^{page 4 note 1} Cf. Burnet, , Greek Philosophy Part I, p. 335Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 2} Autour de Platon, p. 555. ‘Tout est dieu ou divin chez ce trop divin Platon.’

^{page 4 note 3} On the assumption, which seems universal, that 335. the ἃγαλμα is a mere synonym of εἰκών. But Prof. Cornford suggests to me—and he is surely right—that the οὐραν⋯ς, being as yet only a framework of circles or movements, is called the ἃγαλμα of the stars and planets (οὐρ⋯νιοι θεο⋯) which are subsequently to be set in the framework: for the ἃγαλμα of a god is a token or assurance of his presence to the worshipper, But This appears to be meant by Proclus when he explains ἃγαλμα as that which ‘is filled with deity’ (in Tim. III p. 4, Diehl καθ' ὃλον οὒν ⋯αυτ⋯ν ⋯ κ⋯σμος πληρο⋯ται θε⋯τητος κα⋯ δι⋯ το⋯το ἃγαλμ⋯ ⋯στι καθ' ⋯λον ⋯αυτον τ⋯ν νοητ⋯ν θε⋯ν).The νοητο⋯ θεο⋯ are of course a Neoplatonist figment, but there is no difficulty in taking ⋯ ι δ ⋯ ω ν θε⋯ν to mean the heavenly bodies in view of 40B, where the fixed stars are called ζῷα θεῖα κα⋯ ⋯⋯δια.

^{page 6 note 1} The phrase is in fact a mere variant of τ⋯ φρ⋯νιμον κα⋯ ⋯ρετ⋯ς πλ⋯ρες (sc. ψυχ⋯ς γ⋯νος) 897B.

^{page 6 note 2} The astronomical theory behind this passage is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. By leaving open the question whether there is only one, or more than one, orderly or beneficent soul, he seems to be deliberately avoiding the settlement of the problem whether the revolution of the circle of the fixed stars does or does not carry round with it those of the planets—a doctrine implied in the myth of Rep. X. I do not think there is anything in the text to suggest that the bad or maleficent souls have anything to do with planetary movements.

^{page 7 note 1} Incidentally it may be added that this passage gives no ground for identifying the Demiurge with his model, the νοητ⋯ν ζῷον, even in the partial identification adopted by Diès, (op. cit. p. 550Google Scholar: ‘Allons-nous done identifier totalement le Démiurge et le Modèle ? Nous serions très excusables de les identifier en tant qu'ils représentent ou symbolisent la Divinité suprême. Mais naus sommes contraints de les distinguer en tant qu'ils représentent l'un, l'Objet par excellence. l'autre, le Sujet par excellence’. The words ⋯τι μ⋯λιστα παραπλ⋯σια ⋯αυτῷ, on which alone, so far as I can see, this doctrine has been built, are not intended to suggest the relation of copy to model; they are equivalent merely to κατ⋯ δ⋯ναμιν ἃριατα.

^{page 7 note 2} ⋯λλ⋯ τα⋯τα μ⋯ν ⋯μφ⋯τερα ⋯ν⋯ντ' αὐτῷ λ⋯γομεν, οὐ μ⋯ν ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ γε φ⋯σομεν αὐτ⋯ ἔχειν αὐτ⋯;—κα⋯ τἰν' ἃν ἔτερον ἔχοι τρ⋯πον;

^{page 7 note 3} Cf. Zeller⁴ p. 715, Note I: ‘Eshandelt sich hierbei (i.e. Tim. 30B, ^Phil. 30c) nicht um die Vernunft in ihrem überweltlicben Sein. sondern um die Vernunft wiefern sie dem Weltganzen (mythisch ausgedrückt: der Natur des Zeus) inwohnt, von dieser innerweltlichen Vernunft aber wird die überweltliche noch unterschieden, which wenn es heisst, Zeus besitze eine königliche Seele und einen königlichen Verstand δι⋯ τ⋯ν τ⋯ς αἰτ⋯ας δ⋯ναμιν’.

^{page 7 note 4} Zeller⁴ p. 714 f.

^{page 8 note 1} Cf. Proclus, in Tim. I p. 402Google Scholar (Diehl) εἰ ἃρα δεῖ τ⋯ π⋯ν ἔννουν γεν⋯σθαι, δαῖ κα⋯ φυχ⋯ς ὑποδοχ⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯στιν αὔτη το⋯ νο⋯, κα⋯ δι' αὐτ⋯ς ⋯ νο⋯ς ⋯μφα⋯νεται τοῖς ⋯γκοις το⋯ παντ⋯ς, οὐχ ⋯τι δεῖται τ⋯ς ψυχ⋯ς ⋯ νο⋯ς οὔτο γ⋯ρ ἃν ⋯τιμ⋯τερος εἴη τ⋯ς ψυχ⋯ς ⋯λλ'ὅτι τ⋯ σώματα δεῖται τ⋯ς ψυχ⋯ς εἰ μ⋯λλοι (? μ⋯λλοι) νο⋯ μεθ⋯ξιν.

^{page 8 note 2} Prof. Taylor's translation.

^{page 8 note 3} In Tim. 42E he is content to say of the Demiurge, when bis work of creation is finished, ἔμενεν ⋯ν τῳ ⋯αυτο⋯ κατ⋯ τρ⋯πον ᾔθει.