That which Plato here enjoins to be believed is the genealogy of Hesiod and other poets, though he does not expressly name the poets. Julian in his remark on the passage (Orat. vii. p. 237) understands the poets to be meant, and their credibility to be upheld, by Plato — καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα ἐν Τιμαίῳ· πιστεύειν γὰρ ἁπλῶς ἀξιοῖ καὶ χωρὶς ἀποδείξεως λεγομένοις, ὅσα ὑπὲρ τῶν θεῶν φασὶν οἱ ποιηταί. See Lindau’s note on this passage in his edition of the Timæus, p. 62.
Theology of Plato compared with that of Epikurus — Neither of them satisfied the exigencies of a believing religious mind of that day.
The discord on this important point between Plato and the religious faith of his countrymen, deserves notice the rather, because the doctrines in the Republic are all put into the mouth of Sokrates, and are even criticised by Aristotle under the name of Sokrates.[77] Most people, and among them the historical Sokrates, believed in the universal agency of the Gods.[78] No — (affirms Plato) the Gods are good beings, whose nature is inconsistent with the production of evil: we must therefore divide the course of events into two portions, referring the good only to the Gods and the evil to other causes. Moreover — since the evil in the world is not merely considerable, but so considerable as greatly to preponderate over good, we must pronounce that most things are produced by these other causes (not farther particularised by Plato) and comparatively few things by the Gods. Now Epikurus (and some contemporaries[79] of Plato even before Epikurus) adopted these same premisses as to the preponderance of evil — but drew a different inference. They inferred that the Gods did not interfere at all in the management of the universe. Epikurus conceived the Gods as immortal beings living in eternal tranquillity and happiness; he thought it repugnant to their nature to exchange this state for any other — above all, to exchange it for the task of administering the universe, which would impose upon them endless vexation without any assignable benefit. Lastly, the preponderant evil, visibly manifested in the universe, afforded to his mind a positive proof that it was not administered by them.[80]
[77] Aristotel. Politic. ii. 1, &c. Compare the second of the Platonic Epistles, p. 314.
[78] Ζεὺς παναίτιος, πανεργέτας, &c. Æschyl. Agamem. 1453. Xenophon, Memorab. i. 1, 8-9.
[79] Plato, Legg. x. pp. 899 D, 888 C. He intimates that there were no inconsiderable number of persons who then held the doctrine, compare p. 891 B.
[80] Lucretius, ii. 180:
|
Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam Naturam mundi, quæ tantâ ‘st prædita culpâ — |
ii. 1093:—
|
Nam — pro sancta Deûm tranquillâ pectora pace, Quæ placidum degunt ævum, vitamque serenam — Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas? |