Polytheism of Plato2

8/8/2019 Polytheism of Plato2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/polytheism-of-plato2 1/21

Mind Association

The "Polytheism" of Plato: An ApologiaAuthor(s): A. E. TaylorSource: Mind, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 186 (Apr., 1938), pp. 180-199Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2249877Accessed: 12/12/2010 23:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press and Mind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Mind.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mind

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2249877?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2249877?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mind




III.-THE " POLYTHEISM " OF PLATO: ANAPOLOGIA.

BY A. E. TAYLOR.

LIKE other tudents fPlato, I have recently eenreadingwithmuchenjoyment,nd I hopemuchprofit,rof.F. M.Cornford'svaluabletranslation f and commentaryn theTimaeus Plato'sCosmology,937). Neithermy enjoyment ormyprofit as, Itrust,been seriously isturbed y the factthat I myself, s arecent ommentatorn and translator fthedialogue, ome n,in thecourseof thevolume, or gooddeal ofadversecriticism.It is true that I maybe inclined o think hatMr.Cornfordttimesoverdoeshisflagellations,erhapsfrom piousanxiety o

carry out the apostolic njunction o reproveboth " in seasonand out ofseason". His polemic, think, t timesdisguises nagreement etweenus on essentialpoints which s not muchalfected ythemoresuperficial ivergenceswhichhe prefersodwellupon. But in the main haveno reason o takeobjectionto his procedure. How is advance to be made in Platonicexegesisexceptby correction f one another'soversights ndmistakes, ndwho s the natural arget fthelatestexpositor ftheTimaeusbuthisimmediate recursor I should nanycasehave expected o findmyself principal bjectofMr.Cornford'sanimadversions;I make no complaint f them,and I do notdoubtthata fairnumber f themwillproveto have beenfullydeserved, ince, n thememorablewords fJohnson,t is certainthat a " falliblebeingwill fail somewhere. But there s onestandinggrievance gainstme urgedwithsome vehemence llthrough lato's Cosmology,hich ppears to me to rest n themainuponprejudice nd misconception,nd,at the sametime,

to be a matter f too much mportanceo be simply assed overwithout nyreply rom heincriminatedarty; and it is ofthisthat I wouldspeakbrieflyn thesepages.

The accusation s made from heoutset n thePreface p. xi),where am said to make all throughmyownCommentaryhe" suggestionhatPlato" (orTimaus?) " is a monotheist,ndnotfarfrom eing Christian. " The Demiurge , it is added," isnot fullyrecognised s a mythicalfigure, ut creditedwith



A. E. TAYLOR: " POLYTHEISM OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 181

attributes elonging o the Creatorof Genesisor even to theGod oftheNew Testament." And the reader is referredo afootnoteo mytreatment fTim. 29d,30cand 69c 3 for llustra-tions. I will deal directlywith the particularpassages thusincriminated;forthe moment would make someremarks nthewav in which he mainaccusation s formulated here t is'firstntroduced.

Manifestly, should have said, two thingsare both true:that there are points of contactbetweenChristianitynd thereligious eachingof Plato, and there are pointsof difference.

The realityof the differences ill,of course,be insistedon atoncebyMr.Cornford,nd has neverfora moment een deniedby me.' That pointsof contactare also there, conceive venMr.Cornford imselfmustadmit. If theywerenotthere,howcould we explain the place given to Plato in the ChristianTheismofClement, fOrigen, fAugustine, rthe "CambridgePlatonists , or again the carping depreciation f Christianityitself y Nietzsche s no morethanPlatonismusiursVolk Mr.Cornford, take t,wouldnotdenytheresemblances,nd I have

no desireto deny the differences. he only pointwhich canreallybe in disputebetweenus is theprecisenature nd extentof, heseresemblances nd differences,nd a conclusion n thatissue is only to be reachedby a careful xamination f details,not by a " slap-dash pronouncementike that which havequoted.

I noteagain that n the pronouncementtself here s a certainambiguitys to the maingravamen fthecharge. Is mycrime(1) that I wronglymaginePlato as a ' Monotheist, or (2) that

I do not recognise he " mythical character f his Demiurge,or 3) that transfero theDemiurge ertain nspecifiedharacter-istics akenfrom hebook ofGenesis rfrom heNew TestamentIt would be perfectly ossibleto do any one of these thingswithout oing he others, nd I am notsurewhether am beingcalled on to answer one articleof impeachmentr three,or, ifthree,which s supposed o be the head and front fthe offending.

1Someremarks illbe found nthem, or xample,n connection ith

the treatment f Plato, in my article Theism intheEncyclopaediafReligion nd Ethics,where have been careful,while nsisting n thesignificancef Plato's Theism, o remark hat his God is " notaltogetherall that Christianhinkers ave meant by the Supreme." (I did notmeanmerely, hat snaturallybvious, hatPlato's GodhasnotcharacterswhichChristianhinkers avegenerallygreed n regardings onlyknow-able to us by a specific istoricalrevelation, butthathe mustnotbe,withoutmore do,assumed o have all thecharacters hristianheologiansand philosophers ave often egarded s demonstrabley " the lightofnatural eason .)



182 A. E. TAYLOR:

A littlemore ightwill,no doubt,be thrown n thematterbyconsiderationf the strictureso be made in dealing with thepassages mentionedn the foot-note.But before come tothem, maybe allowedto makeone or two remarks boutthegeneral ndictment.

(1) As to 'Monotheism, at thisstageof theargument, willmerely bservethat a comparisonwithpage 30 seemsto showthat my crime consists in renderingPlato's repeated OEOs'(without he article)by God (with capital etter), ather han'the God' (a rendering notunnaturally referredo keepfor

OEos}1 This, t appears, s to forget hatPlato was a 'paganpolytheist' oc. cit.). Butnow, ustwhat s a 'pagan', and justwhat s a ' polytheist' If every ne s a ' pagan whohasneverheardof, rdoes notaccept, written anonical cripture,ndifeveryoneis a polytheist ho uses thewords EoQ,di, gods,ntheplural,no doubtPlato is a ' pagan polytheist. But the word'pagan', as we use it to-day,has come o have an ethical ignifi-cance whichmakes t almost as misleading o call AZschylusrPlato 'pagans' as it wouldbe to call them eligieux.2 And what

does 'polytheist'mean? If Plato is a ' polytheist'because hespeaksofot OEo as well s of 0oEs, s Newton polytheistecausehe maintainsn the famousScholium enerale t the end of thePrincipiathat " deity consistsndominationtis piritualis,ndactually ppends noteexplaininghat the" Gentiles were nlywrongn callingdeceasedprinces odsbecause, n theircase, thedominiums absent? Was Miltona " polytheist because he

1 It is not possible o attainrigid onsistency,ut havetried, s far sEnglish diom willpermit, o make my usage in the matter onformoPlato's own. In pointoffact,the commonGreekT O Eovtself seemsto meto have much hesame "monotheisticflavours theeighteenth-centuryEnglish" the Deity". Are we to credit ll the Englishwriterswho,apparentlyromfear of "anthropomorphism, preferredo say "theDeity rather han" God" withbeingpolytheists Ontheotherhand,is it notrightly enerally ecognisedhat thedrift fthethought othofABschylusnd ofEuripides boutTo' OEov is " monotheistic in spiteofthe constant ppearanceof the Oeol of currentmythologymongtheirdramatisersonae

2 If thereare two thingsregularlymplied bout a man when he is

currentlyalleda pagan, hey re 1) thatherejects he whole onceptionofthe supreme ignificancef the moral alues and a divine governmentof the world in accordwith hem, nd (2) that, n consequence, e extolsthefollowingf " blood-instincts, especiallyn matters onnectedwithsex, as against he nhibitionsf discipline nd " convention. On bothpointsPlato is on the side of the Christiansnd againstthe " paganThe kind of poetry ermittedn his State would have a strong amilyresemblance o the " psalmsof Galilaeans which moved the scorn ofSwinburne. In a word, " pagan" is worldly, hereas t is thestandingcomplaint gainst lato thatheis so other-worldly.



THE " POLYTHEISM OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 183

used the wordgods of his fallen angels? Indeed, was Christ

himself polytheistwhen he called attention o a passage inwhich psalmist called them gods to whomthe word of Godcame" ? Or is Plato's polytheismupposed o be shownnot somuchby anguage boutGEoQas by thefact hat n his sketch f acultusforthe cityofthe Laws he provides numerous ody ofrecipients f worship He does so, but they are not morentumeroushan the saintsand angelswho figuren the CalendarsofgreatChristian hurches nd are certainly he objectsof some-thingwhich an fairly e called cultus.

It seems omethatthe truth s notonly hat, s has often eenremarked, he question whether here s only one " God" ormore han one was neverfelt o be primary ya typicallyGreekthinker, ut further hat the real and importantdistinctionbetweenwhat s essentially olytheismnd what s not mustbedrawnwhere, or nstance, t. Thomasdraws t. Whereworshipis givento a plurality f beingswho are supposed o be indepen-denit f one another, nd possiblyhostile o one another, here sreal fundamentalpolytheism. Where the beings to whom

worship s addressed re conceived as under the sovereigntyfa single upremewilland intelligence,fwhich he rest are thesubordinateministers nd executants,hereyou have at leastanimplicit monotheism. It is on this ground that St. Thomasregards the ancient philosophers s much nearer to the trueconceptionfDeitythan heManichaeansS.C.G. 1,42 adfin.:hacautem veritaterepelluntur entiles,deorunm ultitudinemon-fitentes; uamvisplures orum numdeum sse summumicerent,a quo omnes lios quos deos nominabantreatos esse asserebant,omnibus ubstantiis empiternis ivinitatisnomen adscribentes,et praecipueratione sapientiae et felicitatis t rerumguber-nationis. Quae quidem consuetudo loquendi etiam in sacraScriptura nvenitur, um sancti Angeli aut etiamhomines eliudices dii nominantur. . . Unde magis huic veritatividenturcontrariiManichaei, uo primaprincipia onentes uorumalteraalterius ausa nonsit.) And, n fact, tmight airly e contendedthat n Eschylus, or xample, herelation f Apolloand Athena

to Zeus as theexecutors r revealers fhispurposes oesnotdifferinprinciple romhat ofthe angelsofChristian heologieso God.But ifwe drawthe ine of distinction ere, here s, I conceive,

no doubton which ide of t Plato is to be found. In thestoryof Timaeus, he lower visible' gods (the heavenly bodies) aremade by the Demiurge 40a), who addresses them (41a)--forargument'ssake I adopt withoutprejudice the reading andrendering f Mr. Cornford imself-as " beings whereof am



184 A. E. TAYLOR:

themaker nd of works hefather . The " invisible gods,the

figures f the current heogonies re all said to be offspring(40e) of Earthand Heaven,and Earthand Heavenhave alreadybeen described s made by the same artificer. So in the tenthbookof theLaws the Platonictheodicy urnson thepointthat" ourKing" ,(904a)has " contrived o post each several temof thecommunityf souls " so as to providemostutterly,asily,and wellfor hetriumphfvirtue nd routofvicethroughouthewhole . Clearly t is meantat least that there s nowherenthe universe nyindependentowerwhich an cause thisdivine

purposeto fail of its intent. This beingso, to allow Plato tospeak of God (withthe capitalletter) s, I submit, o runmuchless risk of falsifying is thought han to call him a " paganpolytheist."

Again, t cannotbe made thebasis fordiscriminationetweenPlato and Christianityhat the Demiurge of the Timaeus is a" mythical igure, whereas heGod ofChristianitys not. Forthoughthe language used about the Demiurge,when he isdescribed s mixingcertain ngredientsn a Kpac7p and com-

pounding he bvXyftheuniverse, rtherational oulsofmen,from hem, s deliveringn oration o the " createddivinities ,or as sowing he soulswhichhe has fashioned,ike crops, n theearthand the planets, s, of course,frankly ictorial mageryapplied to theunimaginable,nd so " mythical in thePlatonicsenseofthewordtheDemiurge fthestory tandsfor omething-a supremerationaland righteous urposive gentoperativethroughouthe whole of the universe-whichPlato regards sno fancybut themosttremendous frealities, s Mr.Cornford,withthenatural heology ftheLaws beforehis eves,ofcourse

1Or, would sk, fwearetodeal n thesehard ndfastdiscriminations,was Plotinus " polytheist and washe a " pagan" ? If youmeanbythewords nly hathe admitted plurality fbeingswhomhecalledOmoL,andmadeno objection o theofficialultusoftheRomanstate,he wasa polytheist.But it wouldproduce completelyalse mpressionf wesaid thatthedifferenceetween lotinus ndOrigens thatPlotinus s aworshipperfmanygods,Origen fonlyone. The realpersonal eligionof Plotinusconsisted n a life-longffortfter" unification withanobjectofworship,hetranscendent

One,"bycomparison ithwhich heDeus unus t rinusfOrigenndtheCreedsmight esaidto be " many .And similarly o call Plotinusa "pagan " wouldconveya completelyfalse mpressions to thepoints fresemblancenddisagreementetweenhis ethicsand thoseof the Christian hurch f the thirdcentury. Itmight airly e saidthat, romheChristianoint fview, hechief efectin hisethics s thathe setstoo exclusive valueon the " cathartic (asHumewouldcallthem, he"monkish) virtues,ndunder-rateshoseofthe ordinary ood neighbournd citizen. Here he is, if anything, otpagan enough.




fully dmits. And on the other ide, the real " non-mythical

character f the God of the Old Testamentor of Christianitvdoes not mean that Jew or Christian an avoid the constantuse of pictorial nd, in the Platonicsense," mythical languagein describingthe divine activities. When the apostle, forexample, ays that" we shallall stand before he udgement-seatofChrist , he meansto be asserting factof suprememoment;but can we suppose that the judgement-seat as, even to thewriter's wnmind,more than an imaginative ymbol that hethought f t as a literalbenchofwood or stone ? Liber scriptus

proferetur,x quo mundusudicetur;but did a divine f theMiddleAges ever suppose that recordto be made withactual ink onactual paper or parchment Christ,he Creeds ssert, s sitting" at theright and oftheFather ", but n what ge ofChristianityhas it ever been imagined hat the Father, n any literal ense,has a right and or a left 1 Thedifferences,hatever hey re,between Plato's conception f God and the Christian, o notarise from he presenceof "myth" in Plato and its absencefrom the language of Christians; they must be differences

between he entirely on-mythicalealities orwhich he partiestake the word God or 0E0o'sto stand,a point to whichI shallshortlv eturn.2

Once more, the accusation that I have imported nto Plato

1 Oragaindoesany Jew or Christiannot being n American Funda-mentalist) imagine hat there s nothing mythical in thedescriptionofGod as extracting rib from he side of Adamand making t into awoman, s laying side" in the sky the bow whichHe has beenwieldingduring heDeluge, s " coming own to Sodoni osee forHimself hether

the misconduct f the inhabitantss as grave as has been reported,s"looking n theEgyptians utof hepillar f loud and soforth Johnsonwas traditionallyrthodox nough orany man, but he had thesensetotellsomeone whomade difficultiesbout thedestructionf Sennacherib'sarmy, you arenot to suppose hatthe angel of the Lord knocked hemonthe head,manby man".

2By saying hat hedivine ovs,ofwhich heDemiurge s the maginativesymbol s itself non-mythicaleal agent, do not,of course,meantoprejudgethe difficultuestionhow this vovsis related to the Pvx^ofthe universe. Certainly believe that, with the whole of the OperaPlatonis before s,we cannotwellholdthatPlatomeans imply oidentifythetwo, nd onthatpoint t least, t seems o methat havethesupportof M. Robin n thedifficultages ofhisPlaton (244-252) which ealwith" the PlatonicDeity" (though, nfortunately, . Robin (op. cit., 248)falls nto thetime-honouredistake, ightly voidedby Mr. Cornford,ftranslating lKdV -ro voT-oD cO'S, alu9ros (Tim., 92, a, 7) as though itmeant " a god perceptible o sense,an image of the intelligible od ",whereas t clearlymeans" an image of the intelligible4oov. Editorswould do well to repunctuate hewhole clause thus,4Coovparov -ra opara

7replEXov, E&KWV TOVVOqTOV , fO'os aa0,q-7-O'S).



186 A. E. TAYLOR:

ideas foreigno him borrowed rom he Old or New Testamentmust,no doubt,be testedby an impartial xamination f the

evidencewhich s offeredater,but it is unconsciouslyrejudgingthe issue to introduce preliminaryeferenceo the "cCreator"of Genesis. The suggestion, take it, is that God,in the nar-ratives of Genesis-I do not know whetherthis means thenarrative f the PriestercodexGen. I), or the more primitivestoryof " JE " (Gen. II)-really is a Creator,but that theDemiurge f theTimaeusis not representeds creating, ut asarranging is material,whichmust, herefore,e supposed o bepre-existent.Nowif this s what smeant, would observe hatintheBiblical, s in the Platonic, tories s told, here snaturallyno explanation f the originofthe material. If the Demiurgein the Timaeus story s said to " take over certainmaterialsna chaoticstateand reducethemto order, t is equallynot clearfrom he langugcyefGenesis hat the writers riginallyntendedto say that the " void and formlessnfinite was itself reatedex nihilo. That it was so is the Christiandogma,but it isanotherquestion whetherthe dogma, however true, can be

extracted rom hewordsof the narratives lone.' On the otherhand, sinceMr. Cornfords at onewithmeinrejecting he nter-pretationccording o whichTimeaus's icture f theworld s itwas beforeGod had reduced t to order,represents state ofthingswhichwas everactual,he cannotarguethat thewordsofthe Timaeus compelus to believe in a divinitywho merelyarranges re-existing material ofsome kind. At most he isentitled o say thatin his ownopinion henarratives f Genesisascribe moreunrestrictedausality o Godthan thatof Timeaus

doesto theDemiurge,nd thepoint fhis criticisms consequentlyblunted. It is blunted till morewhen t is observed hatin nopassagewhichhe can citefromme have I everused the technicalexpressionwhich was, indeed, careful o avoid) " creation xnihilo in speaking fthecosmologicaltory f the Timaeus.2

1 In the JE narrative heverb used forthedivine ction s simply heordinarywordfor " to make , which, f course, mpliesnothingbouttheorigin f the material. The P storyuses a differenterb; whetherthis s intended o convey he notionofcreation x nihilo s a question

for Hebrewphilologists. n any case, though have spokenof Plato'sDemiurge s a Creator,s Plato himself alls him a 7rotofrs-, have never-inmylife spokenof him as creating he world ex nihilo. Wherehis" materials" come from s a question have leftunraised, s Platohimself eemsto me to have done.

2 In speaking f the Demiurge fthe Timceuss a " creator , I meantto indicate hat I do not regardhim as a " mythical doublettef theozpavos or its Ovx- as, e.g.,Archer-Hindid), without ommitting yselfbytheword oanydecision nthefurtheruestionwhether e s supposedto create xnihilo.



THE " POLYTHEISM" OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 187

I believe, however, hat, so far as the complaint bout im-

portationsfrom Genesis is concerned,what is reallv in Mr.Cornford'smind s explainedby the footnote o page 27. Herehe quotes me as saying hat the meaning f creationnChristiantheology s " that the physicalworld does not exist in its ownright,but depends on a really self-existingeing, God, for tsexistence , and retorts hat " myriads f Jews and Christianrshave believed ndl o believe n a temporal eginning fthe world.The suggestion s that " creation implies an antecedent imewhenthere was no world, nd that I am thereforenconsistent

with myself n both speakingof Plato's Demiurge s a creatorand accepting,withMr. Cornford imself,he standingAcademicview that Plato believed n no such time before he worldwas.But here mustpersist,with ll respect, n holding hat my ownutterances re perfectly onsistent nd that Mr. Cornford assimplyfallen nto error. It is true, s he says, thatmyriads fJews and Christians ave believed, and do believe, n a " firstmoment f creation . But their easonfor hebeliefsnot thattheythink reation b aeterno n intrinsicmpossibility,ut that

theyregard t as false on the strength f the revelation madein the openingwords f Genesis .The positionof St. Thomas on this matter s perfectly lear,

and it has been made by his argumentsgenerallydominantamong Christian heologianswho adhereto the traditional iewof the inerrancy f Scripture. St. Thomasheld that it can bestrictly rovedwithout ny appeal to theological uthorityhatthe world originated y creation, nd that creationmeans thecomplete ausation of the whole ealityof that which s said to

have been created. (De potentia,Q. 3, art. 1. Tenendumestfirmiteruod Deus potest facere liquid ex nihilo et facit. ..Unde per suam actionemproducittotum ens subsistensnullopraesupposito,tpote qui est totiusesse principium,t secundumse totum. Et haec eius actio vocatur creatio.)' At the same

1The " proof ofthe propositionuodDeus ex nihilo roduxit es n esseis given at full ength n S.C.G. II, 16. It claims to be a philosophicaldemonstration,nd, as usual in the S.C.G., whichwas intended o be ofservice to missionaries mong the " Gentiles , no appeal is made to

Biblical uthorityxcept hat,when hedemonstrationas been oncluded,we are toldthatour result s confirmedy the words f Genesis , 1. Thequestion whether he created world has always existed is discussedseparately II, 31-37), nd the conclusion eached s simply hat " thereis nothing o forbid he assumptionmadeby the CatholicFaiththattheworldhas not always existed ; in II, 38 the arguments roducedby" some to prove hat the world musthave had a beginningre reviewedand pronounced nconclusive, non de necessitate concludunt, icetprobabilitatemabeant . Cf.W.R. Inge,God nd theAstronomers,. 242,



188 A. E. TAYLOR:

time,he causeda veritable ensationby the essayde aeternitate

mundi, n whichhe set himself xpressly o refute he previouslycurrent ttempts f earlier choolmen o provethe necessity fa firstmoment f creation, nd to showthat, so far as reason s.concerned,he fact hattheuniverses a created hings perfectlycompatiblewith ts having lways been n existence. We know,he said,that thas not lwaysbeenthere, ut we onlyknowthisfrom he authoritative eclaration fGod himselfn the Penta-teuch that " in the beginningGod made heaven and earth .The questionfor hilosophy, e says, s this: utrum sse creatumn

a Deo secundum otam substantiam, t non habere durationisprincipium epugnent d invicem,vel non. Quod autem nonrepugnent ic ostenditur,nd he proceeds o developehis argu-ments. Thus in distinguishingetweena created thingand a,thingwhichmust necessarily ave had a beginning am at leastin good company. I do not complain hat Mr. Cornfordhouldapparentlynot knowthe Thomistic osition n thematter,butI am surprised hathe shouldhave written s though he beliefofordinary ewsand Christians as been based on anything ut

acquiescencenan authoritative revelation. (I trusttwillbeclear that my appeal to St. Thomas n this matter s not meantin any way to suggest hat his view must be the correct ne.If I had thought hat in commentingn the Timaeus had anyright o introducemy own personal pinion, uchas it is,on sucha topic, I should have stated that, rightly r wrongly,t doesseem to me at least the probableviewthat the universehad a," beginning , but I should have thought t an impertinenceodwellonthepoint.' And mayadd thatfor nyonewhoregardsthe question s one to be settledby the authority fScripture,independentlyf philosophical rgument, t would always bepossibleto combine he doctrine f creationwiththe assertionthat the worldhas always been in existence, y adoptingtheAugustinian nterpretationf the words EvacpXii,n principio,according to whicb the " beginning"? meant is not a "firstmoment , but the divineWord or Wisdom itself; ipsum estverbumuum, uod etprincipium st Confessions, I, viii, 10).

I comenow to consider ertainmorespecific tricturesmadeby Prof.Cornfordn the courseofhis commentary. may deal

though thinkhe is going oo far whenhe says that the positionwhichSt. Thomas ccepted n theauthorityf Scripture as clearly unwelcometo him".

1And likewisef I had thought t right o import ne's own personalopinions bout themeaning f" omnipotenceinto hediscussiontwouldhave beenfound hatmine, orwhatthey reworth, re, provisionallytany rate,moremoderate han thoseof either cotists rThomists.



THE "POLYTHEISM" OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 189

firstwith hosewhich re made n connectionwith heexpositionof Tim. 29e ff. Timseuss hereprofessingo explain-I givehiswords s Mr. Cornfordenders hem-why" becoming nd thisuniversewere framed y him who framed hem . The reasonforthis is said to be that " he was good; and in the good nojealousy in any matter can ever arise. So, being withoutjealousy,he desired hat all things hould ome s nearas possibleto being ikehimself . In myowncomment hadfirst emarkedthat " jealousy" does not quite unambiguously eproduce heforceof Plato's word 0&0vos',whichmeans,to speak morepre-

cisely, he" dog-in-the-mangertemperwhichdesires o engrossall that is good to one's self. I went on to say " just becauseGod is good,He does notkeepHis blessednesselfishlyo Him-self. He seeks to make something lseas much ikeHimselfngoodness." (HereI regret hat by an oversighthewords aspossible havesomehow allen ut ofmytextafter Himself .)" It is of theverynatureof love and goodness o ' overflow' .The remarks, bservesmy critic, re misleading. For (1) theuse of thecapital ettern thewordGod suggests hatPlato was

a monotheist, hereas n facthe believed n the divinity f theworldand of the heavenlybodies. (2) The Epinomis contem-plates a cult oftheseheavenlybodies. (3) The Demiurge s notan 'object of worship' or a 'religious figure',and thereforemustnot" be equatedwith he oneGodoftheBible,whocreatedthe wholeworld ut ofnothing,nd is also thesupreme bjectofworship . (4) " Still ess is there heslightest arrantnGreekthought f the pre-Christianenturies orthe notionof ' over-flowingove , or love of any kind,prompting god to make a

world." Now as to (1) and as to the clause about creatingworld"out ofnothing , I think have already aid sufficientlyall that have to say. Withregard o (2) and towhat s said in(3) aboutan " objectofworship , a " religious igure", I shouldlike to drawa necessary istinguo. What is meant here by an"object of worship"? It is true enough, nd I presumeMr.Cornford ould notdisputemy acquaintancewiththefact, hatno provisions made in the cultof the citycontemplatedn theLaws and Epinomisforpublic worship fany deities,uperior otheheavenlybodiesand thepatronsof the cityand its variousdivisions. It is not even clear to me that the Epinomis con-templates ny publicrites n honourof the Ov'pavo's's distin-guishedfrom heheavenly odies t contains, nd the Laws saysnothing fany such ritual n honour f" ourKing" orof "thebest soul ". But is it meant that the feelingsbetrayed byPlato's language n all thesedialoguestowards he " makerand



190 A. E. TAYLOR:

father fall ", "the King ", " thebestsoul" are not specificallyemotions freligious eneration

The question s notsimply owhomorwhatdoesPlato expectthe citizensof " Magnesia todo publicworship, ut rather,whom or what does Plato in hisown view adoreas the summum umen. Everyreadermust,nodoubt, nswer hisquestion orhimself,ccording o thepersonalimpression hich hePlatonicutterancesmakeuponhim, nd noone reader can expect to demonstrateo another hat his owninterpretationf the mind of Plato is the one " objectiveinterpretation. must be contentto recordmy own deep

impression hat the language with which Plato speaks of thatsuprememorallyrighteousntelligenceorwhich the Demiurgestands in the Timaeus, and the apcrr'a OavXryn the Laws, ischargedwith deep emotion fa kindwhich an onlybe calledreligious. If there s on my side a possibledanger of readingtoo much ntoPlato, there s, I am convinced, worsedanger fevacuating isprofoundest eaningn such a note as thatwhichMr. Cornford rites n page 35 of hisbook,where heDemiurgeofTimaeuss all but equatedwithbeings iketheBaiame ofthe

Australians,uperannuated makers whoat somedistant imeconstructedheworld nd havenow" retired romctive ervice .A comparisonfthis kindsimplygnores hatmoralgovernmentofmen and theuniversewhich s as prominentntheTimaeus sit is inthe Laws,and wouldhavebeen stillmoreprominentftheCritiashad not remained hefragment hich t is.'

The pointwhich have numbered4) calls forrathermoreremark. It does notseemto have occurredoMr.Cornfordhatin the sentence o whichhe takes exception was intendingn

allusion not onlyto the sayingsof the Christianmystics boutthe lovewhich cannotbe idle", butto theNeo-Platonic hesisthat the supreme" One", which is also the "Good ", mtust,because it is " more than full" (v'7rp-ErA-qpES)overflow ". Itis just because t is goodthat t "flowsover". Timaeus ells usthat it is a sufficientnswer o the questionwhytheDemiurgeshould" make" at all, to say that he is good,and thereforeillnotkeephisgoodness s a solitary ossession orhimself,ut willcommunicatet to somethinglse. There s, as it seems to

me,a realanalogybetween histhought f a goodnesswhichwillnotlet itspossessor e contentwiththehavingof t to himself,ndthelaterthought,o which alluded,ofthe" lovewhich annot

1For it is plainthat themoralpurposeof " the God ofgods Zeus"to chasten he 5fipts,f theAtlantidoe as to be themotif f thewholestory. It was to benotonly n eulogy fthevirtue fprehistoricthensbut the record f a divine mightyct ".




be idle", andI holdthat was justifiednindicatingheanalogy.

That there smore hanan analogy didnotsayand donotsay.In fact, think t quite clearwhere he fundamental ifferencecomes n. That there s a sense in whichGod lovesman,Hiscreature, s a thoughtwhich,as I hold, cannotbe deniedtoPlato withoutmakingnonsense f,for xample, heeloquenceofthe Republic n thetextthat the just man is 0EoqtA'soand theunjust 0O,EoVtJs (X, 612e), and many anotherpassage in thedialogues fsimilar urport. It wasnotreserved orChristianityto " reveal" it to theworld hat" therighteous ord loveth he

righteous . But in the Platonic dialogues, s in muchof theOld Testament,a' man has firstto make himself n objectdeserving fGod's regardby beingrighteous eforehe becomesOEoqtAjs. The noveltyby which Christianity aused infinitescandal to therespectableftheancientworldwas itsdeclarationthat the " righteous ord" loves thesinner nd theunrighteous.and has set himselfo wintheir ove at an infiniteost. " Hefirstovedus ", " whilewewereyetsinners, hrist iedforus ".LWhenever ou comeuponthethought ftheprevenientraceof

God, you are dealingwithsomething ewin Christianity hichhad its anticipations n Hebrew prophecy,but not in Greekphilosophy,nd I do not think can be justly chargedwithhavingoverlooked he fact. Certainly did not dwell on thepoint n commentingn theTimaeus; I thought hatto do sowould have been bothirrelevant,nd in viewofthefamiliarityof the fact, superfluous. t appears fromProf. Cornford'sstrictureshatI was mistaken n my udgement. But the errorof udgement,f t was an error,eems o mea venialone. Prof.Cornford'snxiety o divest he words fhis " paganpolytheistofall possible esemblanceso anything hristianeemsto metolead to a gravererror n the otherdirection. He empties hestatement,hat thegoodness ftheDemiurge s the explanationof the existence f theuniverse, f tssignificance,ndthe" most.characteristicevelations f theFounderofChristianity (p. 35)ofthevery hingwhichs mostcharacteristicfthem.2

I Celsus,forexample,makes a specialpointof complaininghat theranks of theChristiansre recruitedrom he criminal nd disreputableclasses. He thinks,n fact,that if Christweredivine,he shouldhavecometo call notsinners,ut the ustmenwhoneedno repentance.If Ihad anywhere rofessedo find heredeemingnd sanctifyingoveoftheChristianGod in Plato, I ownI shoulddeserveMr.Cornford'sebukes.Thegreat new" declarationf theGospelwasnotthatGodhas createdtheworld nd caresfort,butthatHe has " sent edemptionohispeople .

2 Jgrant t oncethat f had shown heslightest esire o imitate heearlyFatherswho found he Christian rinity,rsomethingery ike t,



192 A, E. TAYLOR:

There s a further olemicagainstmyself, losely connected

with the same generalsubject,in the part of Mr. Cornford'scommentary here e sdiscussinghemeaningf he" necessitywhich s said at Tim. 48a and elsewhere o be a subordinatecausativefactor longwith heDemiurge, r" God ", or" mindin the constructionfthe universe. On what s meant by thisccnecessity in the firstnstance,ndeed,we seemto be inprettyclose agreement. We are both convinced hatit does not meananythingike " natural aw ", and both, think, quallyagreed-thatwhat it does standfor s what I have called bare " brute

fact", arrangements hichwe find o be actually here n thingsbut whichcannot be seen to serve any good and reasonablepurpose, r evenseem, n the faceof t,to counteract uchpur-poses, he apparent dysteleology in nature, s it is sometimes,called. This is at least what I understand lato to mean,andI think am notwrongn saying hatMr. Cornfordnderstandshimin the same sense. What Prof.Cornfordbjectsto is myfurther omrnmenthat even wherewe do not see " whatthegoodof such bruLteact is, " if we thinkwithTimaeus nd Plato

wefeel atisfiedhat t satisfiesome oodend. . . . If we couldeverhavecompletenowledge,e should ind hat vayKn hadvanishedfromour accountof the world." Mr. Cornfordom-plains (p. 165) that theremarks due to an illegitimate desire-tomakePlato's Demiurgereallyomnipotent. His owninter-pretations thattheDemiurge s not omnipotent uthamperedin his proceedings y the fact that he is dealingwith materials" whichhe can,withinimits, urn o hispurpose, ut whichhedid notinstitute. He does the besthe can,in fact, nd ifthe

best s often nlya poor ob, we must ay the blame not on the'well-intentionedorkman ut on hismaterials.

NowI admit, fcourse, hat t is perfectlyossible o read thelanguageof the dialogue n this sense. But I denythat it isimperative hatwe shoulddo so. I do notfindn theTimaeus,oranywherelse nPlato,anymore han findnany philosopheror divine, n " explanation of the existence f " evil", and I

in the Timaeus, shouldrichly eserve ll Mr.Cornfordas said ofme.

There ne s really renchingnthe specialChristian goodnews ofthexredemptivectionof God. But merelyo say thatPlato conceives f thewhole natural rder as expressingheconscious urpose f a sovereignmoral intelligencewhichhe describes n languagewhichwouldfairlyentitle t to be called, n the terminologyf a much aterage,personaldoes not seemto me to be ascribing nything eculiarlyChristian,rBiblical, o him. To abstainfrom aying s much s this,outof fearofbeing houghto 'modernise', eems o meto be doing n injustice o a,great eligious hinker.



THE " POLYTHEISM"

OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 193

do not supposethat he had one. It is Air. Cornford hoputssuchan explanationnto Plato's mouthbymakinghimsay that

the Demiurge s doingall he can withmaterialswhichhe canonlyvery mperfectlyontrol. Myreason forbeing dissatisfiedwiththis exegesis s not that I start with the conception f aGod whois omnipotent,n the sense ofbeingable to do " justanything nd everything, and am determined o read thisnotion nto Plato at all costs. It is the verydifferenteasonthat thetheory fexternal limitations due to the incontrol-labilityof " material seems to me to ruin that demonstrationof the sovereigntynd finality fthe moralgovernmentf theworldby " ourKing" on whichtheLaws lays so muchstress.Ifthe" King" is only, o use thephrase fDescartes, a Jupiterora Saturn , I donot ee howPlatocanspeakof he mpossibilityofescapefrom is udgements ith hetone ofabsolute ssurancewhichhe does nfactemploy,nd I simply annotbelieve hat nthe Laws he is preaching,orpurposes fedification, doctrinewhichhe does not reallyhold. The verywordsof myown towhichMr. Cornfordakes exceptiondo not seem to me to go

beyondwhat s implicitn suchutterancess thoseofLaws 903," For each and all there re, n every ase,governorsppointedofall doing ndbeingdoneto,downto the eastdetail,whohaveachievedperfectionven to the minuteparticulars. . . Thouhast forgottenn the business that the purpose of all thathappensis what we have said, to win bliss forthe lifeof thewhole; it is notmade for hee,butthoufort. For anyphysicianor craftsmann any professionoes all his workforthesake ofsomewhole,but the parthe fashions or he sake ofthewhole,

to contributeo the generalgood,not the wholeforthe part'ssake." It is just possible,no doubt,withoutformal ogicalself-contradictiono talk thus,meaningno morethan that the" craftsman to whom hemoralorder n theworld s due doesthebest he can for thewhole , when hedifficultiesfthetaskare fairly aken ntoaccount; butonewhomeantonly hiscouldhardly, think, enture o speak of the outcome n the toneof " sure and certainhope" whichpervadesthewhole of thisoutburst. Canitreallvbe said thata studentwith uch anguage

in hismind s falsifyinglato's thoughtn ascribingohim-andit is all I have ascribed to him-the belief hat the so-called" dysteleologyin thenatural rder oesafter ll serve thegoodofthewhole , thoughwe mayneverbe able to see how? 1

1 It may,nodoubt,besaid thaton Plato'sown howingntheLawstherearebad souls swellas goodones-and where o thebad souls ome romAs tothat can only ay that Plato hasnever fferednyexplanationnd

13



194 A. E. TAYLOR:

- I suspectthatMr. Cornford imselfwouldhave scrupled ess

about my languagebut foran unfortunaterepossessionfhisownwhich s itself kind oftheological rejudice. He seemstometo writewithhis mindfullof a rather rudenotion fdivineomnipotences meaningbility,s I haveput t,to " do anythingand everything; to supposemistakenlyhat I mean to readomnipotencefthiskind ntotheTimaeus, nd to denounce hisas an improper Christianisationof Plato. I am surethatonreconsideratione will see that I have never creditedPlato's" father nd maker with mnipotencef this ort, ndmoreover

that it is not what seriousChristian ivineshave meantwhentheyhave talked of the omnipotence f God. The schoolmen,for example,were all agreedthat God is omnipotent, et, asMansel once remindedMill,theirworks refullofenumerationsof" thingswhichGodcannotdo ". And remarkhat the well-selected examplesof " dysteleology by whichMr. Cornfordillustrates is interpretationfPlato's thoughtwill,all ofthem,equallywell illustratemyown. He remarks, orexample, hat"the function f bone", accordingto our dialogue, "is to

protect romnjury heseat of ife, hebrain nd marrow." Bonetherefore ustbe hard,but its hardness ntails" as a necessarybut undesirable oncomitant that it shall also be brittle ndliableto fracture. It wouldbe in itself esirable,gain,that theskullshouldbe protected gainst njury, ike otherpartsoftheosseous structure, y beingthick nd having covering f flesh.But in thatcase sense-perception,nd consequentlyntelligence,would be duller. Hence our " artificers have preferredosacrificehe minorbenefits o themajor (p. 175). But he doesnotobserve hatall thismight e freelydmitted y philosopherswho would absolutelydeny that theirDeity is limited n hisactionby any extrinsic onditions. Leibniz,forexample,whowas a pronounced heistand creationistnd believedhimselfobe championing very highconception f divineomnipotence,wouldhave said at once that the sortof " dysteleology" llus-tratedby these examplesmerely esults rom he consideration

that I conceivehimto have had no explanatory heory o produce. I

do not believehe thought ny dogmaor philosopheme ould solve" allquestionsnthe world nd out of it". So, in theTimaeustself, e mayask in vainwhere he contents f thevt7roSoXoome from. Clearly heyare inchoate disorderlytv7EaLts, and all Ktv7 acts, we may presume, redue to IvXai. But the only IvXataf whichthe dialoguehas anythingto say arerepresenteds madeby theDemiurgewhenhetakes over hecontents f thevt7roSox7nd reduces hemto order. The storys myth,to be sure,but t must tandfor omething,nd it is not clearwhat t canstandfor.




that not all thingswhich re singly ossible realso compossible;

it is true that God cannot combine he incompossible, ut thereason why God cannot do so is not that He is confrontedyconditionsndependentfHim n thefaceofwhichHe ispowerless,but thattheundertakings, in its ownnature, rrational,nd istherefore ade mpossibleoGodbyHis own ntrinsicationality.He cannot make boneswhichhave the otherqualities of bonewithout ts brittlenessor he samereasonthathe cannotmakeanotherGod, or make t falsethat an eventwhichhas happenedhashappened.

I am not, of course, uggestinghat Plato was a Leibnizian,but merely ryingo pointout that the samedistinctionetweenthe " workof God" and the " work of necessity wvhichsexemplified y the illustrations r.Cornfordroduces rom heTimaeus,recurs lso in a philosophywhich s from irst o lasttheistic, nd entirely pposed o therecognitionfany" outside,"conditionss limiting od's creative ctivity; therecognitionfthe distinction,hen,does not commitus to a denial.ofdivineomnipotencen any sensein whichthe God of mostChristian

philosophers an be said to be omnipotent. If we ask whyevery arrangementf thingswhichmightappear to us to bedesirable s not compossiblewitheveryother,Plato's languageleaves it possible o suppose hat thereason ies n someexternallimitations estrictinghe" makerofall things , but it does notnecessitatehat nterpretation.There s nothingn whathe sayswhich s inconsistentwith the beliefthat the liabilityof ourbones to fractures, owevernconveniento ourselves,may yet,in some unknownway,contribute o " thegood ofthewhole .

Andas for nother entencewhichsquotedfromme pp.172-173)fordisapprobation,hat" Plato does not mean thatsomethingsare due to intelligencend others o meremechanism, itsrealsense is so innocuous hatMr. Cornfordmight dopt it himself.I meant n thosewordsonlyto say thatwe mustnot call oneconcrete.actA a productof God in which" necessity playsno part,and another a product fnecessityn whichGodhasplayednopart; anyA oranyB is at oncea " productofGod"and a "

productfnecessity

. Thebones,

o takeMr.Cornford'sexample, re described yTimaus as madebyGod (orthegods)on a certainplan and fora certainpurpose; in virtueoftheiruinfortunaterittlenessheyare also a product f "necessity .

Whichever f us is right bout the way in which"necessity"originates, hold that I am merelyrepeatingTimaus himselfin adding the comment-hat, accordingto him, "God ", or



196 A. E. TAYLOR:

"intelligent urpose is the " principal, "necessity onlythe

virrqpErn.nall undertakings.'

I do not, ndeed, ontend hat Plato mustbe supposed o havecarried ut this convictionwith absolute self-consistency. uchstrict onsistency ith one's self n all one's utterances eems tobe an ideal which o actualhumanmind ver ucceeds n attaining.Has there verbeena philosophergainstwhom ritically-mindedsuccessors ave not been able to bring he charge f unconsciousself-contradiction It has been used alike against Aristotle,Descartes, pinoza, Leibniz,Kant, to mention nlynames of the

first rder f distinction,nd in all these cases thecharge eemsto have been fairlymade out. Whymust he "divine Plato " besupposed o be immune rom hecommon ot ofmankind, venof metaphysicalmankind And it is particularlywhere menare brought aceto facewiththe issues raisedby theirrelationto God-or whatever-ther name they give to the suLpremereality of realities (o -t 7io-E ovopacdopEvos-pa'Atr-r' v S'XoC?o,Tovi'71/ivovopa40c)-that such nconsistenciesre most ikely omake themselves elt. Most of the greatestphilosophers ave

also beenmenwitha realreligionwhichhas meanta greatdealto them, ven whentheirreligion as been,as has been said ofAristotle, ne peculiar and privateto themselves. It is notamongmenof thekindwhohave beencalled" deity-blind that

1And though haveusedtheobvious xample fLeibnizto showthatthe admissionf the apparent dysteleology in nature oesnotnecessi-tatethe belief hatGodmustbeconfrontedith nfavourable externalconditionsin His activity, do notmean o commitmyselfoacquiescencein theLeibnizian olution f theproblem. For Leibnizremains, hen ll

has been said,at bottom, strict redestinationist.God s, after ll, theultimatefirst ause of the treasonof Judas,whichHe has includedab aeternonhis hoice o createustthat" possibleworld which asbeencreated. Here, thoughtentatively nd with full recognition f theobscurityf theproblem, think oo little s conceded o thefreewillofman. On ethicalgrounds feelmyself riven o agreewithKant's viewthata rational gent s notonly free ausebuta first auseof hisownacts,and thatthe wordsof the Republic re strictlyrue, Irta C'Ao,uvov,

coEs ava'rtos,and I know that manyChristian divines would say thesame thing. But even f thisbe granted o constituten somesensea" limitation on the" omnipotenceofGod, t is a limitation hichmust

arisenotfrom external onditions butfrom he ntrinsicharacterfthedivinepurpose o create reemoral gents. And am not suggestingthat thisviewwas, nfact, hat of Plato. I only ay of t that t could,-like otherviews-be, in thelanguage fMr.Cornford imselfop. cit.,p. 39) " supported y a suitable election f texts from hedialogues.Thatall " souls havebeenmadeby a supreme ree gent s assertedntheTimaeus, nd however mythical thestory f theirmakingmaybe,it doesat least seem o meanthattheydepend ntirelynd solely nHimfor heir xistence.



THE "POLYTHEISM" OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 197

thesuperlativelyreatmetaphysiciansave been found. And a

man's attitude owardshis numen r nutmina, hough t is, orought o be, an attitude f the wholeman,of his ntellect o lessthanof his will or his emotions,s apt to be pregnantwithmuchwhichcannotbe fitted nto the neat rubric of " clearlyanddistinctly conceived ategoriesnd distinctions hichhe appliesto thatwhich s felt o stand on the same levelwithhimself,rwith the mere" things he finds ubjectto his manipulation.If you startby docketingA as a " pagan polytheist and B asa " Christianmonotheist, and imagine yourselfn this easy

way to have plucked he heartout of theirmystery, hy, hen,I shouldsay,unlessboth menare ofa verycommon-placerderof mind, you will only succeed in misrepresentinghembothalike. Minds of any real depth are like the " Lesbian" archi-tecture; the " canons you applyto them must be uoAi/83vot,"flexible ".

There is just one other passage upon which I have maderemarks hich resingled ut by Prof.Cornfordor ondemnationon the same generalgrounds. It is said at Tim. 69c 3 that of

our" divine partthe Demiurgev-rToylyvErac&?lALoVPvyos',whereas n respectof our " mortal part, he merelynstructs" his offspringto fashion t. Since thedistinctions made sopointedly, was led to supposethat in writing he words vTos'

ylcyvErar 8)(Lovpyos' Platohad nmind he amiliar ordvirovpyos'commonly sed ofthe " peasant cultivator who s too poor tohave hisbodily abour doneforhim by slaves, as opposedto the"large proprietor who merely its at his ease and sets otherhandsto work nthe" menial tasks. This ed meto make thecomment hat thethought f God as " serving His creatures,orbeingaccessible o themat all, except through hemediationof a wholehierarchyfofficials,s commonly eld to be speci-fically hristiannd quiteun-Hellenic. The remark, said,hastruth, ifnotpressed oo far , but the languageofour passageshowsthat " its authorunderstood he principle f thewords,am amongyouas onethat erveth. I shouldhave thought hatthe observation, iven as it was as a mere caution against

pushing roughlyounddistinctionoo far, nd confiningtselfto a mention ftheprinciplenot the fullscope ofapplication)of the New Testament phrase quoted, was innocentenough.But Mr. Cornfordpeciallycalls attention o it for reprobationin his Preface p. xi), and whenhe comesto the passage in hisown commentary,magisterially bserves (p. 280) that " thereis no suggestion n the Greek avio'S of the 'lowly peasant'(a3Tovpyo's) " whom have broughtntothematter. Now how



198 A. E. TAYLOR:-

does Mr.Cornfordnow his avwrovpyoswas a familiar ord,nd

didregularlymply lowlvstatus. It is deliberatelymeant,forexample, y Euripides,whenhe depictsElectraas married o anavvrovpyos', that Aegisthuswas not satisfiedwith making a" farmer'swife of a Pelopidprincess;he safeguarded imselffurther y takingcare that the farmer hould be a person soutterlynsignificanthat he could notemploy abourers o do hishardwork. Is there nything nnaturaln the suggestionhatPlato could hardlywrite j8quoV'pyqacEvv-os' without hinkingofthese inguisticssociations, nd thathe meantbv itsomething

like this," on our divine part God (or thegod, ifMr. Cornfordprefers hat rendering) id the workthat had to be done withHis own hands ? " Of course, t is impossible o prove thatPlato maynot have used a phrase,which o naturally ecalls heav3rovpyos?,unintentionally,nd I shouldhave no comment omake fMr.Cornfordad simply iven t as hispersonal pinionthat Plato did so. I should, believe,still have thought hisunlikely,but shouldneverdeny that it is possible. What Idispute s any man's right-presumably n the strength f an

a priori theory s to what s and what s notHellenic-to statehis opinion n thepointas unqualifiedact.'There are certainobservations f Prof. G. Murray, n the

Prefaceto his version of the Hippolytus nd Baccchae,whichseemto me very pposite. "Who is to saywhatthe spirit ofEuripidesreallywas ? My version fit will differreatly romthat ofmanymenoffargreaterearning. Somegood scholars,again andinnumerablead ones ) havea rigidly ixed onceptionof what is in the limitsof ' ancientthought, and what is' Christian or modern, and mayconsiderhat ought o havestoppedmy ears and refused o listenwhenEuripides eemedtotransgresshese imits." Substitute he name of Plato here forthat ofEuripides, nd the remark eems o meequally pertinent.LEschylus, gain, as Lewis Campbell said, mightseem to us

1I might venask whetherMr.Cornford'semarks ave not a familyresemblanceo thesuggestionhat" the gods" disdain o trouble hem-selves with any close attention to their KcT-q'IaTa out of p,aovwa Kcat Tpvdf5,

which s so decidedly egatived t Laws, 901e. Let us'hearPlato's ownconclusion (ib., 902c), Mq -rot'vvvueiKpa X uevyaAatLst#acTc Ta-rTa etvat Tots

OeOtgS oV'8eTEpCV yap TOts KECKT17/eVOS 'q/aSz a/IEApEv v Wi) Trpo(7qKov, Ef/EAEcord-rots ye oiat KaC &ptaToog. And again, 907a,Tov%g) KdcAAWTadEre vpdy/zay a

OvAcrTovrag, 4a'TpovOc %0Eihots #vAaKi71rpo apET14v,KVVWV ELPOVs KaL aVOpwwV

Iuc&rwvEtvat fYqao/Lev;It does not hock his paganpolytheist tocompare"gods " with hepherdsr sheep-dogsn charge fa flock fsheep; whythen houldMr.Cornfordake suchexception o myremarksbout theavTovpyog ?



THE " POLYTHEISM" OF PLATO: AN APOLOGIA. 199

curiously modern in theprominence e givesall throughhe

Agamemnono thethought hat " great onquerors avemuch oanswerfor , but howmuchoLhismeaningwe shouldmiss fweread himwith oo overpoweringdread offinding modernityin him. I do not feel hat have theright o allowpreconceiveddistinctions f this kind to make me.insensitive o the subtlersuggestions f a masterof anguage ike Plato.'

1There re two contrastedrejudices gainstbothof whichwe need tobe constantly n our guard n dealingwithGreekmorality nd religion,and both alike make for the exaggeration f the differencesetween

" Hellenic and" Christian. Aman tronglyonvincedhatChristianityrests on a unique divine revelationwill be tempted o under-rate hesignificancef the contacts etweenHellenism nd Christianityromhisvery ense of the uniqueness fChristianity.Dislike of Christianity illequally ncline he anti-Christianho happens o admire he greatGreeksto shuthis eyesto these ontacts orfearof having o admit nthem nylikeness o that whichhe despises. But a perceptiveman, Christian ranti-Christian,hould surelybe able to understand hat the secretofPlato's ife-longostilityo" tragedy is his ntipathyo the" paganism"of therituals nd legends pon which ragedywas based.

Polytheism of Plato2

Documents

Transcript of Polytheism of Plato2