Gordon Clark: Review of "Plato: The Timaeus and the Critias or Atlanticus" (The Philosophical Review)

1945. Review of Plato: The Timaeus and the Critias or Atlanticus, by R. Catesby Taliaferro. The Philosophical Review. 54, No. 3 (May).

The Foreword is not written in the spirit of Thomas Taylor's Introduction to the Timaeus. The modern editor is more modern and more sober. His main thesis is that there is no irrational residuum in the Platonic system. Undoubtedly correct in several cases of apparent irrationality, Professor Taliaferro would have to write a longer treatise to show that space and necessity are completely rational. It is interesting to note that he believes the Timaeus teaches a Pre-platonic philosophy. Another point is his interpretation of the earth's motion as a revolution around the axis of the universe. He dismisses the possibility of an up-and-down shifting that could be used to explain the planetary excursions in latitude, on the ground that the calculations required for saving appearances would be too complicated. These are disputed points, but at any rate even a freshman in college could learn something about the Timaeus from this Foreword.

On the other hand, Thomas Taylor in his Introduction and Notes gives a late Neoplatonic interpretation that must be almost unintelligible to anyone who has not studied Plotinus and his successors. Not only is Taylor's language too florid, but, worse, he seems to have the uncanny knack of inerrantly selecting for preservation the greatest absurdities in Neoplatonism. Plotinus was no superstitious fool; and even if Proclus was less sane, he is here presented at his worst. And Taylor accepts Proclus as gospel truth. If Proclus teaches a geocentric astronomy, well, then, Copernicus and his followers are wrong. Since geocentric astronomy is the inevitable consequence of Neoplatonism, which is founded on the harmonious union of all things, we may safely conclude that it is consubsistent with the universe itself. In modern times when there is such a dire perversion of religion and such widespread impiety, we cannot wonder that the spirit of profane innovation should cause confusion in science (51).

And yet Taylor's Introduction and Notes are of value. They may allegorize Plato beyond recognition, but they are an admirable picture of decadent Neoplatonism. Taylor doubts not but that we will gratefully receive this epitome of the beautiful account given by the divine Proclus in his inestimable commentary on this venerable dialogue (76). And we so receive it, ungrudgingly recognizing that "These fruits of my application to the Platonic philosophy... were the result of no moderate labour and perseverance" (92).

The first half of the Timaeus Taylor annotates profusely, but then like Proclus suddenly ceases, with the exception of a short note almost at the end. It is regrettable that neither the translations from Proclus nor the translation of the Timaeus are properly paginated.

GORDON H. CLARK