Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Volume 46 Issue S78 2003 [Doi...

7/29/2019 Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Volume 46 Issue S78 2003 [Doi 10.1111%2Fj.2041-5370.2003.Tb02139

1/11

PROCLUS COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUSTHE PREFATORY MATERIALSTEPHENGERSH

Thanks to the recent book by Alain Lernould, it seems likely that scholars of later ancientphilosophy will return to the study of Proclus Commentary on the Timaeus with a newvigour. Lernould has provided us with a careful analysis of the logical structure of thisNeoplatonic text which goes beyond the annotations in A. J. M. Festugihres excellent Frenchtranslation.* He has also revealed the extent to which Proclus endeavoured to read thePlatonic dialogue as simultaneously a treatise on physics and on theology. Lernould sees theNeoplatonic commentary throughout in a rationalistic light. According to him, the methodof the work is not symbolic but demonstrative and less geometrical than dialectical, thescientific approach being attested by the manner in which the hypotheses and demonstrationsinserted by Proclus before the account of the demiurgy and the account of the demiurgyextrapolated from these hypotheses and demonstrations represent a series of ascents oranagogies to the first causes of the universe. The Neoplatonic commentator seems to beinspired by Platos description of the upward motion from hypotheses to the unhypotheticalin the Divided Line, supplementing this teaching with the notion that each ascent oranagogy returns to the original position with a transformed viewpoint and therefore marksout a course which is neither rectilinear nor circular but spiral in character. Lernould drawstwo general conclusions about Proclus work. The first is that the commentary is Platonicrather than Pythagorean in tendency. The second is that the nature of this commentaryshows that the presumed distinction between Proclean exegetical and systematic writingsis unnecessary.

Now one could certainly argue at greater or lesser length with these final conclusions.However, there is perhaps a more immediate need to add a footnote to Lernoulds fine studyor better: a prefatory note. This concerns the hermeneutic horizon for the reading of ProclusCom mentary on the Timaeus.

Lernould has clearly shown that the commentary for the most part applies a method whichmight be called- n the Proclean senses of these terms-dialectical or demonstrative. Indeed,the Greek authors comment that whereas the beginning of the dialogue reveals the order ofthe universe by means of images the middle section of the text instructs us regarding thewhole of creation would seem to indicate a contrast between an indirect account of realitythrough images: the prefatory materials of the Timaeus, and a direct account of things not Alain Lemould, Physique et Th bl og ie . Lecture du Timke de Platon pa r Proclus (Villeneuve dAscq 2001). . J. FestugiBre, Proclus. C ommentaire sur le T imi e, traduction et notes (Paris 1966-8).Ancient approaches to Platos Timaeus

143


2/11

144 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATOS TIMAEUSthrough images: the main body of the work.3 However, a problem is presented by the well-known passage of Proclus Platonic Theology which states that Plato practises four modesof theological exposition: the entheastic in the Phaedrus, the dialectical in the Sophist andParmenides, the symbolic in the Gorgias, Symposium, and Protagoras, and the iconic in theTimaeus and P o l i t i ~ u s . ~ow are we to reconcile the predominantly dialectical tone of theextant portion of Proclus commentary with the apparent association by Proclus of thedialogue with the imagistic mode of exposition? The solution to the difficulty is probably thatthe Neoplatonist is referring in the passage of the Platonic Theology mainly to the prefatorymaterials of the Timaeus. To the further question why Proclus should place such emphasison this introductory portion there are perhaps two answers: one more general and one morespecific. The general point is that it is a feature of exegetical works as a whole, whether theyare pagan or Christian and ancient or modern, to attach great importance to prologues inestablishing the hermeneutical framework for reading a text. Proclus treatise is no exceptionto this tendency. This is indicated by the scale of its exegesis of the recapitulation of theRepublic and the myth of the Atlantians which expands to fill its entire first book. Thespecific point is that Proclus makes great efforts to argue that the Timaeus is not only atreatise on physics but also a study of th e~logy.~heology is according to him the topic ofthe recapitulation and the myth. Therefore, an approach to the dialogue which carefully usesthe prefatory materials to guide the exegesis of the main text will reinforce our understandingof the latters more elevated meaning.

For these reasons it will be useful to revisit the first section of Proclus Commentary on theTimaeus, In doing so, I shall arrange my observations under three headings - a convenientsystematization albeit one implicit rather than explicit in Proclus writing- 1. remarks aboutthe text qua text of Timaeus discourse; 2. remarks concerning the relation between text andobject envisaged by the Platonic dialogue; and 3. remarks about the object qua object ofTimaeus discourse.

In the first book of his commentary, Proclus has much to say, regarding the PlatonicTimaeus, of the status of its text as text. Here, it is important to consider first a certainintertextuality. Plato writes in imitation of Timaeus the Pythagorean6 while the demonicAristotle writes in imitation of Plato to such a degree that one can discover the Peripateticdoctrines of form, substratum, source of motion, motion, time, and space already in theTimaeus? Platos account of the conflict between the Athenians and the Atlantians parallelsHomers description of the battle between the gods and the Titans, the former representinga narrative of a sober and political and the latter a narrative of an inspired and priestly

See below, 146-47.Proclus, Theol. Plat. 1.4, 17.9-23.11.For a full discussion see S. Gersh, Proclus Theological Methods. The

Programme of Theol. Plat. 1.4. in Proclus er la ThiologiePlaronicienne (Acres du Colloque International d e Louvain(13-16m i 1998)en lhonneur de H.D. Saffrey et L. G . Westerink,ed . A. P. Segonds et C. Steel (Leuven-Paris2000)

ee below, 145-46.1s-27.Proclus, In Timaeum Commentaria, ed . E. Diehl, 3 vols, I (Leipzig 190 3) 1.8-16. Cf. 8.21-7.Proclus, In Tim. 6. 21 -7 .16. Proclus habitually contrasts - n terms of their philosophical authority - the divine

Plato and the dem onic Aristotle.


3/11

STEPHEN GERSH: ROCLUS OMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 145character. Moreover, the textual relation between Platonic and other texts is complementedby the textual relation within the Platonic corpus itself. Given that philosophy is divided intoa contemplation of the intelligibles and a contemplation of the intramundane and that theParmenides summarizes the whole intelligible and the Timaeus the whole intramundaneteaching, one can establish analogies between the two dialogues. In the Parmenides,everything is related to the One and in the Timaeus, everything to the Demiurge. ThePamenides prefaces theology with an investigation of the Forms, and the Timaeus prefacesphysiology with a contemplation through images. The narrative setting of the Parmenides isprovided by the Greater Panathenea, and that of the Timaeus by the Lesser Panathenea?These scattered comments on Proclus part could easily escape the attention of a modernreader intent on disengaging the metaphysical teaching of the Neoplatonic commentary.However, the information provided here is of considerable importance. We learn how theTimaeus is situated within the history of philosophy between the Pythagoreans and Aristotle,how what we would term a classic philosophical text relates to what we would term a classicliterary text, and how the Timaeus is situated within a pedagogical arrangement of thePlatonic corpus.When we turn from intertextuality to textuality - e. to the text of this Platonic dialogueconsidered in itself -we have many more Proclean statements to evaluate. It may be usefulto divide the latter into comments regarding the aim of the dialogue, remarks implying thedivision of its text into horizontal segments or into vertical layers, comments orientatingthe mode of interpretation in relation to its objectivity or its contextualization, and remarksaddressing the connotative structure. In the case of the first criterion, we are dealing with atextual question explicitly formulated by Proclus. The other criteria are more external thaninternal. Nevertheless, I believe that they clarify the outline of an implicit textual practice andare methodologically consistent with that practice.

Proclus comments regarding the aim ( O K O T C ~ G )f the Timaeus illustrate the establishedprinciple of later Neoplatonic exegetical theory that each dialogue is monothematic in intent.For this reason, he is critical of Porphyrys procedure of interpreting the narrative materialat the beginning of the dialogue in a more political and the Timaean exposition forming themain body of the text in a more physical manner. Proclus protests: it is necessary thateverything be harmonious with the pre-established aim. The dialogue is physical and notethical ( 6 ~ i v &p TQ T C ~ O K E ~ ~ ~ V C ~ ,KOTCQd v ~ a 6pcpova cfvai . c p u ~ i ~ b g2: b6id3Loyos, &LA o h 46i~6~).ut what precisely is the aim of the Timaeus? Broadlyspeaking, the answer is to discourse about nature. This intention can be clarified by observingthat earlier thinkers in this sphere had distinguished material causes, formal causes, andaccessory causes, but that Plato had supplemented physical theory by discussing the efficient,

Proclus, In Tim. 178.12-80.8.Proclus, In Tim. I 12.30-14.3; 184.22-85.3 0.

lo Proclus, In Tim. I 19.24-29.Cf . 77.28-78.1.For the history of Neoplatonic exeges is of Plato (with special referenceto the post-Iamblichean tradition which Proclus represents) see: A. J . Festugikre, Modes de composition descommentaires de Proclus, Mus. Helv. 20 (1963) 77-100; Lordre de lecture des dialogues de Platon aux VNIesikcles,Mus.Helv. 26 (1969) 281-96; B. D. Larsen, Jamblique de Ch alcis. Exigkte et philosop he, 2 vols (Aarhus1972);J . A . Coulter, The Literary M icrocosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists (Leiden 1976);E. Lamberz, Proklosund die Form des philosophischen Kommentars, Proclus. Lecteur et Interprite des Anciens =Actes du colloque international du C.N.R. S. ,Paris 2-4 oct. 1985 (Paris 1987) 1-20.


4/11

146 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLA TOS TIMAEUSthe paradigmatic, and the final cause: these being causes in the fullest sense. By means of(616)the latter, Plato was able to reveal the demiurgic intellect (vo6< BqpioupytK6


5/11

STEPHEN GERSH: ROCLUS COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 147between images and symbols depends upon a greater similarity between signifier andsignified in the former and a greater dissimilarity between signifier and signified in the lattercase, although the Commentary on the Republic makes clear that it is not the image whichis to be considered for this reason as the superior mode of representation but the symbol.*Third, the specific nature of the symbol is indicated by a few examples: the paraphernalia ofHephaestus forge, the shields and spears of the various Olympians, and so forth.lgProclus also envisages a vertical division of the entire Platonic dialogue. This comprises1. a quasi-formal level of character ( p p a ~ ~ f i p )nd 2. a quasi-material level ofhypothesis (hn68cutq). Regarding 1, Proclus notes that the Timaeus a. receives itsintuitions from the highest causes, b. mixes the revelatory ( h o c p a v ~ t ~ 6 ~ )nd thedemonstrative ( ~ ~ I T o ~ E ~ K T ~ K ~ s ) ,nd c. prepares us to understand physics not onlyphysically but also theologically. The revelatory aspect of the dialogue is associated with itsPythagorean tendency and further specified as that which is mentally elevated, as theintellectual and the inspired, as that which connects all things with the intelligibles, as thatwhich defines wholes in numbers, as that which intimates things symbolically and mystically,as the elevative, and as that which sublates partial intuitions. The demonstrative aspect of thedialogue is associated with its Socratic tendency and further specified as the convivial andthe accommodating, as that which contemplates realities through images, as the ethical, andso forth.2oRegarding2, Proclus notes a. the place and time of the narrative setting and b. thepersonages who speak in the narrative of the Timaeus. The place is Athens and the time theday after the conversation about the state. The personages are Timaeus, Hermocrates, Critias,and an unnamed individual. These components exhibit various analogies with the highersphere: for example, Timaeus corresponds to the Demiurge and Socrates together withHermocrates and Critias to the triad following the Demiurge, while the reduction in thenumber of speakers from six to four to three corresponds to the elevation of the discourse toa more intellectual level. The character and the hypothesis correlate with one another as aquasi-formal and a quasi-material aspect.21This is not only shown by Proclus substitutionof the term form ( c i 8 0 ~ )or the term character ( x apa~~ f ip )n the Commentary on theTimaeus but also suggested by the similar textual-metaphorical analogy in the anonymousProlegomena to Plu tos Philosophy.22

Orientation of the mode of interpretation in relation to objectivity is another aspect ofProclus reading of the Timaeus which should be noted. According to the Neoplatonist, theAtlantis story could be treated as pure history, as pure fiction, or as history which includesimages ( E ~ K ~ V E S )f higher oppositions: either of the fixed stars and the planets - the viewof Amelius- or of higher and lower daemons- he view of Origen - or of higher and lowersouls - not attributed to a specific source- or of daemons and souls- he view of Porphyry- or of oppositions from the One and the Dyad downwards- he view of Iamblichus and our* roclus, In Rempublicum commenrurii, ed. W. Kroll, I (Leipzig 1899) 77.19-28 ; 83 .26f f., 198.9-24.l9 Proclus, In Tim. I 142.14-145.4;156.16-157.7.2o Proclus, In Tim. 17.17-8.9.21 Proclus, In Tim. 18.30-9.24;20.27-21.8.22 Anonymous, Prolegomena in Pkzronis Philosophiam, ed.L. G . Westerink (Amsterdam 1962) 5.16.1-5.17 .39.Thistext is reproduced in Proligomtnes d la philosophie de Pluron, texte dabli par L. G . Westerink et traduit parJ . Trouillard, avec la collaboration de A. P. Segonds (Paris 1990).


6/11

148 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATOS TIMAEUSteacher (b ipkrepo~ a 6 1 l y e p h v )yrianus, the final interpretation naturally being acceptedas correct.23What is argued concerning the Atlantis story as a whole is also applied to thePhaethon myth embedded in it. This can be understand historically ( ~ u T o ~ I K ~ ) s ) ,physically ( c p u u r ~ h ~ ) ,r philosophically (cpihouocpi~h)~).n the last case, the accountconcerns the relation between partial souls and the heavenly bodies.24

Another aspect of Proclus reading of the Timaeus is orientation of the mode ofinterpretation in relation to contextuality. Here, we should note in the first instancecontextualityas the interpretative horizon represented by a specific discipline, since a givenpassage in the text - for example, the words some things, indeed, I recollect - might beunderstood ethically as a mediation between irony and arrogance, logically as a pretext forthe recapitulation of problems, physically as the remaining and procession of physicalreasons, and theologically as the remaining and procession of the higher.25 n the secondinstance, we should here note contextuality as the interpretative horizon represented by aspecific author, since a central doctrine of the text - for example, the principle of binarystructure - might be understood in an Orphic, Pythagorean, or Platonic manner. In otherwords, the opposition could be viewed as that between the Olympians and the Titans wherethe former predominate over the latter. It could also be treated as that between parallel seriesextended from the highest to the lowest level. The opposition could finally be viewed as thatbetween limit and infinity in the Philebus.26

Proclus comments regarding the aim of the Timaeus are underpinned by his implicitapplication of the notion that everything is in everything, ... appropriately ( m h a 62 bvnkuiv ... O ~ K E ~ O G ) . his idea is mentioned in the context of the Pythagorean threefolddivision of reality into intelligibles, mathematicals, and physicals where it explains how themiddle and the lower are present paradigmatically n the higher, the higher present iconicallyand the lower present paradigmatically in the middle, and the higher and the middle presenticonically in the lower. Application of the notion of appropriate presence is detected by theNeoplatonic commentator in Timaeus employment of mathematical names in describing thesouls powers.27However, it is more importantly the basis on which the dialogues aim canbe simultaneously physical and theological.

When we turn from Proclus remarks about the text as text to those about the relationbetween text and object, the fundamentally realist nature of Neoplatonic thought becomesapparent. In other words, the notion that the structure of the text - n this case the PlatonicTimaeus - reflects the structure of real things begins to prevail. It is perhaps useful toconsider this development initially from four viewpoints: that of the relation betweenlanguage and reality in general, that of parallelism between external narrative order and themetaphysical order, that of parallelism between internal narrative order and the order ofdemiurgy, and that of specific instances of the relation between language and reality.

23 Proclus, In Tim. 175.30-78.11. Cf. I 176.22-177.2.24 Proclus, In Tim. I 108.14-113.7.25 Proclus, In Tim. I 27.22-28.13.Cf. I 8.2-5.26 Proclus, In Tim. I 174.12-24.27 Proclus, In Tim. I 8.1 3-27 . For the metaphysical application of this principle in general see Proclus, ElemenratioTheologica,prop. 103.92.13.


7/11

STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLU S COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 149The relation between language and reality in general becomes an issue in certain passages

where Proclus considers the stylistic technique of applying various terms to the same things.At one point, a disagreement between Longinus who held that Plato varied his terminologywith a view to aesthetic effect and Origen who held that he varied his terminology forpurposes of conceptual exactitude is reported. Proclus himself quotes with approval thedoctrine of Aristoxenus that the dispositionsof philosophers extend as far as sounds (aircjv cpihoa6qov 6 taOdae i~ xp i tcjv cp66yyov 6iareiv oua i) which he compares withthe astrological teaching that there are clear images of the radiance of intellections in astralconfigurations ( t f js rcjv vofjaeov hy3iaia~Ev toiS petaoXqpatiopoiS eiK6veqEvapye i ~ ) . oreover, Iamblichus refers the variegation of language to the higher principlesby arguing that the h6yoi occur in various combinations as they descend from intellect tosoul to nature and to matter.28A similar argument occurs in at least one other passage. Here,Proclus explains that different spatial allotments can be placed under the patronage of thesingle goddess Athene just as it is possible to signify the same things through a plurality ofsounds (6i& nhei6v ov qovcjv r& aCz& aqpaiveaOa i 6uvat6v). This is because soundsare images of the things signified by them.29

The notion that there is a parallelism between the external narrative order of the Republic,Timaeus, and Critias and the metaphysical order is an important element in Proclusinterpretative strategy as a whole. This becomes apparent in considering the replies to twoquestions. The first question is: why is the narrative time of the Timaeus not prior to thenarrative time of the Republic? Given that the origin of the world must precede the origin ofhumanity, one would expect the Timaeus to precede. Proclus reply is that not all hypothesesare based on real things and that, since the hypothesis of the state is in thought only ( h 6 y qy6vov) whereas that of the cosmos concerns things that exist and have come to be (6vraK ~ Iev6ycva), the Republic is reasonably placed first.30The further question is: why is thenarrative time of the Cntias not prior to the narrative time of the Timaeus? The reply is thatthis sequence follows from the order of human life described in the R e p ~ b l i c . ~

The notion that there is a parallelism between the internal narrative order of the Timaeusand the order of demiurgy is another crucial element in Proclus interpretative strategy. Here,the fact that Critias first refrains from telling the story of Atlantis represents a symbol of thepreparatory arrangement of natures (adppohov r f j ~poeutpeni


8/11

150 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLAT OS TIMAEUShypothesis of the Athenians- nticipating the Critias - epresents an indication of the seconddemiurgy narrated in the T i m ~ e u s . ~ ~

As specific instances of the relation between language and reality one might cite Proclusinterpretations of certain phrases in the Platonic text. First, there is the repetition 0Solon,Solon. This phrase has a double significance in suggesting not only a striving beyondmeasure in what is to be said but also the circulation of all things from the same to the same.34Secondly, there is the word briefly which represents a synoptic trace of the intellectualpartlessness ( u u v o n z ~ ~ b vV6ahpa zfis v o & p & ~ p&p&iag) .mong further instances ofthe relation between language and reality one could mention Proclus interpretation of certainnames. Thus, the Athenians are associated in the binary structure with the Olympians becauseAthene was the leader of the Olympians. The Atlantians are associated in that same structurewith the Titans because Atlas was a Titan.35

The Neoplatonic realist view of the relation between text and object is documented moreextensively in a passage from the second book of Proclus commentary on the Timaeus.Incommenting upon Platos teaching that, since words in order to be interpreters(6[qyqrai)of things must be akin ( [ u y y ~ v e i ~ )o them, the opposition between a relatively stableparadigm and a relatively unstable image must be paralleled by an opposition between twosimilarly contrasted modes of discourse, Proclus develops an elaborate argument firstconcerning the twofold relation between things and words, and secondly concerning thethreefold relation between things, perceptions, and words - this part of the discussionincluding further subdivision within the three classes.36

Taking his starting-pointfrom Platos statement regarding the kinship of words and things,Proclus asks why the speaker in the Timaeus found it necessary to specify the character ofhis discourse before unfolding the demiurgy. The answer depends on analogies. Just as theDemiurge first produces the invisible principles of life and then brings the visible intoexistence,so does Timaeus first apply himself to the contemplation of things and then adaptthe character of his words to the things.37A similar point is made in a different register. Justas the multiplicity of intramundane things arises from the One and then proceeds to itsappropriate number, so does Timaeus exposition- endering itself similar to reality as hehimself teaches - arise from the single axiom and the universal and then introduce divisioninto the discourse.38

However, Proclus commentary immediately moves from the duality of things and wordsto the triplicity of things, perceptions, and words and thereby supplements the ontological andthe linguistic with an epistemological component.39

33 Proclus, In Tim. I 196.4-29.Festugikread oc. correctly interprets the relation between the unhypothesized and thehypothesis as that between la dpublique sans fondement historique and la supposition actuelle oh nous prenons lesAthkniens.34 Proclus, In Tim. I 102.1-10.Cf. 103.13-17.

Proclus, In Tim. I 148.25-149.8;173.15-28.536 Proclus, I n Tim. I 3 4 0 . 1 ~ f f .37 Proclus, In Tim. 1339.21-29.

Proclus, In Tim. 1340.16-21.Proclus, In Tim. 1339.14-16.

3839


9/11

STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 151Regarding things, the Neoplatonic commentator notes that Plato sometimes contrasts the

two levels of being and becoming and sometimes the two levels of paradigm and image!Proclus here subdivides becoming- n order to produce agreement with statements in theProtugorus and Republic - nto four levels: i. image ( E ~ K ~ v ) ,pparently equivalent tosensible form; ii. imitation ( ~ K ~ u T ~ v ) ,natural but derivative thing; iii. manufacturedobject ( ~ e x v q t 6 v ) or example: a bed; and iv. manufactured object ( T E X V ~ T ~ V ) ,orexample: a drawing of a bed. Discourses concerning types i, ii, and iii have probability( ~ o I K E v ~ ~ ) ;hose concerning types ii, iii, and iv involve conjecture(ei~cireiv)!

Regarding words, Proclus explains that the two levels of stable (p6vtpoi) and probable( E ~ K ~ T C ~ )ords correspond to the two levels of things!* However, these must be understoodin relation to a more complex hierarchy. First, among the gods there is the angel of Zeus: aword which, in relation to the intellect of the father, announces the fathers will to thesecondaries; secondly, there is among beings the soul which is the word of the intelligibles(A6yoG TOVvoqzOv) and reveals the unified cause of its own words; and third, among thekinds superior to us there is the angelic order: a word which, deriving its existence from thegods, interprets directly and transmits their ineffability. Because of this hierarchy it isreasonable for our word of things (66e 6 A6yoc 6 TOV~~paypb tov )o be akin to thingsas their offspring so to speak.43

Regarding perceptions-which now appear as a third term between words and things - hesituation is more complex. Here, the Neoplatonic commentator explains that to the two levelsof things correspond sometimes the two levels of intellection (v6qaic) and opinion(66 [a ) , ometimes the two levels of truth(&h48ew) nd belief ( T C C U T I ~ ) , and sometimesthe two levels of knowledge (67ciarljpq)and probable discourse ( ekaToAoy ia ) .Buttruth is further subdivided.u Its highest level is unitary truth: the light proceeding from theGood which supplies purity- according to the Philebus - and unification- according to theRepublic - to the intelligibles. The next level of truth is that which comes from theintelligibles and illuminates the intellectual order: this is received primarily by the substancewithout shape, colour, or tangibility and the plain of truth described in the Phaedrus. Thethird level is truth naturally joined to souls: the truth grasping being through intellection andthe knowable through kn~wledge.~his doctrine of truth which Proclus finds in Plato hastwo major implications: that truth is relative, since what is irrefutable &vdbyKzoc) on thelevel of our soul or understanding is refuted (6AdyXeTat) on the level of intellect or theobject itself;46 and that truth is a continuum, since light from the intelligible fills theintellectual space and light from the intellectual fills the psychic s pa~e.4~elief also is furthersubdivided. On the one hand, there is the mode of perception included in the divided-line of40 Proclus, In Tim. 344.28-345.1.object in his classification.42 Proclus, In Tim. 339.14-16.43 Proclus, In Tim. 341.9-24 (reading h d y o v with Diehl in 1. 15).

Proclus, In Tim. 339.14-16; 1344.28-345.1; 1345.28-346.3.45 Proclus, In Tim. 347.20-348.7.

47 Proclus. In Tim. 347.20-28.

Proclus, In Tim. 343.18-27. Festugikre rightly notes ad loc. that Proclus envisages two levels of manufactured1

Proclus, In Tim. 342.25-343.15.


10/11

152 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATOS TIMAEUSthe Republic. This is essentially an irrational(&Aoyos)knowledge. On the other hand, thereis the mode of perception which the Timaeus contrasts with truth. This is a rational(AoytKfi) knowledge although, in employing sensation and conjecture, it is blended withirrational knowledge (auppiyvurat 6E npbs r&q hA6you< yvcjo~ts).~o whatepistemologicalconclusion does all this lead? That the visible cosmos of Platos dialogue isperceived as a soul characterized by both truth and belief: truth of the third level coextensivewith belief of the rational kind.

In the first book of his commentary on the Timaeus, Proclus has finally to deal, regardingthis Platonic dialogue, with the status of its object as object. In fact, the Neoplatonic writerenvisions three such objects.

The first object is nature (cpduts). As the commentator explains, nature was acontroversial issue among earlier thinkers since Antiphon had identified it with matter andAristotle with form. Plato, however, had placed it between soul and the corporeal andconsidered it as the last of the causes fabricating the corporeal and the sensitive and as thelimit of the realm of incorporeal essences. Like other principles in the Proclean system,nature subsists through participation in a number of levels. It is a god by being divinizedbut not having divinity through itself ( 6 ~ 6 ~..t@ 66 h&&OfiUbat~ a i6, a6z66&v xovoat b d v a t 6 ~ 6 s )a mode of divinity which is also attributed to the heavenly bodies and tothe statues of the gods. To employ the language of the Orphic religion, nature has proceededfrom the life-giving goddess (npoeAfiAubev Qxb tqg Cqoy6vou O.E&C) Rhea. It isalternatively viewed as a third demiurge (6qptoupy65) and as a third demiurgic art(rdxvq 6 q p t 0 ~ p y t ~ f i ) ,he first demiurge and demiurgic art being the Demiurge himself, thesecond demiurge and demiurgic art being the intellectual soul. This doctrine represents areading of certain Chaldaean oracles. Although nature can be defined according to Plato asan incorporeal substance, inseparable from bodies and containing their reasons, not capableof seeing itself (06uia Qa6paro


11/11

STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 153of the encosmic gods5;and the second demiurgy5 which is the work of the encosmic gods- according to the Proclean hierarchy of reality the third level within the hypostasis of soul- and includes the making of individual mortal lives.53 n order to find detailed informationabout these processes one can now benefit from the excellent analyses of Le r n ~ u l d . ~ ~

The third object is binary structure ( ~ u ~ t o t ~ i k x ) .s the commentator explains, astructure extends from the highest-to the lowest level of reality whereby pairs of terms aresomehow both united to one another and have acquired opposite status (K& qvorai TCWCa l l$ .o t s K& kvriberov & l a x & p60tv) .~~he resulting binarities can be understoodaccording to individual levels of being: for example, on the level of the gods the Olympiansare opposed to the Titans, on that of Intellect sameness is opposed to otherness and rest tomotion, and on that of Soul the rational is opposed to the irrati~nal.~~he binarities areunderstood in different ways by different groups of thinkers since the opposition of monadand dyad or of superior and inferior is Pythagorean, that of limit and unlimited goes back toPlato, while that of Ether and Chaos or of Olympians and Titans is or phi^.'^ Moreover, thestructural binarities can be understood according to combinations of levels of being: forexample, in relation to the opposition of incorporeal and corporeal there is within theincorporeal an opposition of more intellectual and more materiate and within the corporealan opposition of celestial realm and realm of be~oming.~roclus finds all this symbolizedin the recapitulation of the Republic and the myth of the Atlantians, the uniting of the pairsof terms being more especially the signified of the former and the opposition of those pairsmore particularly the signified of the latter.59However, the binary structure is an underlyingfeature of the cosmology described throughout Platos great dialogue.University of Notre Dame

51 For the body of the world see Proclus, In Tim. II 5.31-102.3, for the soul of the world In Tim. I1 102.5-316.4, forTime In Tim. 111 1.4-96.32, and fo r the encosmic gods In Tim. III 97.1-199.12. roclus, In Tim. III 199.13-356.28.Zeus production of individual immortal souls.54 S e e especially Lernould, Physique et Th6ologie. bove n. 1.44-5 1.55 Proclus, In Tim. 177.25-80.10.56 Proclus, In Tim. I 174.3-6.57 Proclus, In Tim. I 174.12-22.58 Proclus, In Tim. 178.19-26.59 Proclus is very explicit in relating different parts of the Timueus to different metaphysical objec ts. He maintains thefollowing: 1 . The recapitulation of the Republic, the myth of the A tlantians, and the main cosmology all describe onedemiurgy (In Tim. 172.19-26);2. The recapitula tion of the Republic and the myth of the A tlantians both desc ribe thebinary structu re, although the former is concerned with the unification and the latter with the opposition within thepairs (I n Tim. 178.14-19); 3. It was as right for Plato to describe the production of the world first in its multiplicityand secondly in its unity as it was for him to describe its production first in images and then in paradigms (I n Tim. I79.22-6). Of course, multiplicity and images are associated with the recapitulation and the myth, and unity andparadigms with th e main cosmology. See above, n. 13.

For individual mortal Lives seeProclus, In Tim. 111304.3-356.28. The second demiurgy also includes the Demiurge3

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Volume 46 Issue S78 2003 [Doi...

Documents

Transcript of Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Volume 46 Issue S78 2003 [Doi...