Page:Works of Plato his first fifty-five dialogues (Taylor 1804) (Vol 2 of 5) (IA Vol2worksofplato00plat).pdf/468

 458

INTRODUCTION TO THE TIMiEUS.

ration, their continual flowing and decay ; properties entirely foreign from the nature of being, ſubſtantial and real.” Laftlv, when Plato compofes the elements from mathematical planes, it is necefiary to obferve that, as thefe are phyfical planes, they muft not only have length and breadth, but likewife depth, that they may be able to fubfift as principles in natural effects.—“ For the Pythagoreans (fays Simpli¬ cius *) confidered every phyfical body as a figured quantity, and as in itfelf matter, but fafhioned with different figures.

That, befides this, it differs

from a mathematical body in being material and tangible, receiving its tan¬ gibility from its bulk, and not either from heat or cold.

Hence, from the

fubjeft matter being impreffed with different figures, they affert that the four elements of the elements fubfiff.

For thefe elements rank more in the

nature of principles, as for inftance, the cubic of earth ; not that earth has wholly a cubic figure, but that each of the parts of earth is compofed from many cubes, which through their fmallnefs are invifible to our fight; and in the fame manner the other elements from other primary figures. They add too, that from this difference of figures all the other properties of the elements enlue, and their mutations into each other. For, if it is inquired why much air is produced from a little water, they can very readily affign the caufe by faying, that the elements of water are many, and that, the icofaedrons of water being divided, many oflaedrons, and confequently a great quantity of air, will be produced.” Simplicius likewife informs us, that the more antient of Plato’s inter¬ preters, among which the divine Jamblichus ranks, confidered Plato as fpeaking fymbolically in this part concerning the figures of the elements ; but the latter Platonic philofophers, among whom Proclus, in my opinion, ranks as the moft eminent, explained this part according to its literal mean¬ ing.

And Simplicius, in the fame book, has fortunately preferved the argu¬

ments of Proclus in defence of Plato’s doftrine refpefling thefe planes, againft the obje&ions of Ariffotle. Should it be afked in what this doflrine concerning planes differs from the dogma of Democritus, who afferted that natural bodies were fafhioned 1 DeCoelo, lib. iv. p. 139.

according