Page:Works of Plato his first fifty-five dialogues (Taylor 1804) (Vol 2 of 5) (IA Vol2worksofplato00plat).pdf/469

 INTRODUCTION TO THE TIMiEUS.

459

according to figures, we may anſwer with Simplicius *, that Plato and the Pythagoreans by a plane denoted fomething more fimple than a body *, atoms being evidently bodies ; that they afligned commenfuration and a demiurgic analogy 3 to their figures, which Democritus did not to his atoms; and that they differed from him in their arrangement of earth. And thus much may fuffice at prefent for an epitome of fome of the principal parts of this moft interefting dialogue.

For, as it is my defign at

fome future period to publifh as complete a commentary as I am able from the inedimable commentaries of Proclus on this dialogue, with additional obfervations of my own, a more copious introduction might at prefent be confidered as fuperfluous.

The difficulty, indeed, of proceeding any further,

might alone very well apologife for the want of completion in this compen¬ dium.

For the commentary of Proclus, though confiding of five books, is

imperfeCt 4, and does not even extend fo far as to the doCtrine of vifion, which in the prefent introduction I have endeavoured to explain.

1 trud,

therefore, that the candid and liberal reader will gratefully accept thefe fruits of my application to the Platonic philofophy ; and as this introduction and the following tranflation were the refult of no moderate labour and perfeverance, I earnedly hope they may be the means of awakening fome few at lead from the deep of oblivion, of recalling their attention from fluctuating and delufive objects to permanent and real being; and thus may at length lead them back to their paternal port, as the only retreat which can confer perfeCt fecurity and red. 1 De Ccelo, p. 142. 3 Viz. than any vifible fublunary body. 3 i. e. a&ive and fabricative powers. 4 It is a circumftance remarkably unfortunate, as

I

have before obferved, that not one of

invaluable commentaries of this philofopher has been preferved entire.

the

For that he wrote a com¬

plete commentary on this dialogue, is evident from a citation of Olympiodorus on -Ariftotle’s Meteors from it, which is not to be found in any of the books now extant.

In like manner, his

treatife on Plato’s theology is imperfefl, wanting a feventh book; his commentaries on the Par¬ menides want many books; his feholia on the Cratylus are far from being complete; and this islikewife the cafe with his commentary on the Firft Alcibiades-

3 N 2

THE