The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning p — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning p
Plato · en
According to some, however, Socrates in what he here says about Orithya
and Boreas does not admit the explanation of fables. But it is evident
that he frequently does admit and employ fables. Now, indeed, he blames
those explanations which make fables to be nothing more than certain
histories, and unfold them into material causes, airs, and earth, and
winds, which do not revert to true beings, nor harmonize with divine
concerns. Hence, Socrates now says, If unfolding this fable I should
recur to physical causes, and should assert that the wind Boreas,
blowing vehemently, hurled Orithya as she was playing from the rock,
and thus dying she was said to have been ravished by Boreas,--should
I not speak absurdly? For this explanation which is adopted by the
_wise_, viz. by those who are employed in physical speculations,
is meagre and conjectural; since it does not recur to true beings,
but to natures, and winds, airs and vortices, as he also says in the
Phædo. He rejects, therefore, these naturalists, and those who thus
explain this fable, as falling into the indefinite and infinite, and
not recurring to soul, intellect, and the Gods. But when Socrates says
that he considers such interpretations as the province of a man _very
curious and laborious, and not entirely happy_, these words indicate
the being conversant with things sensible and material. And the
Centaurs, Chimæras, Gorgons, and Pegasuses, are powers which preside
over a material nature, and the region about the earth.[168]
When Socrates also says, that he is not yet able to know himself, his
meaning may be, either that he does not yet know himself as pure soul
itself, but that as being in body he knows himself; or that he does not
yet know himself, as he is known by divinity. For if ever any man knew
himself, this was certainly the case with Socrates.
When likewise he says, “I do not contemplate these, but myself;” this
is because he who knows himself knows all things. For in consequence
of the soul being παμμορφον αγαλμα an omniform image, he beholds all
things in himself. But by Typhon here we must understand that power
which presides over the confused and disordered in the universe,
or in other words over the last procession of things. The term
_manifold_, therefore, in this place, must not be applied to the
God Typhon, but to that over which he presides, as being in its own
nature moved in a confused, disordered, and manifold manner. For
it is usual with fables to refer the properties of the objects of
providential care to the providing powers themselves.