Greek Texts & Translations

How do you mean?

Let us take as an image that one of the ten motions which reason resembles; reminding ourselves of which ^note I, along with you, will make answer.

You will probably speak admirably.

Do we still recollect thus much about the things then described, that we assumed that, of the total, some were in motion, others at rest?

Yes.

And further, that, of those in motion, some move in one place, 898aothers move in several places?

That is so.

And that, of these two motions, the motion which moves in one place must necessarily move always round some center, being a copy of the turned wheels; and that this has the nearest possible kinship and similarity to the revolution of reason? ^note

How do you mean?

If we described them both as moving regularly and uniformly in the same spot, round the same things and in relation to the same things, according to one rule and system—reason, namely, and the motion that spins in one place 898b(likened to the spinning of a turned globe),—we should never be in danger of being deemed unskillful in the construction of fair images by speech.

Most true.

On the other hand, will not the motion that is never uniform or regular or in the same place or around or in relation to the same things, not moving in one spot nor in any order 898cor system or rule—will not this motion be akin to absolute unreason?

It will, in very truth.

So now there is no longer any difficulty in stating expressly that, inasmuch as soul is what we find driving everything round, we must affirm that this circumference of Heaven is of necessity driven round under the care and ordering of either the best soul or its opposite.

But, Stranger, judging by what has now been said, it is actually impious to make any other assertion than that these things are driven round by one or more souls endowed with all goodness.

You have attended to our argument admirably, Clinias. 898dNow attend to this further point.

What is that?

If soul drives round the sum total of sun, moon and all other stars, does it not also drive each single one of them?

Certainly.

Then let us construct an argument about one of these stars which will evidently apply equally to them all.

About which one?

The sun's body is seen by everyone, its soul by no one. And the same is true of the soul of any other body, whether alive or dead, of living beings. There is, however, a strong suspicion that this class of object, which is wholly imperceptible to sense, 898ehas grown round all the senses of the body, ^note and is an object of reason alone. Therefore by reason and rational thought let us grasp this fact about it,—

What fact?

If soul drives round the sun, we shall be tolerably sure to be right in saying that it does one of three things.

What things?

That either it exists everywhere inside of this apparent globular body and directs it, such as it is, just as the soul in us moves us about in all ways; or, having procured itself a body of fire or air (as some argue), it in the form of body pushes forcibly on the body from outside; 899aor, thirdly, being itself void of body, but endowed with other surpassingly marvellous potencies, it conducts the body.

Yes, it must necessarily be the case that soul acts in one of these ways when it propels all things.

Here, I pray you, pause. This soul,—whether it is by riding in the car of the sun, ^note or from outside, or otherwise, that it brings light to us all—every man is bound to regard as a god. Is not that so? 899b

Yes; everyone at least who has not reached the uttermost verge of folly.

Concerning all the stars and the moon, and concerning the years and months and all seasons, what other account shall we give than this very same,—namely, that, inasmuch as it has been shown that they are all caused by one or more souls, which are good also with all goodness, we shall declare these souls to be gods, whether it be that they order the whole heaven by residing in bodies, as living creatures, or whatever the mode and method? Is there any man that agrees with this view who will stand hearing it denied that “all things are full of gods”? ^note 899c

There is not a man, Stranger, so wrong-headed as that.

Let us, then, lay down limiting conditions for the man who up till now disbelieves in gods, O Megillus and Clinias, and so be quit of him.

What conditions?

That either he must teach us that we are wrong in laying down that soul is of all things the first production, together with all the consequential statements we made,—or, if he is unable to improve on our account, he must believe us, and for the rest of his life live in veneration of the gods.