seôs tou= panto\s_ ei)de/nai ma/lista e)/rgon pepoiême/non, prô=ton le/gein a)rcho/menon a)po\ tê=s tou= ko/smou gene/seôs, teleuta=|n de\ ei)s a)nthrô/pôn phu/sin.]]

[Footnote 6: Plato, Kritias, p. 108 B.]

[Side-note: Poetical imagination displayed by Plato. He pretends to nothing more than probability. Contrast with Sokrates, Isokrates, Xenophon.]

In this Hymn of the Universe (to use a phrase of the rhetor Menander[7] respecting the Platonic Timæus) the prose of Plato is quite as much the vehicle of poetical imagination as the hexameters of Hesiod, Empedokles, or Parmenides. The Gods and Goddesses, whom Timæus invokes at the commencement,[8] supply him with superhuman revelations, like the Muses to Hesiod, or the Goddess of Wisdom to Parmenides. Plato expressly recognises the multiplicity of different statements current, respecting the Gods and the generation of the Universe. He claims no superior credibility for his own. He professes to give us a new doctrine, not less probable than the numerous dissentient opinions already advanced by others, and more acceptable to his own mind. He bids us be content with such a measure of probability, because the limits of our human nature preclude any fuller approach to certainty.[9] It is important to note the modest pretensions here unreservedly announced by Plato as to the conviction and assent of hearers:--so different from the confidence manifested in the Republic, where he hires a herald to proclaim his conclusion--and from the overbearing dogmatism which we read in his Treatise De Legibus, where he is providing a catechism for the schooling of citizens, rather than proofs to be sifted by opponents. He delivers, respecting matters which he admits to be unfathomable, the theory most in harmony with his own religious and poetical predispositions, which he declares to be as probable as any other yet proclaimed. The Xenophontic Sokrates, who disapproved all speculation respecting the origin and structure of the Kosmos, would probably have granted this equal probability, and equal absence of any satisfactory grounds of preferential belief--both to Plato on one side and to the opposing theorists on the other. And another intelligent contemporary, Isokrates, would probably have considered the Platonic Timæus as one among the same class of unprofitable extravagancies, to which he assigns the theories of Herakleitus, Empedokles, Alkmæon, Parmenides, and others.[10] Plato himself (in the Sophistês)[11] characterises the theories of these philosophers as fables recited to an audience of children, without any care to ensure a rational comprehension and assent. _They_ would probably have made the like criticism upon his Timæus. While he treats it as fable to apply to the Gods the human analogy of generation and parentage--they would have considered it only another variety of fable, to apply to them the equally human analogy of constructive fabrication or mixture of ingredients. The language of Xenophon shows that he agreed with his master Sokrates in considering such speculations as not merely unprofitable, but impious.[12] And if the mission from the Gods--constituting Sokrates Cross-Examiner General against the prevailing fancy of knowledge without the reality of knowledge--drove him to court perpetual controversy with the statesmen, poets, and Sophists of Athens; the same mission would have compelled him, on hearing the sweeping affirmations of Timæus, to apply the test of his Elenchus, and to appear in his well-known character of confessed[13] but inquisitive ignorance. The Platonic Timæus is positively anti-Sokratic. It places us at the opposite or dogmatic pole of Plato's character.[14]

[Footnote 7: Menander, De Encomiis, i. 5, p. 39. Compare Karsten, De Empedoclis Vitâ, p. 72; De Parmenidis Vitâ, p. 21.]

[Footnote 8: Plato, Timæus, p. 27 D; Hesiod, Theogon, 22-35-105.]

[Footnote 9: Plato, Timæus, pp. 29 D, 28 D, 59 C-D, 68 C, 72 D. [Greek: kat' e)mê\n do/xan--para\ tê=s e)mê=s psê/phou] (p. 52 D). In many parts of the dialogue he repeats that he is delivering his _own opinion_--that he is affirming what is probable. In the Phædon, however, we find that [Greek: ei)ko/tes lo/goi] are set aside as deceptive and dangerous, Phædon, p. 92 D. In the remarkable passage of the Timæus, p. 48 C-D, Plato intimates that he will not in the present discourse attempt to go to the bottom of the subject--[Greek: tê\n me\n peri\ a(pa/ntôn ei)/te a)rchê\n ei)/te a)rcha\s ei)/te o(/pê| dokei= tou/tôn pe/ri, to\ nu=n ou) r(ête/on]--but that he will confine himself to [Greek: ei)ko/tes lo/goi--to\ de\ kat' a)rcha\s r(êthe\n diaphula/ttôn, tê\n _tô=n ei)ko/tôn lo/gôn du/namin, peira/somai mêdeno\s ê(=tton ei)ko/ta_, ma=llon de\ kai\ e)/mprosthen a)p' a)rchê=s peri\ e(ka/stôn kai\ xumpa/ntôn le/gein.]

What these _principia_ are, which Plato here keeps in the background, I do not clearly understand. Susemihl (Entwickelung der Plat. Phil. ii. p. 405) and Martin (Études sur le Timée, ii. p. 173, note 56) have both given elucidations of this passage, but neither of them appear to me satisfactory. Simplikius says:--[Greek: O( Pla/tôn tê\n phusiologi/an ei)kotologi/an e)/legen ei)=nai, ô(=| kai\ A)ristote/lês summarturei=], Schol. Aristot. Phys. 325, a. 25 Brandis.]

[Footnote 10: Isokrates, De Permutatione, Or. xv. s. 287-288-304. [Greek: ê(gou=mai ga\r ta\s me\n toiau/tas _perittologi/as_ o(moi/as ei)=nai tai=s thaumatopoii/ais tai=s ou)de\n me\n ô)phelou/sais, u(po\ de\ tô=n a)noê/tôn perista/tois gignome/nais] (s. 288). . . .

[Greek: tou\s de\ tô=n me\n a)nagkai/ôn a)melou=ntas, ta\s de\ tô=n palaiô=n sophistô=n _teratologi/as_ a)gapô=ntas, philosophei=n phasi/n] (s. 304).

Compare another passage of Isokrates, the opening of Orat. x. Encomium Helenæ; in which latter passage he seems plainly to notice one of the main ethical doctrines advanced by Plato, though he does not mention Plato's name, nor indeed the name of any living person.]

[Footnote 11: Plato, Sophist. pp. 242-243. [Greek: Mu=tho/n tina e(/kastos phai/netai/ moi diêgei=sthai paisi\n ô(s ou)=sin ê(mi=n; o( me\n ô(s tri/a ta\ o)/nta, polemei= de\ a)llê/lois e)ni/ote au)tô=n a)/tta pê|, to/te de\ kai\ phi/la gigno/mena ga/mous te kai\ to/kous kai\ tropha\s tô=n e)kgo/nôn pare/chetai] (p. 242 C-D).]

[Footnote 12: Xenophon, Memorab. i. 1, 11-14. [Greek: Ou)dei\s de\ pô/pote Sôkra/tous ou)de\n a)sebe\s ou)de\ a)no/sion ou)/te pra/ttontos ei)=den ou)/te le/gontos ê)/kousen; _ou)de\ ga\r_ peri\ tê=s tô=n pa/ntôn phu/seôs ê(=per tô=n a)/llôn oi(/ plei=stoi, diele/geto, skopô=n _o(/pôs o( kalou/menos u(po\ tô=n sophistô=n ko/smos_ e)/chei, kai\ ti/sin a)na/gkais e(/kasta gi/gnetai tô=n ou)rani/ôn; a)lla\ kai\ tou\s phronti/zontas ta\ toiau=ta môrai/nontas a)pedei/knue.]

Lucretius, i. 80:--

Illud in his rebus vereor, ne forté rearis Impia te rationis inire elementa, viamque Indugredi sceleris, &c.

The above cited passage of Xenophon shows that the term [Greek: Ko/smos] was in his time a technical word among philosophers, not yet accepted in that meaning by the general public. The aversion to investigation of the Kosmos, on the ground of impiety, entertained by Sokrates and Xenophon, is expressed by Plato in the Leges (vii. 821 A) in the following words of the principal speaker,--[Greek: To\n me/giston theo\n kai\ o(/lon to\n ko/smon phame\n ou)/te zêtei=n dei=n ou)/te polupragmonei=n ta\s ai)ti/as e)reunô=ntas; ou) ga\r ou)d' o(/sion ei)=nai; to\ de\ e)/oike pa=n tou/tou tou)nanti/on gigno/menon o)rthô=s a)\n gi/gnesthai.] This last passage is sometimes cited as if the word [Greek: phame\n] expressed the opinion of the principal speaker, or of Plato himself--which is a mistake: [Greek: phame\n] here expresses the opinion which the principal speaker is about to controvert.]

[Footnote 13: See above, vol. i. ch. ix. of the present work, where the Platonic Apology is reviewed.]

[Footnote 14: "Quocirca Timæus non dialecticé disserens inducitur, sed loquitur ut hierophanta, qui mundi arcana aliunde accepta grandi ac magnificâ oratione pronunciat; quin etiam quæ experientiæ suspicionem superant, mythorum ac symbolorum involucris obtegit, eoque modo quam ea certa sint, legentibus non obscuré significat."--Stallbaum, Prolegg. ad Platon. Timæum, c. iv. p. 37.]

[Side-note: Fundamental distinction between Ens and Fientia.]

Timæus begins by laying down the capital distinction between--1. Ens or the Existent, the eternal and unchangeable, the world of Ideas or Forms, apprehended only by mental conception or Reason, but the object of infallible cognition. 2. The Generated and Perishable--the sensible, phenomenal, material world--which never really exists, but is always appearing and disappearing; apprehended by sense, yet not capable of becoming the object of cognition, nor of anything better than opinion or conjecture. The Kosmos, being a visible and tangible body, belongs to this last category. Accordingly, it can never be really known: no true or incontestable propositions can be affirmed respecting it: you can arrive at nothing higher than opinion and probability.

Plato seems to have had this conviction, respecting the uncertainty of all affirmations about the sensible world or any portions of it, forcibly present to his mind.

[Side-note: Postulates of Plato. The Demiurgus--The Eternal Ideas--Chaotic Materia or Fundamentum. The Kosmos is a living being and a God.]

He next proceeds to assume or imply, as postulates, his eternal Ideas or Forms--a coeternal chaotic matter or indeterminate Something--and a Demiurgus or Architect to construct, out of this chaos, after contemplation of the Forms, copies of them as good as were practicable in the world of sense. The exposition begins with these postulates. The Demiurgus found all visible matter, not in a state of rest, but in discordant and irregular motion. He brought it out of disorder into order. Being himself good (says Plato), and desiring to make everything else as good as possible, he transformed this chaos into an orderly Kosmos.[15] He planted in its centre a soul spreading round, so as to pervade all its body--and reason in the soul: so that the Kosmos became animated, rational--a God.

[Footnote 15: Plato, Timæus, pp. 29-30.]

[Side-note: The Demiurgus not a Creator--The Kosmos arises from his operating upon the random movements of Necessity. He cannot controul necessity--he only persuades.]

The Demiurgus of Plato is not conceived as a Creator,[16] but as a Constructor or Artist. He is the God Promêtheus, conceived as pre-kosmical, and elevated to the primacy of the Gods: instead of being subordinate to Zeus, as depicted by Æschylus and others. He represents provident intelligence or art, and beneficent purpose, contending with a force superior and irresistible, so as to improve it as far as it will allow itself to be improved.[17] This pre-existing superior force Plato denominates Necessity--"the erratic, irregular, random causality," subsisting prior to the intervention of the Demiurgus; who can only work upon it by persuasion, but cannot coerce or subdue it.[18] The genesis of the Kosmos thus results from a combination of intelligent force with the original, primordial Necessity; which was persuaded, and consented, to have its irregular agency regularised up to a certain point, but no farther. Beyond this limit the systematising arrangements of the Demiurgus could not be carried; but all that is good or beautiful in the Kosmos was owing to them.[19]

[Footnote 16: "The notion of absolute Creation is unknown to Plato, as it is to all Grecian and Roman antiquity" (Brandis, Gesch. der Griech. Röm. Philos. vol. ii. part 2, p. 306).]

[Footnote 17: The verbs used by Plato to describe the proceedings of the Demiurgus are [Greek: xunetektai/neto, xune/stêse, xunekera/sato, e)mêchanê/sato], and such like.]

[Footnote 18: Plato, Timæus, pp. 47 E-48 A. [Greek: e)pide/deiktai ta\ dia\ nou= dedêmiourgême/na; dei= de\ kai\ ta\ di' a)na/gkês gigno/mena tô=| lo/gô| parathe/sthai. Memigme/nê ga\r ou)=n ê( tou=de tou= ko/smou ge/nesis e)x a)na/gkês te kai\ nou= xusta/seôs e)gennê/thê; nou= de\ a)na/gkês a)/rchontos _tô=| pei/thein au)tê\n_ tô=n gignome/nôn ta\ plei=sta e)pi\ to\ be/ltiston a)/gein, tau/tê| kata\ tau=ta/ te di' a)na/gkês ê(ttôme/nês u(po\ _pei/thous_ e)/mphronos, ou(/tô kat' a)rcha\s xuni/stato to/de to\ pa=n. Ei)/ tis ou)=n ê(= ge/gone, kata\ tau=ta o)/ntôs e)rei=, mikte/on kai\ _to\ tê=s planôme/nês ei)=dos ai)ti/as_, ê(= phe/rein pe/phuken.] Compare p. 56 C: [Greek: o(/pê|per ê( tê=s a)na/gkês _e(kou=sa peisthei=sa/_ te phu/sis u(pei=ke.] Also pp. 68 E, 75 B, 30 A.

[Greek: Te/chnê d' a)na/gkês a)stheneste/ra makrô=|] says Prometheus in Æschylus (P. V. 514). He identifies [Greek: A)na/gkê] with the [Greek: Moi=rai]: and we read in Herodotus (i. 91) of Apollo as trying to persuade the Fates to spare Kroesus, but obtaining for him only a respite of three years--[Greek: ou)k oi(=o/n te e)ge/neto paragagei=n moi/ras, _o(/son de\ e)ne/dôkan au(=tai_, ê)nu/sato kai\ e)chari/sato/ oi(.] This is the language used by Plato about [Greek: A)na/gkê] and the Demiurgus. A valuable exposition of the relations believed to subsist between the Gods and [Greek: Moi=ra] is to be found in Naegelsbach, Homerische Theologie (chap. iii. pp. 113-131).]

[Footnote 19: Plutarch reproduces this theory (Phokion, c. 2, ad fin.) of God governing the Kosmos, not by superior force, but by reason and persuasion--[Greek: ê(=| kai\ to\n ko/smon o( theo\s le/getai dioikei=n, ou) biazo/menos, a)lla\ peithoi= kai\ lo/gô| para/gôn tê\n a)na/gkên.]]

[Side-note: Meaning of Necessity in Plato.]

We ought here to note the sense in which Plato uses the word Necessity. This word is now usually understood as denoting what is fixed, permanent, unalterable, knowable beforehand. In the Platonic Timæus it means the very reverse:--the indeterminate, the inconstant, the anomalous, that which can neither be understood nor predicted. It is Force, Movement, or Change, with the negative attribute of not being regular, or intelligible, or determined by any knowable antecedent or condition--_Vis consili expers_. It coincides, in fact, with that which is meant by _Freewill_, in the modern metaphysical argument between Freewill and Necessity: it is the undetermined or self-determining, as contrasted with that which depends upon some given determining conditions, known or knowable. The Platonic Necessity[20] is identical with the primeval Chaos, recognised in the Theogony or Kosmogony of Hesiod. That poet tells us that Chaos was the primordial Something: and that afterwards came Gæa, Eros, Uranus, Nyx, Erebus, &c., who intermarried, males with females, and thus gave birth to numerous divine persons or kosmical agents--each with more or less of definite character and attributes. By these supervening agencies, the primeval Chaos was modified and regulated, to a greater or less extent. The Platonic Timæus starts in the same manner as Hesiod, from an original Chaos. But then he assumes also, as coæval with it, but apart from it, his eternal Forms or Ideas: while, in order to obtain his kosmical agents, he does not have recourse, like Hesiod, to the analogy of intermarriages and births, but employs another analogy equally human and equally borrowed from experience--that of a Demiurgus or constructive professional artist, architect, or carpenter; who works upon the model of these Forms, and introduces regular constructions into the Chaos. The antithesis present to the mind of Plato is that between disorder or absence of order, announced as Necessity,--and order or regularity, represented by the Ideas.[21] As the mediator between these two primeval opposites, Plato assumes Nous, or Reason, or artistic skill personified in his Demiurgus: whom he calls essentially good--meaning thereby that he is the regularising agent by whom order, method, and symmetry, are copied from the Ideas and partially realised among the intractable data of Necessity. Good is something which Plato in other works often talks about, but never determines: his language implies sometimes that he knows what it is, sometimes that he does not know. But so far as we can understand him, it means order, regularity, symmetry, proportion--by consequence, what is ascertainable and predictable.[22] I will not say that Plato means this always and exclusively, by Good: but he seems to mean so in the Timæus. Evil is the reverse. Good or regularity is associated in his mind exclusively with rational agency. It can be produced, he assumes, only by a reason, or by some personal agent analogous to a reasonable and intelligent man. Whatever is not so produced, must be irregular or bad.

[Footnote 20: In the Symposion (pp. 195 D, 197 B) we find Eros panegyrised as having amended and mollified the primeval empire of [Greek: A)na/gkê].

The Scholiast on Hesiod, Theogon. 119, gives a curious metaphysical explanation of [Greek: E)/ros], mentioned in the Hesiodic text--[Greek: tê\n e)gkatesparme/nên phusikô=s kinêtikê\n ai)ti/an e(ka/stô| tô=n o)ntôn, kath' ê(\n e)phi/etai e(/kastos tou= ei)=nai.]]

[Footnote 21: In the Philêbus, p. 23 C-D, these three are recognised under the terms:--1. [Greek: Pe/ras]. 2. [Greek: A)/peiron]. 3. [Greek: Ai)ti/a--tê=s xummi/xeôs tou/tôn pro\s a)/llêla tê\n ai)ti/an].

Compare a curious passage of Plutarch, Symposiacon, viii. 2, p. 719 E, illustrating the Platonic phrase--[Greek: to\n theo\n a)ei\ geômetrei=n].]

[Footnote 22: Plato, Timæus, p. 30 A. Compare the Republic, vi. p. 506, Philêbus, pp. 65-66, and the investigation in the Euthydêmus, pp. 279-293, which ends in no result.]

[Side-note: Process of demiurgic construction--The total Kosmos comes logically first, constructed on the model of the [Greek: Au)tozô=on].]

These are the fundamental ideas which Plato expands into a detailed Kosmology. The first application which he makes of them is, to construct the total Kosmos. The total is here the logical Prius, or anterior to the parts in his order of conception. The Kosmos is one vast and comprehensive animal: just as in physiological description, the leading or central idea is, that of the animal organism as a whole, to which each and all the parts are referred. The Kosmos is constructed by the Demiurgus according to the model of the [Greek: Au)tozô=on],[23]--(the Form or Idea of Animal--the eternal Generic or Self-Animal,)--which comprehends in itself the subordinate specific Ideas of different sorts of animals. This Generic Idea of Animal comprehended four of such specific Ideas: 1. The celestial race of animals, or Gods, who occupied the heavens. 2. Men. 3. Animals living in air--Birds. 4. Animals living on land or in water.[24] In order that the Kosmos might approach near to its model the Self-animal, it was required to contain all these four species. As there was but one Self-Animal, so there could only be one Kosmos.

[Footnote 23: Plato, Timæus, p. 30 D.]

[Footnote 24: Plat. Timæus, pp. 39 E-40 A. [Greek: ê(=per ou)=n nou=s e)nou/sas i)de/as tô=| o(\ e)/sti zô=on, oi(=ai/ te e)/neisi kai\ o(/sai, kathora=|, toiau/tas kai\ tosau/tas dienoê/thê dei=n kai\ to/de schei=n. Ei)si\ de\ te/ttares, mi/a me\n ou)ra/nion theô=n ge/nos, a)/llê de\ ptêno\n kai\ a)eropo/ron, tri/tê de\ e)/nudron ei)=dos, pezo\n de\ kai\ chersai=on te/tarton.]]

We see thus, that the primary and dominant idea, in Plato's mind, is, not that of inorganic matter, but that of organised and animated matter--life or soul embodied. With him, biology comes before physics.

The body of the Kosmos was required to be both visible and tangible: it could not be visible without fire: it could not be tangible without something solid, nor solid without earth. But two things cannot be well put together by themselves, without a third to serve as a bond of connection: and that is the best bond which makes them One as much as possible. Geometrical proportion best accomplishes this object. But as both Fire and Earth were solids and not planes, no one mean proportional could be found between them. Two mean proportionals were necessary. Hence the Demiurgus interposed air and water, in such manner, that as fire is to air, so is air to water: and as air is to water, so is water to earth.[25] Thus the four elements, composing the body of the Kosmos, were bound together in unity and friendship. Of each of the four, the entire total was used up in the construction: so that there remained nothing of them apart, to hurt the Kosmos from without, nor anything as raw material for a second Kosmos.[26]

[Footnote 25: Plato, Tim. pp. 31-32. The comment of Macrobius on this passage (Somn. Scip. i. 6, p. 30) is interesting, if not conclusive. But the language in which Plato lays down this doctrine about mean proportionals is not precise, and has occasioned much difference of opinion among commentators. Between two solids (he says), that is, solid numbers, or numbers generated out of the product of three factors, no one mean proportional can be found. This is not universally true. The different suggestions of critics to clear up this difficulty will be found set forth in the elaborate note of M. Martin (Études sur le Timée, vol. 1, note xx. pp. 337-345), who has given what seems a probable explanation. Plato (he supposes) is speaking only of prime numbers and their products. In the language of ancient arithmeticians _linear numbers_, _par excellence_ or properly so-called, were the prime numbers, measurable by unity only; _plane numbers_ were the products of two such linear numbers or prime numbers; _solid numbers_ were the products of three such. Understanding solid numbers in this restricted sense, it will be perfectly true that between any two of them you can never find _any one_ solid number or any whole number which shall be a mean proportional, but you can always find _two_ solid numbers which shall be mean proportionals. One mean proportional will never be sufficient. On the contrary, one mean proportional will be sufficient between two plane numbers (in the restricted sense) when these numbers are squares, though not if they are not squares. It is therefore true, that in the case of two _solid_ numbers** (so understood) one such mean proportional will never be sufficient, while two can always be found; and that between two _plane_ numbers** (so understood) one such mean proportional will in certain cases be sufficient and may be found. This is what is present to Plato's mind, though in enunciating it he does not declare the restriction under which alone it is true. M. Boeckh (Untersuchungen über das Kosmische System des Platon, p. 17) approves of Martin's explanation. At the same time M. Martin has given no proof that Plato had in his mind the distinction between prime numbers and other numbers, for his references in p. 338 do not prove this point; moreover, the explanation assumes such very loose expression, that the phrase of M. Cousin in his note (p. 334) is, after all, perfectly just: "Platon n'a pas songé à donner à sa phrase une rigueur mathématique": and the more simple explanation of M. Cousin (though Martin rejects it as unworthy) may perhaps include all that is really intended. "Si deux surfaces peuvent être unies par un seul terme intermédiaire, il faudra deux termes intermédiaires pour unir deux solides: et l'union sera encore plus parfaite si la raison des deux proportions est la même."]

[Footnote 26: Plat. Timæus, p. 32 E.]

[Side-note: Body of the Kosmos, perfectly spherical--its rotations.]

The Kosmos was constructed as a perfect sphere, rounded, because that figure both comprehends all other figures, and is, at the same time, the most perfect, and most like to itself.[27] The Demiurgus made it perfectly smooth on the outside, for various reasons.[28] First, it stood in no need of either eyes or ears, because there was nothing outside to be seen or heard. Next, it did not want organs of respiration, inasmuch as there was no outside air to be breathed:--nor nutritive and excrementary organs, because its own decay supplied it with nourishment, so that it was self-sufficing, being constructed as its own agent and its own patient.[29] Moreover the Demiurgus did not furnish it with hands, because there was nothing for it either to grasp or repel--nor with legs, feet, or means of standing, because he assigned to it only one of the seven possible varieties of movement.[30] He gave to it no other movement except that of rotation in a circle, in one and the same place: which is the sort of movement that belongs most to reason and intelligence, while it is impracticable to all other figures except the spherical.[31]

[Footnote 27: Plato, Timæus, p. 33 B. [Greek: kuklotere\s au)to\ e)torneu/sato], &c.]

[Footnote 28: Plato, Timæus, p. 33 C. [Greek: lei=on de\ dê\ ku/klô| pa=n e)/xôthen au)to\ a)pêkribou=to, pollô=n cha/rin], &c.

Aristotle also maintains that the sphericity of the Kosmos is so exact that no piece of workmanship can make approach to it. (De Coelo, ii. p. 287, b. 15.)]

[Footnote 29: Plato, Timæus, p. 33 E. On this point the Platonic Timæus is not Pythagorean, but the reverse. The Pythagoreans recognised extraneous to the Kosmos, [Greek: to\ a)/peiron pneu=ma] or [Greek: to\ keno/n]. The Kosmos was supposed to inhale this vacuum, which penetrating into the interior, formed the separating interstices between its constituent parts (Aristot. Physic. iv. p. 213, b. 22).]

[Footnote 30: Plato, Timæus, p. 34 A. [Greek: e)pi\ de\ tê\n peri/odon tau/tên, a(/t' ou)de\n podô=n de/on, a)skele\s kai\ a)/poun au)to\ e)ge/nnêsen.]

Plato reckons six varieties of rectilinear motion, neither of which was assigned to the Kosmos--forward, backward, upward, downward, to the right, to the left.]

[Footnote 31: Plat. Tim. p. 34 A. [Greek: ki/nêsin ga\r a)pe/neimen au)tô=| tê\n tou= sô/matos oi)kei/an, tô=n e(/pta tê\n peri\ nou=n kai\ phro/nêsin ma/lista ou)/san.] This predicate respecting circular motion belongs to Plato and not to Aristotle; but Aristotle makes out, in his own way, a strong case to show that circular motion _must belong_ to the [Greek: Prô=ton sô=ma], as being the first among all varieties of motion, the most dignified and privileged, the only one which can be for ever uniform and continuous. Aristot. Physic. ix. p. 265, a. 15; De Coelo, i. pp. 269-270, ii. p. 284, a. 10.]

[Side-note: Soul of the Kosmos--its component ingredients--stretched from centre to circumference.]

The Kosmos, one and only-begotten, was thus perfect as to its body, including all existent bodily material,--smooth, even, round, and equidistant from its centre to all points of the circumference.[32] The Demiurgus put together at the same time its soul or mind; which he planted in the centre and stretched throughout its body in every direction,--so as not only to reach the circumference, but also to enclose and wrap it round externally. The soul, being intended to guide and govern the body, was formed of appropriate ingredients, three distinct ingredients mixed together: 1. The Same--The Identical--The indivisible, and unchangeable essence of Ideas. 2. The Different--The Plural--The divisible essence of bodies or of the elements. 3. A third compound, formed of both these ingredients melted into one.--These three ingredients--Same, Different, Same and Different in one,--were blended together in one compound, to form the soul of the Kosmos: though the Different was found intractable and hard to conciliate.[33] The mixture was divided, and the portions blended together, according to a scale of harmonic numerical proportion complicated and difficult to follow.[34] The soul of the Kosmos was thus harmonically constituted. Among its constituent elements, the Same, or Identity, is placed in an even and undivided rotation of the outer or sidereal sphere of the Kosmos,--while the Different, or Diversity, is distributed among the rotations, all oblique, of the seven interior or planetary spheres--that is, the five planets, Sun, and Moon. The outer sphere revolved towards the right: the interior spheres in an opposite direction towards the left. The rotatory force of the Same (of the outer Sphere) being not only one and undivided, but connected with and dependent upon the solid revolving axis which traverses the diameter of the Kosmos--is far greater than that of the divided spheres of the Different; which, while striving to revolve in an opposite direction, each by a movement of its own--are overpowered and carried along with the outer sphere, though the time of revolution, in the case of each, is more or less modified by its own inherent counter-moving force.[35]

[Footnote 32: Plat. Tim. p. 31 B. [Greek: ei(=s o(/de monogenê\s ou)rano/s], &c.]

[Footnote 33: Plat. Tim. p. 35 A. [Greek: Tau)to\n--to\ a)me/riston--tha/teron--to\ meristo\n--tri/ton e)x a)mphoi=n ou)si/as ei)=dos.]]

[Footnote 34: Plato, Timæus, pp. 35-36. The pains which were taken by commentators in antiquity to expound and interpret this numerical scale may be seen especially illustrated in Plutarch's Treatise, De Animæ Procreatione in Timæo, pp. 1012-1030, and the Epitome which follows it. There were two fundamental [Greek: tetraktu/es] or quaternions, one on a binary, the other on a ternary scale of progression, which were arranged by Krantor (Plutarch, p. 1027 E) in the form of the letter [Greek: L], as given in Macrobius (Somn. Scip. i. 6, p. 35). The intervals between these figures, are described by Plato as filled up by intervening harmonic fractions, so as to constitute an harmonic or musical diagram or scale of four octaves and a major sixth. (Boeckh's Untersuch. p. 19.) M. Boeckh has expounded this at length in his Dissertation, Ueber die Bildung der Welt-Seele im Timäos. Other expositors after him.

1 /\
/ \
2_/_ _\_3
/ \
4 _/_ _\_9
/ \
------ ------
8 27
]

[Footnote 35: Plato, Timæus, p. 36 C. [Greek: tê\n me\n ou)=n e)/xô phora\n e)pephê/misen ei)=nai tê=s tau)tou= phu/seôs, tê\n d' e)nto/s, tê=s tha)te/rou. tê\n me\n dê\ tau)tou= kata\ pleura\n e)pi\ dexia\ periê/gage, tê\n de\ thate/rou kata\ dia/metron e)p' a)ristera/.]

For the meaning of [Greek: kata\ pleura\n] and [Greek: kata\ dia/metron], referring to the equator and the ecliptic, see the explanation and diagram in Boeckh, Untersuchungen, p. 25, also in the note of Stallbaum. The allusion in Plato to the letter [Greek: chi=] is hardly intelligible without both a commentary and a diagram.]

In regard to the constitution of the kosmical soul, we must note, that as it is intended to know Same, Different, and Same and Different in one--so it must embody these three ingredients in its own nature: according to the received axiom. Like knows like--Like is known by like.[36] Thus began, never to end, the rotatory movements of the living Kosmos or great Kosmical God. The invisible soul of the Kosmos, rooted at its centre and stretching from thence so as to pervade and enclose its visible body, circulates and communicates, though without voice or sound, throughout its own entire range, every impression of identity and of difference which it encounters either from essence ideal and indivisible, or from that which is sensible and divisible. Information is thus circulated, about the existing relations between all the separate parts and specialties.[37] Reason and Science are propagated by the Circle of the Same: Sense and Opinion, by those of the Different. When these last-mentioned Circles are in right movement, the opinions circulated are true and trustworthy.

[Footnote 36: Aristotel. De Animâ, i. 2, 7, i. 3, 11 (pp. 404, b. 16--406 b. 26), with Trendelenburg's note, pp. 227-253; Stallbaum, not. ad Timæum, pp. 136-157. See also the interpretation of Plato's opinion by Krantor, as given in Plutarch, De Animæ Procreatione in Timæo, p. 1012 E. We learn from Plutarch, however, that the passage gave much trouble to commentators.]

[Footnote 37: Plato, Timæus, pp. 36-37. 37 A: [Greek: le/gei kinoume/nê dia\ pa/sês e(autê=s, o(/tô| t' a)/n ti tau)to\n ê(=|, kai\ o(/tou a)\n e(/teron, pro\s o(/, ti te ma/lista kai\ o(/pê| kai\ o(/pôs kai\ o(po/te xumbai/nei kata\ ta\ gigno/mena/ te pro\s e(/kaston e(/kasta ei)=nai kai\ pa/schein, kai\ pro\s ta\ kata\ tau)ta\ e)/chonta a)ei/.]]

[Side-note: Regular or measured Time--began with the Kosmos.]

With the rotations of the Kosmos, began the course of Time--years, months, days, &c. Anterior to the Kosmos, there was no time: no past, present, and future: no numerable or mensurable motion or change. The Ideas are eternal essences, without fluctuation or change: existing _sub specie æternitatis_, and having only a perpetual present, but no past or future.[38] Along with them subsisted only the disorderly, immeasurable, movements of Chaos. The nearest approach which the Demiurgus could make in copying these Ideas, was, by assigning to the Kosmos an eternal and unchanging motion, marked and measured by the varying position of the heavenly bodies. For this purpose, the sun, moon, and planets, were distributed among the various portions of the circle of Different: while the fixed stars were placed in the Circle of the Same, or the outer Circle, revolving in one uniform rotation and in unaltered position in regard to each other. The interval of one day was marked by one revolution of this outer or most rational Circle:[39] that of one month, by a revolution of the moon: that of one year, by a revolution of the sun. Among all these sidereal and planetary Gods the Earth was the first and oldest. It was packed close round the great axis which traversed the centre of the Kosmos, by the turning of which axis the outer circle of the Kosmos was made to revolve, generating night and day. The Earth regulated the movement of this great kosmical axis, and thus become the determining agent and guarantee of night and day.[40]

[Footnote 38: Plato, Timæus, pp. 37-38. Lassalle, in his copious and elaborate explanation of the doctrine of Herakleitus (Die Philosophie Herakleitos des Dunkeln, Berlin, 1858, vol. ii. p. 210, s. 26), represents this doctrine of Plato respecting Time as "durch und durch heraklitisch". To me it seems quite distinct from, or rather the inversion of, that which Lassalle himself sets down as the doctrine of Herakleitus. Plato begins with [Greek: to\ a)i+/dion] or [Greek: ai)ô/nion], an eternal sameness or duration, without succession, change, generation or destruction,--this passes into perpetual succession or change, with frequent generation and destruction. Herakleitus, on the other hand, recognises for his primary or general law perpetual succession, interchange of contraries, generation and destruction; this passes into a secondary state, in which there is temporary duration and sameness of particulars--the flux being interrupted.

The ideal [Greek: lo/gos] or law of Herakleitus is that of unremitting process, flux, revolution, implication of Ens with Non-Ens: the real world is an imperfect manifestation of this law, because each particular clings to existence, and thereby causes temporary halts in the process. Now Plato's starting point is [Greek: to\ ai)ô/nion to\ a)ei\ ô(sau/tôs e)/chon to\ o)/ntôs o)/n]: the perishable world of sense and particulars is the world of process, and is so far degenerate from the eternal uniformity of primordial Ens. See Lassalle, pp. 39-292-319.]

[Footnote 39: Plato, Timæus, p. 39 C. [Greek: ê( tê=s mia=s kai\ phronimôta/tês kuklê/seôs peri/odos]. Plato remarks that there was a particular interval of time measured off and designated by the revolution of each of the other planets, but that these intervals were unnoticed and unknown by the greater part of mankind.]

[Footnote 40: My explanation of this much controverted sentence differs from that of previous commentators. I have given reasons for adopting it in a separate Dissertation ('Plato and the Rotation of the Earth,' Murray), to which I here refer. In that Dissertation I endeavoured to show cause for dissenting from the inference of M. Boeckh: who contends that Plato cannot have believed in the diurnal rotation of the Earth, because he (Plato) explicitly affirms the diurnal rotation of the outer celestial sphere, or Aplanes. These two facts nullify each other, so that the effect would be the same as if there were no rotation of either. My reply to this argument was, in substance, that though the two facts really are inconsistent--the one excluding the other--yet we cannot safely conclude that Plato must have perceived the inconsistency; the more so as Aristotle certainly did not perceive it. To hold incompatible doctrines without being aware of the incompatibility, is a state of mind sufficiently common even in the present advanced condition of science, which I could illustrate by many curious examples if my space allowed. It must have been much more common in the age of Plato than** it is now.

Batteux observes (Traduction et Remarques sur Ocellus Lucanus, ch. iv. p. 116):--"Il y a un maxime qu'on ne doit jamais perdre de vue en discutant les opinions des Anciens: c'est de ne point leur prêter les conséquences de leurs principes, ni les principes de leurs conséquences".

As a general rule, I subscribe to the soundness of this admonition.]

[Side-note: Divine tenants of the Kosmos. Primary and Visible Gods--Stars and Heavenly Bodies.]

It remained for the Demiurgus,--in order that the Kosmos might become a full copy of its model the Generic Animal or Idea of Animal,--to introduce into it those various species of animals which that Idea contained. He first peopled it with Gods: the eldest and earliest of whom was the Earth, planted in the centre as sentinel over night and day: next the fixed stars, formed for the most part of fire, and annexed to the circle of the Same or the exterior circle, so as to impart to it light and brilliancy. Each star was of spherical figure and had two motions,--one, of uniform rotation peculiar to itself,--the other, an uniform forward movement of translation, being carried along with the great outer circle in its general rotation round the axis of the Kosmos.[41] It is thus that the sidereal orbs, animated beings eternal and divine, remained constantly turning round in the same relative position: while the sun, moon, and planets, belonging to the inner circles of the Different, and trying to revolve by their own effort in the opposite direction to the outer sphere, became irregular in their own velocities and variable in their relative positions.[42] The complicated movements of these planetary bodies, alternately approaching and receding--together with their occultations and reappearances, full of alarming prognostic as to consequences--cannot be described without having at hand some diagrams or mechanical illustrations to refer to.[43]

[Footnote 41: Plato, Timæus, p. 40.]

[Footnote 42: Plato, Timæus, p. 40 B. [Greek: o(/s' a)planê= tô=n a)/strôn zô=a thei=a o)/nta kai\ a)i+/dia], &c.]

[Footnote 43: Plato, Timæus, p. 40 D. [Greek: to\ le/gein a)/neu dio/pseôs tou/tôn au)= tô=n mimêma/tôn ma/taios a)\n ei)/ê po/nos.] Plato himself here acknowledges the necessity of diagrams: the necessity was hardly less in the preceding part of his exposition.]

[Side-note: Secondary and generated Gods--Plato's dictum respecting them. His acquiescence in tradition.]

Such were all the primitive Gods visible and generated[44] by the Demiurgus, to preside over and regulate the Kosmos. By them are generated, and from them are descended, the remaining Gods.

[Footnote 44: Plato, Timæ. p. 40 D. [Greek: theô=n o(ratô=n kai\ gennêtô=n].]

Respecting these remaining Gods, however, the Platonic Timæus holds a different language. Instead of speaking in his own name and delivering his own convictions, as he had done about the Demiurgus and the cosmical Gods--with the simple reservation, that such convictions could be proclaimed only as probable and not as demonstratively certain--he now descends to the Sokratic platform of confessed ignorance and incapacity. "The generation of these remaining Gods (he says) is a matter too great for me to understand and declare. I must trust to those who have spoken upon the subject before me--who were, as they themselves said, offspring of the Gods, and must therefore have well known their own fathers. It is impossible to mistrust the sons of the Gods. Their statements indeed are unsupported either by probabilities or by necessary demonstration; but since they here profess to be declaring family traditions, we must obey the law and believe.[45] Thus then let it stand and be proclaimed, upon their authority, respecting the generation of the remaining Gods. The offspring of Uranus and Gæa were, Okeanus and Tethys: from whom sprang Phorkys, Kronus, Rhea, and those along with them. Kronus and Rhea had for offspring Zeus, Hêrê, and all these who are termed their brethren: from whom too, besides, we hear of other offspring. Thus were generated all the Gods, both those who always conspicuously revolve, and those who show themselves only when they please."[46]

[Footnote 45: Plato, Timæus, pp. 40 D-E. [Greek: Peri\ de\ tô=n a)/llôn daimo/nôn ei)pei=n kai\ gnô=nai tê\n ge/nesin mei=zon ê)\ kath' ê(ma=s, peiste/on de\ toi=s ei)rêko/sin e)/mprosthen, e)kgo/nois me\n theô=n ou)=sin, saphô=s de/ pou tou/s ge au)tôn progo/nous ei)do/sin; _a)du/naton ou)=n theô=n paisi\n a)pistei=n, kai/per a)/neu te ei)ko/tôn kai\ a)nagkai/ôn_ a)podei/xeôn le/gousin, a)ll' _ô(s oi)kei=a pha/skousin a)pagge/llein, e)pome/nous tô=| no/mô| pisteute/on_. Ou(/tôs ou)=n _kat' e)kei/nous_ ê(mi=n ê( ge/nesis peri\ tou/tôn tô=n theô=n e)che/tô kai\ lege/sthô.]

So, too, in the Platonic Epinomis, attached as an appendix to the Treatise De Legibus, we find (p. 984) Plato--after arranging his quintuple scale of elemental animals (fire, æther, air, water, earth), the highest and most divine being the stars or visible Gods, the lowest being man, and the three others intermediate between the two; after having thus laid out the scale, he leaves to others to determine, [Greek: o(pê=| tis e)the/lei], in which place Zeus, Hêrê, and the other Gods, are to be considered as lodged. He will not contradict any one's feeling on that point; he strongly protests (p. 985 D) against all attempts on the part of the lawgiver to innovate ([Greek: kainotomei=n]) in contravention of ancient religious tradition--this is what Aristophanes in the Nubes, and Melêtus before the Dikasts, accuse Sokrates of doing--but he denounces harshly all who will not acknowledge with worship and sacrifice the sublime divinity of the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets.

The Platonic declaration given here--[Greek: e)pome/nous tô=| no/mô| pisteute/on]--is illustrated in the lines of Euripides, Bacchæ, 202--

[Greek: ou)de\n sophizo/mestha toi=si dai/mosin; patri/ous paradocha/s, a(/s th' o(mê/likas chro/nô| kektê/meth', ou)dei\s au)ta\ katabalei= lo/gos, ou)d' ê)\n di' a)krô=n to\ sopho\n eu(/rêtai phrenô=n.]]

[Footnote 46: Plato, Timæ. p. 41 A. [Greek: e)pei\ d' ou)=n pa/ntes o(/soi te peripolou=si phanerô=s, kai\ o(/soi phai/nontai kath' o(/son a)\n e)the/lôsi, theoi\ ge/nesin e)/schon.]]

[Side-note: Remarks on Plato's Canon of Belief.]

The passage above cited serves to illustrate both Plato's own canon of belief, and his position in regard to his countrymen. The question here is, about the Gods of tradition and of the popular faith: with the paternity and filiation ascribed to them, by Hesiod and the other poets, from whom Greeks of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. learnt their Theogony.[47] Plato was a man both competent and willing to strike out a physical theology of his own, but not to follow passively in the track of orthodox tradition. I have stated briefly what he has affirmed about the cosmical Gods (Earth, Stars, Sun, Planets) generated or constructed by the Demiurgus as portions or members of the Kosmos: their bodies, out of fire and other elements,--their souls out of the Forms or abstractions called Identity and Diversity; while the entire Kosmos is put together after the model of the Generic Idea or Form of Animal. All this, combined with supposed purposes, and fancies of arithmetical proportion dictating the proceedings of the Demiurgus, Plato does not hesitate to proclaim on his own authority and as his own belief--though he does not carry it farther than probability.

[Footnote 47: Herodot. ii. 53.]

But while the feeling of spontaneous belief thus readily arises in Plato's mind, following in the wake of his own constructive imagination and ethical or æsthetical sentiment (_fingunt simul creduntque_)--it does not so readily cleave to the theological dogmas in actual circulation around him. In the generation of Gods from Uranus and Gæa--which he as well as other Athenian youths must have learnt when they recited Hesiod with their schoolmasters--he can see neither proof nor probability: he can find no internal ground for belief.[48] He declares himself incompetent: he will not undertake to affirm any thing upon his own judgment: the mystery is too dark for him to penetrate. Yet on the other hand, though it would be rash to affirm, it would be equally rash to deny. Nearly all around him are believers, at least as well satisfied with their creed as he was with the uncertified affirmations of his own Timæus. He cannot prove them to be wrong, except by appealing to an ethical or æsthetical sentiment which they do not share. Among the Gods said to be descended from Uranus and Gæa, were all those to whom public worship was paid in Greece,--to whom the genealogies of the heroic and sacred families were traced,--and by whom cities as well as individuals believed themselves to be protected in dangers, healed in epidemics, and enlightened on critical emergencies through seasonable revelations and prophecies. Against an established creed thus avouched, it was dangerous to raise any doubts. Moreover Plato could not have forgotten the fate of his master Sokrates;[49] who was indicted both for not acknowledging the Gods whom the city acknowledged, and for introducing other new divine matters and persons. There could be no doubt that Plato was guilty on this latter count: prudence therefore rendered it the more incumbent on him to guard against being implicated in the former count also. Here then Plato formally abnegates his own self-judging power, and submits himself to orthodox authority. "It is impossible to doubt what we have learnt from witnesses, who declared themselves to be the offspring of the Gods, and who must of course have known their own family affairs. We must obey the law and believe." In what proportion such submission, of reason to authority, embodied the sincere feeling of Pascal and Malebranche, or the irony of Bayle and Voltaire, we are unable to determine.[50]

[Footnote 48: The remark made by Condorcet upon Buffon is strikingly applicable to Plato:--"On n'a reproché à M. de Buffon que ses hypothèses. Ce sont aussi des espèces de fables--mais des fables produites par une imagination active qui a besoin de créer, et non par une imagination passive qui cède à des impressions étrangères" (Condorcet, Éloge de Buffon, ad fin.).

[Greek: Au)todi/daktos d' ei)mi/, theo\s de/ moi e)n phresi\n oi)/mas Pantoi/as e)ne/phusen]--(Homer, Odyss. xxii. 347)--the declaration of the bard Phemius.]

[Footnote 49: Xenoph. Memor. i. 1. [Greek: A)dikei= Sôkra/tês, ou(\s me\n ê( po/lis nomi/zei theou/s, ou) nomi/zôn, e(/tera de\ kaina\ daimo/nia ei)sphe/rôn.]

The word [Greek: daimo/nia] may mean matters, or persons, or both together.]

[Footnote 50: M. Martin supposes Plato to speak ironically, or with a prudent reserve, Études sur le Timée, ii. p. 146.

What Plato says here about the Gods who bore personal names, and were believed in by the contemporary public--is substantially equivalent to the well-known profession of ignorance enunciated by the Sophist Protagoras, introduced by him at the beginning of one of his treatises. [Greek: Peri\ de\ theô=n ou)/te ei) ei)si/n, ou)/th' o(poi=oi/ tine/s ei)si, du/namai le/gein; polla\ ga/r e)sti ta\ kôlu/onta/ me] (Sextus Emp. adv. Mathem. ix. 56); a declaration which, circumspect as it was (see the remark of the sillographer Timon in Sextus), drew upon him the displeasure of the Athenians, so that his books were burnt, and himself forced to leave the city.]

[Side-note: Address and order of the Demiurgus to the generated Gods.]

Having thus, during one short paragraph, proclaimed his deference, if not his adhesion, to inspired traditions, Plato again resumes the declaration of his own beliefs and his own book of Genesis, without any farther appeal to authority, and without any intimation that he is touching on mysteries too great for his reason. When these Gods, the visible as well as the invisible,[51] had all been constructed or generated, he (or Timæus) tells us that the Demiurgus addressed them and informed them that they would be of immortal duration--not indeed in their own nature, but through his determination: that to complete the perfection of the newly-begotten Kosmos, there were three other distinct races of animals, all mortal, to be added: that he could not himself undertake the construction of these three, because they would thereby be rendered immortal, but that he confided such construction to them (the Gods): that he would himself supply, for the best of these three new races, an immortal element as guide and superintendent, and that they were to join along with it mortal and bodily accompaniments, to constitute men and animals; thus imitating the power which he had displayed in the generation of themselves.[52]

[Footnote 51: Plato, Timæus, p. 41 A.]

[Footnote 52: Plato, Timæus, p. 41 C. [Greek: tre/pesthe kata\ phu/sin u(mei=s e)pi\ tê\n tô=n zô/ôn dêmiourgi/an, mimou/menoi tê\n e)mê\n du/namin peri\ tê\n u(mete/ran ge/nesin.]]

[Side-note: Preparations for the construction of man. Conjunction of three souls and one body.]

After this address (which Plato puts into the first person, in Homeric manner), the Demiurgus compounded together, again and in the same bowl, the remnant of the same elements out of which he had formed the kosmical soul, but in perfection and purity greatly inferior. The total mass thus formed was distributed into souls equal in number to the stars. The Demiurgus placed each soul in a star of its own, carried it round thus in the kosmical rotation, and explained to it the destiny intended for all. For each alike there was to be an appointed hour of birth, and of conjunction with a body, as well as with two inferior sorts or varieties of soul or mind. From such conjunction would follow, as a necessary consequence, implanted sensibility and motive power, with all its accompaniments of pleasure, pain, desire, fear, anger, and such like. These were the irrational enemies, which the rational and immortal soul would have to controul and subdue, as a condition of just life. If it succeeded in the combat so as to live a good life, it would return after death to the abode of its own peculiar star. But if it failed, it would have a second birth into the inferior nature and body of a female: if, here also, it continued to be evil, it would be transferred after death to the body of some inferior animal. Such transmigration would be farther continued from animal to animal, until the rational soul should acquire thorough controul over the irrational and turbulent. When this was attained, the rational soul would be allowed to return to its original privilege and happiness, residing in its own peculiar star.[53]

[Footnote 53: Plato, Timæus, p. 42 B-D.]