PROCLUS' "COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS" THE PREFATORY MATERIAL

Author(s): STEPHEN GERSH

Source: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, No. 78, ANCIENT
APPROACHES TO PLATO'S "TIMAEUS" (2003), pp. 143-153
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43767937
Accessed: 31-01-2017 01:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies. Supplement

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 PROCLUS' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS
THE PREFATORY MATERIAL

STEPHEN GERSH

Thanks to the recent book by Alain Lernould,1 it seems likely that scholars
philosophy will return to the study of Proclus' Commentary on the Timae
vigour. Lernould has provided us with a careful analysis of the logical stru
Neoplatonic text which goes beyond the annotations in A. J. M. Festugière's e
translation.2 He has also revealed the extent to which Proclus endeavoured
Platonic dialogue as simultaneously a treatise on physics and on theology. Le
Neoplatonic commentary throughout in a rationalistic light. According to hi
of the work is not symbolic but demonstrative and less geometrical than
scientific approach being attested by the manner in which the hypotheses and
inserted by Proclus before the account of the demiurgy and the account of
extrapolated from these hypotheses and demonstrations represent a series
anagogies to the first causes of the universe. The Neoplatonic commentato
inspired by Plato's description of the upward motion from hypotheses to the
in the 'Divided Line', supplementing this teaching with the notion that ea
anagogy returns to the original position with a transformed viewpoint and t
out a course which is neither rectilinear nor circular but spiral in character.
two general conclusions about Proclus' work. The first is that the commenta
rather than 'Pythagorean' in tendency. The second is that the nature of thi
shows that the presumed distinction between Proclean 'exegetical' and 'syste
is unnecessary.
Now one could certainly argue at greater or lesser length with these fin
However, there is perhaps a more immediate need to add a footnote to Lernou
or better: a prefatory note. This concerns the hermeneutic horizon for the read
Commentary on the Timaeus.
Lernould has clearly shown that the commentary for the most part applies a
might be called - in the Proclean senses of these terms - dialectical or demons
the Greek author's comment that whereas the beginning of the dialogue reve
the universe by means of images the middle section of the text instructs u
whole of creation would seem to indicate a contrast between an indirect acc
through images: the prefatory materials of the Timaeus , and a direct accoun

1 Alain Lernould, Physique et Theologie. Lecture du Timée de Platon par Proclus (Villeneuve
2
A. J. Festugière, Proclus. Commentaire sur le Timée , traduction et notes (Paris 1966-8).

Ancient approaches to Plato 's 'Timaeus '

143

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1 44 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

through images: the main body of the work.3 However, a pro

known passage of Proclus' Platonic Theology which states th
of theological exposition: the entheastic in the Phaedrus , the
Parmenides , the symbolic in the Górgias, Symposium , and Prot
Timaeus and Politicus.Ą How are we to reconcile the predomin
extant portion of Proclus' commentary with the apparent a
dialogue with the imagistic mode of exposition? The solution to
the Neoplatonist is referring in the passage of the Platonic Theo
materials of the Timaeus. To the further question why Proclu
on this introductory portion there are perhaps two answers: o
specific. The general point is that it is a feature of exegetical wo
are pagan or Christian and ancient or modern, to attach grea
establishing the hermeneutical framework for reading a text. Pr
to this tendency. This is indicated by the scale of its exegesis
Republic and the myth of the Atlantians which expands to
specific point is that Proclus makes great efforts to argue th
treatise on physics but also a study of theology.5 Theology is
the recapitulation and the myth. Therefore, an approach to th
the prefatory materials to guide the exegesis of the main text wi
of the latter' s more elevated meaning.
For these reasons it will be useful to revisit the first section o
Timaeus. In doing so, I shall arrange my observations under t
systematization albeit one implicit rather than explicit in Proclu
the text qua text of Timaeus' discourse; 2. remarks concerning
object envisaged by the Platonic dialogue; and 3. remarks abo
Timaeus' discourse.

In the first book of his commentary, Proclus has much to say, regarding the Pla
Timaeus , of the status of its text as text. Here, it is important to consider first a c
intertextuality. Plato writes in imitation of Timaeus the Pythagorean6 while the 'dem
Aristotle writes in imitation of Plato to such a degree that one can discover the Perip
doctrines of form, substratum, source of motion, motion, time, and space already in
Timaeus.1 Plato's account of the conflict between the Athenians and the Atlantians pa
Homer's description of the battle between the gods and the Titans, the former represe
a narrative of a sober and political and the latter a narrative of an inspired and pri

3 See below, 146-47.

4 Proclus, Theol. Plat . L4, 17.9-23.11. For a full discussion see S. Gersh, 'Proclus' Theological Method
Programme of Theol. Plat. 1.4', in Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne (Actes du Colloque International de
(13-16 mai 1998) en l'honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Weste rink, ed. A. P. Segonds et C. Steel (Leuven-Par
15-27.

5 See below, 145-46.

6 Proclus, In Timaeum Commentarla , ed. E. Diehl, 3 vols, I (Leipzig 1903) 1.8-16. Cf. 8.21-7.
7 Proclus, In Tim. I 6.21-7.16. Proclus habitually contrasts - in terms of their philosophical authority - the 'divine'
Plato and the 'demonic' Aristotle.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 145

character.8 Moreover, the textual relation between Platonic and other te

by the textual relation within the Platonic corpus itself. Given that philos
a contemplation of the intelligibles and a contemplation of the intramu
Parmenides summarizes the whole intelligible and the Timaeus the wh
teaching, one can establish analogies between the two dialogues. In
everything is related to the One and in the Timaeus , everything to t
Parmenides prefaces theology with an investigation of the Forms, and t
physiology with a contemplation through images. The narrative setting
provided by the Greater Panathenea, and that of the Timaeus by the
These scattered comments on Proclus' part could easily escape the atte
reader intent on disengaging the metaphysical teaching of the Neopla
However, the information provided here is of considerable importance
Timaeus is situated within the history of philosophy between the Pythago
how what we would term a classic philosophical text relates to what we
literary text, and how the Timaeus is situated within a pedagogical ar
Platonic corpus.
When we turn from intertextuality to textuality - ie. to the text of t
considered in itself - we have many more Proclean statements to evalua
to divide the latter into comments regarding the aim of the dialogue, re
division of its text into 'horizontal' segments or into 'vertical' layers, co
the mode of interpretation in relation to its objectivity or its contextualiz
addressing the connotative structure. In the case of the first criterion, w
textual question explicitly formulated by Proclus. The other criteria are
internal. Nevertheless, I believe that they clarify the outline of an implicit
are methodologically consistent with that practice.
Proclus' comments regarding the 'aim' (okottóç) of the Timaeus illustr
principle of later Neoplatonic exegetical theory that each dialogue is mon
For this reason, he is critical of Porphyry's procedure of interpreting th
at the beginning of the dialogue in a more political and the Timaean exp
main body of the text in a more physical manner. Proclus protests: 'i
everything be harmonious with the pre-established aim. The dialogue
ethical' (ôeîv yàp Tep KpoKeiļLievcp okottco Ttávxa auļucpcova eiv
ôiáAoyoç, àXX9 oí>k T|Ôikóç).10 But what precisely is the aim of the
speaking, the answer is to discourse about nature. This intention can be cla
that earlier thinkers in this sphere had distinguished material causes,
accessory causes, but that Plato had supplemented physical theory by discu

8 Proclus, In Tim . I 78.12-80.8.

9 Proclus, In Tim. I 12.30-14.3; I 84.22-85.30.

10 Proclus, In Tim. 1 19.24-29. Cf. 77.28-78.1. For the history of Neoplatonic exegesis of Pl
to the post-Iamblichean tradition which Proclus represents) see: A. J. Festugière, 'M
commentaires de Proclus', Mus. Helv. 20 (1963) 77-100; 'L'ordre de lecture des dialogu
siècles', Mus. Helv. 26 (1969) 281-96; B. D. Larsen, Jamblique de Chalcis. Exégète et ph
1972); J. A. Coulter, The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Ne
E. Lamberz, 'Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars', Proclus. Lecteur et
Actes du colloque international du C.N.R.S., Paris 2-4 oct. 1985 (Paris 1987) 1-20.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
146 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO'S TIMAEUS

the paradigmatic, and the final cause: these being causes in th

(ôiá) the latter, Plato was able to reveal the 'demiurgic intellec
'intelligible cause' (vorļTT) ccixía), and the 'Good' (áyocôó
distinctions of this kind, Plato was further enabled to discour
intellectual, and intramundane gods and to render the whole
intellect and soul' (ôeòç ëvvouç e^iļ/u^og).11 One might conclu
occurred in determining the aim first in a physical and secon
However, Proclus probably intends to safeguard the monoth
Timaeus by stressing the participatory relation between the l
Accordingly, the aim of the dialogue is to discourse about natu
the latter' s relation to the divine. There are several notable in
supplementary theological conclusions in the early part of th
Plato's words 'one, two, three' represent an 'intimation' (ëvôei
divine orders.12
Proclus envisages a 'horizontal' division of the Timaeus as a
A. Revelation of the 'order' (xáÇiç) of the universe 'by mean
the beginning of the text; B. Report of the universal cosmolo
Connection of the 'partial' (xà inepiKá) to the 'wholes' (xoîç o
text.13 This threefold textual structure of beginning, middle,
ontological triple structure of remaining procession, and rever
or specified in that A comprises Aļ the resumption of the disc
the narration of Atlantis; B. the unfolding of the demiurgic,
and C the last phases of demiurgy: the heavenly and the earthly,
from which medicine takes its origins.14 The threefold textual s
according to its signifieds - the types of object described - in
cerned with demiurgy although deals specifically with the 'u
specifically with the 'division' (ôiaípeaiç) of things; treats pa
(oúpávioç) and A2 particularly of the 'sublunary' (ímò oeÀT1vr
with the 'substances' (oúoíai) and A2 specifically with the 'pow
Here, Proclus' sustained recourse to the Pythagorean and Neopl
arrangement of phenomena is quite noticeable. Finally, the th
articulated according to its signifiers - the kinds of figure em
both concerned with the contemplation of parts and images
discourse on the state 'in the manner of an image' (cíkovikôx;)
'in the manner of a symbol' (oi)|LißoA,iKG)<;).16 The doctrine s
three ways. First, the contemplation of parts and images in secti
the contemplation of the whole and paradigms in section B.1

11 Proclus, In Tim. I 1.17-4.5.

12 Proclus, In Tim. I 17.9-15.
13 Proclus, In Tim. 1 4.5-1 1 .

14 Proclus, In Tim. 1 4.1 1-6.21.

15 Proclus, In Tim. 1 4.1 1-26. Cf. 72.19ff. and below 152-53. Cf. 78.12-19.
16 Proclus, In Tim. I 30.11-14. Cf. 54.15-55.9; 130.9-13.
17 Proclus, In Tim. I 206.16-19. Cf. I 30.4-10.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 147

between images and symbols depends upon a greater similarity between sign
signified in the former and a greater dissimilarity between signifier and signified
case, although the Commentary on the Republic makes clear that it is not the
is to be considered for this reason as the superior mode of representation but t
Third, the specific nature of the symbol is indicated by a few examples: the pa
Hephaestus' forge, the shields and spears of the various Olympians, and so fort
Proclus also envisages a 'vertical' division of the entire Platonic dialogue. Thi
1. a quasi-formal level of 'character' (%ocpccKTTļp) and 2. a quasi-mater
'hypothesis' (ímóôeoiç). Regarding 1, Proclus notes that the Timaeus a.
intuitions from the highest causes, b. mixes the 'revelatory' (àTtoípavxiK
'demonstrative' (à7roôeiKTiKÔç), and c. prepares us to understand phys
physically but also theologically. The revelatory aspect of the dialogue is associ
Pythagorean tendency and further specified as that which is mentally eleva
intellectual and the inspired, as that which connects all things with the intelli
which defines wholes in numbers, as that which intimates things symbolically an
as the elevative, and as that which sublates partial intuitions. The demonstrative a
dialogue is associated with its Socratic tendency and further specified as the c
the accommodating, as that which contemplates realities through images, as th
so forth.20 Regarding 2, Proclus notes a. the place and time of the narrative setti
personages who speak in the narrative of the Timaeus. The place is Athens and
day after the conversation about the state. The personages are Timaeus, Hermoc
and an unnamed individual. These components exhibit various analogies with
sphere: for example, Timaeus corresponds to the Demiurge and Socrates toge
Hermocrates and Critias to the triad following the Demiurge, while the redu
number of speakers from six to four to three corresponds to the elevation of the
a more intellectual level. The character and the hypothesis correlate with one
quasi-formal and a quasi-material aspect.21 This is not only shown by Proclus'
of the term 'form' (eîôoç) for the term 'character' (xap<XKTīļp) in the Comme
Timaeus but also suggested by the similar textual-metaphorical analogy in the
Prolegomena to Plato 's Philosophy ?2
Orientation of the mode of interpretation in relation to objectivity is anoth
Proclus' reading of the Timaeus which should be noted. According to the Neop
Atlantis story could be treated as pure history, as pure fiction, or as history w
'images' (eiicóveç) of higher oppositions: either of the fixed stars and the plane
of Amelius - or of higher and lower daemons - the view of Origen - or of high
souls - not attributed to a specific source - or of daemons and souls - the view
- or of oppositions from the One and the Dyad downwards - the view of Iambli

18 Proclus, In Rempublicam commentarii, ed. W. Kroll, I (Leipzig 1899) 77.19-28; 83.26ff., 198.9-2
19 Proclus, In Tim. I 142.14-145.4; 156.16-157.7.
20 Proclus, In Tim. 1 7.17-8.9.

21 Proclus, In Tim. I 8.30-9.24; 20.27-21.8.

Anonymous, Prolegomena in Piatonis Philosophiam , ed. L. G. Westerink (Amsterdam 1962) 5.16

text is reproduced in Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , texte établi par L. G. Westerin
J. Trouillard, avec la collaboration de A. P. Segonds (Paris 1990).

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 48 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

teacher' (ó fijneicpoç KaöriyejLKOv) Syrianus, the final interpret

as correct.23 What is argued concerning the Atlantis story as
Phaethon myth embedded in it. This can be understand
'physically' ((puoiKÔç), or 'philosophically' ((piÀoaocpiKcoç). I
concerns the relation between partial souls and the heavenly
Another aspect of Proclus' reading of the Timaeus is or
interpretation in relation to contextuality. Here, we should
contextuality as the interpretative horizon represented by a sp
passage in the text - for example, the words 'some things, i
understood ethically as a mediation between irony and arroga
the recapitulation of problems, physically as the remaining
reasons, and theologically as the remaining and procession o
instance, we should here note contextuality as the interpreta
specific author, since a central doctrine of the text - for exa
structure - might be understood in an Orphic, Pythagorean,
words, the opposition could be viewed as that between the Ol
the former predominate over the latter. It could also be treated
extended from the highest to the lowest level. The opposition
between limit and infinity in the Philebus.26
Proclus' comments regarding the aim of the Timaeus are u
application of the notion that 'everything is in everything, .
Tiâaiv ... OÍK8ÍCOÇ). This idea is mentioned in the context of
division of reality into intelligibles, mathematicals, and physi
middle and the lower are present paradigmatically in the higher
and the lower present paradigmatically in the middle, and the
iconically in the lower. Application of the notion of appropria
Neoplatonic commentator in Timaeus' employment of mathem
soul's powers.27 However, it is more importantly the basis on
be simultaneously physical and theological.
When we turn from Proclus' remarks about the text as text to those about the relation
between text and object, the fundamentally realist nature of Neoplatonic thought becomes
apparent. In other words, the notion that the structure of the text - in this case the Platonic
Timaeus - reflects the structure of real things begins to prevail. It is perhaps useful to
consider this development initially from four viewpoints: that of the relation between
language and reality in general, that of parallelism between external narrative order and the
metaphysical order, that of parallelism between internal narrative order and the order of
demiurgy, and that of specific instances of the relation between language and reality.

23 Proclus, In Tim. 1 75.30-78.1 1. Cf. I 176.22-177.2.

24 Proclus, In Tim. I 108.14-113.7.

25 Proclus, In Tim. 1 27.22-28.13. Cf. I 8.2-5.
26 Proclus, In Tim. I 174.12-24.

27 Proclus, In Tim. I 8.13-27. For the metaphysical application of this principle in general see Proclus, Elementatio
Theologica , prop. 103, 92.13.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 149

The relation between language and reality in general becomes an issue

where Proclus considers the stylistic technique of applying various terms
At one point, a disagreement between Longinus who held that Plato va
with a view to aesthetic effect and Origen who held that he varied h
purposes of conceptual exactitude is reported. Proclus himself quotes
doctrine of Aristoxenus that 'the dispositions of philosophers extend
tídv (piÀooó(pa)v ôiaôeoeiç âxpi tôv (pôóyyGív ôiaieívouoi) which
the astrological teaching that there are 'clear images of the radiance of i
configurations' (xrjç tg)v voiļoeo)v àyÀaîaç év toîç |LieTaoxr||uaT
èvapyeîç). Moreover, Iamblichus refers the variegation of language to t
by arguing that the Àóyoi occur in various combinations as they desce
soul to nature and to matter.28 A similar argument occurs in at least one
Proclus explains that different spatial allotments can be placed under t
single goddess Athene just as 'it is possible to signify the same things th
sounds' (ôià 7iÀ6ióva)v qxovcov Tà oráxà orļļuaiveoftai ôuvoctóv). This
are images of the things signified by them.29
The notion that there is a parallelism between the external narrative ord
Timaeus , and Critias and the metaphysical order is an important elem
interpretative strategy as a whole. This becomes apparent in considerin
questions. The first question is: why is the narrative time of the Tima
narrative time of the Republic] Given that the origin of the world must p
humanity, one would expect the Timaeus to precede. Proclus' reply is th
are based on real things and that, since the hypothesis of the state is 'in t
jLiovov) whereas that of the cosmos concerns 'things that exist and hav
koci yevó|ieva), the Republic is reasonably placed first.30 The further qu
narrative time of the Critias not prior to the narrative time of the Timaeu
this sequence follows from the order of human life described in the Re
The notion that there is a parallelism between the internal narrative o
and the order of demiurgy is another crucial element in Proclus' interpret
the fact that Critias first refrains from telling the story of Atlantis repre
preparatory arrangement of natures' (oujußoAov zf'ç 7tpoei)Tpe7i;iÇo1u
ico v (pú o eco v). The repetition of the narration by the Egyptian priest, by S
Elder, and by Critias the Younger imitates the reversion to themselv
reasons.32 Moreover, that Critias first describes the war in summary mann
each detail follows from the fact that 'wholeness everywhere precedes
Tîavxaxoû TtporiyeÎTai tôv jaepcov). In short, the unhypothesized stat
Republic - constitutes an imitation of the first demiurgy described in th

28 Proclus, In Tim. I 86.19-87.15.

29 Proclus, In Tim. I 98.29-99.2.
30 Proclus, In Tim. I 200.3-201.14.
31 Proclus, In Tim. 1 201.14-203.10.
32 Proclus, In Tim. I 193.25-194.5.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1 50 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

hypothesis of the Athenians - anticipating the Crítias - represen

demiurgy narrated in the Timaeus .33
As specific instances of the relation between language and re
interpretations of certain phrases in the Platonic text. First, t
Solon.' This phrase has a double significance in suggesting n
measure in what is to be said but also the circulation of all thing
Secondly, there is the word 'briefly' which represents 'a syno
partlessness' (odvotttikòv ïvôaÀjua irjç voepâç aļnepeiag).
the relation between language and reality one could mention Pro
names. Thus, the Athenians are associated in the binary structur
Athene was the leader of the Olympians. The Atlantians are ass
with the Titans because Atlas was a Titan.35
The Neoplatonic realist view of the relation between text an
extensively in a passage from the second book of Proclus' com
commenting upon Plato's teaching that, since words in order t
of things must be 'akin' (^uyyeveic;) to them, the opposition
paradigm and a relatively unstable image must be paralleled b
similarly contrasted modes of discourse, Proclus develops an
concerning the twofold relation between things and words,
threefold relation between things, perceptions, and words -
including further subdivision within the three classes.36
Taking his starting-point from Plato's statement regarding the
Proclus asks why the speaker in the Timaeus found it necessar
his discourse before unfolding the demiurgy. The answer dep
Demiurge first produces the invisible principles of life and
existence, so does Timaeus first apply himself to the contempl
the character of his words to the things.37 A similar point is ma
as the multiplicity of intramundane things arises from the
appropriate number, so does Timaeus' exposition - rendering
himself teaches - arise from the single axiom and the univers
into the discourse.38
However, Proclus' commentary immediately moves from the
to the triplicity of things, perceptions, and words and thereby s
the linguistic with an epistemologica! component.39

33 Proclus, In Tim. 1 196.4-29. Festugière ad. loc. correctly interprets the relation
hypothesis as that between 'la république sans fondement historique' and 'la su
Athéniens'.

34 Proclus, In Tim. I 102.1-10. Cf. 103.13-17.

35 Proclus, In Tim. I 148.25-149.8; 173.15-28.
36 Proclus, In Tim. I 340.15ff.

37 Proclus, In Tim. I 339.21-29.

38 Proclus, In Tim. I 340.16-21.
39 Proclus, In Tim. I 339.14-16.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS ' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 1 5 1

Regarding things, the Neoplatonic commentator notes that Plato sometimes

two levels of being and becoming and sometimes the two levels of paradigm
Proclus here subdivides becoming - in order to produce agreement with stat
Protagoras and Republic - into four levels: i. 'image' (eiicaiv), apparently eq
sensible form; ii. imitation' (cíkocotóv), a natural but derivative thing; iii.
object' (1XXVT1TÓV) for example: a bed; and iv. 'manufactured object' (t6X
example: a drawing of a bed. Discourses concerning types i, ii, and iii 'have
(èoiKévai); those concerning types ii, iii, and iv involve 'conjecture' (eÍKaÇei
Regarding words, Proclus explains that the two levels of 'stable' (iliovijlioi)
(eiKÓxeç) words correspond to the two levels of things.42 However, these must b
in relation to a more complex hierarchy. First, among the gods there is the a
word which, in relation to the intellect of the father, announces the father
secondaries; secondly, there is among beings the soul which is 'the word of th
(Àóyoç TÔv vorļTcov) and reveals the unified cause of its own words; and th
kinds superior to us there is the angelic order: a word which, deriving its existe
gods, interprets directly and transmits their ineffability. Because of this hi
reasonable for 'our word of things' (oôe ó Àóyoç ò lóòv 7tpayļLKraov) to be a
as their offspring so to speak.43
Regarding perceptions - which now appear as a third term between words an
situation is more complex. Here, the Neoplatonic commentator explains that to t
of things correspond sometimes the two levels of 'intellection' (vorļoig
(ôóÇa), sometimes the two levels of 'truth' (aAiļfteia) and 'belief (tuotiç), an
the two levels of 'knowledge' (¿TīiOTTļjuTļ) and 'probable discourse' (eiicaTO
truth is further subdivided.44 Its highest level is unitary truth: the light proce
Good which supplies purity - according to the Philebus - and unification - acc
Republic - to the intelligibles. The next level of truth is that which com
intelligibles and illuminates the intellectual order: this is received primarily by
without shape, colour, or tangibility' and the 'plain of truth' described in the
third level is truth naturally joined to souls: the truth grasping being through i
the knowable through knowledge.45 This doctrine of truth which Proclus fin
two major implications: that truth is relative, since what is 'irrefutable' (àvéÀ
level of our soul or understanding 'is refuted' (éÀeyxexai) on the level of in
object itself;46 and that truth is a continuum, since light from the intellig
intellectual space and light from the intellectual fills the psychic space.47 Belief
subdivided. On the one hand, there is the mode of perception included in the

40 Proclus, In Tim. I 344.28-345.1.

41 Proclus, In Tim. I 343.18-27. Festugière rightly notes ad loc. that Proclus envisages two level
object in his classification.
42 Proclus, In Tim. 1 339.14-16.

43 Proclus, In Tim. I 341. 9-24 (reading Aoytov with Diehl in 1. 15).

44 Proclus, In Tim. 1 339.14-16; 1 344.28-345.1; 1 345.28-346.3.
45 Proclus, In Tim. I 347.20-348.7.
46 Proclus, In Tim. 1 342.25-343.15.
47 Proclus, In Tim. 1 347.20-28.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 152 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

the Republic . This is essentially an 'irrational' (áAoyoç) knowledge.

is the mode of perception which the Timaeus contrasts with tru
(Àoyiicn) knowledge although, in employing sensation and conjec
irrational knowledge' (oujniLAiyvuTai ôè Ttpòç xàç odóyouç
epistemological conclusion does all this lead? That the visible cosm
perceived as a soul characterized by both truth and belief: truth of t
with belief of the rational kind.

In the first book of his commentary on the Timaeus , Proclus has finally to deal, regarding
this Platonic dialogue, with the status of its object as object. In fact, the Neoplatonic writer
envisions three such objects.
The first object is 'nature' ((puoiç). As the commentator explains, nature was a
controversial issue among earlier thinkers since Antiphon had identified it with matter and
Aristotle with form. Plato, however, had placed it between soul and the corporeal and
considered it as the last of the causes fabricating the corporeal and the sensitive and as the
limit 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 divinized
but not having divinity through itself (ôeòç ... tco ôè BKÙeoûoûai Kai oí)K aúióôev e^ouaa
to eivai ôeóç) - a mode of divinity which is also attributed to the heavenly bodies and to
the statues of the gods. To employ the language of the Orphic religion, nature 'has proceeded
from the life-giving goddess' (TrpoeÀ^Àuúev arcò Trjç Çooyóvou ôeâç) Rhea. It is
alternatively viewed as a third 'demiurge' (ôruuioupyóç) and as a third 'demiurgic art'
(T8XVT1 ôruuioupyiicn), the first demiurge and demiurgic art being the Demiurge himself, the
second demiurge and demiurgic art being the intellectual soul. This doctrine represents a
reading of certain Chaldaean oracles. Although nature can be defined according to Plato as
'an incorporeal substance, inseparable from bodies and containing their reasons, not capable
of seeing itself (oúoía áocojuonroç, àx<opiOTOÇ ogojucćtgw, Àóyouç sxovoa aÚTÔv, eiç
eauTTļv ópâv oi) ôuva^evri), the fact that its more divine aspect had been noted by Orphic
and Chaldaean texts is of great importance to students of the Timaeus. On this basis, the
reading of the dialogues must be simultaneously physical and theological.49
The second object described by the text of the Timaeus is the 'demiurgy' (ôruLUOupyía)
itself. The commentary on this description extends to many pages and Proclus understands
the production of the cosmos as divided into two phases: the first demiurgy50 which is the
work of the Demiurge Zeus - according to the Proclean metaphysical hierarchy the third
member of the first triad in the hypostasis of Intellect - and includes the making of the body
of the world and the making of the soul of the world together with the fashioning of Time and

48 Proclus, In Tim. 1 346.3-347.2.

40
Proclus, In Tim. I 10.5-12.25. Cf. In Tim. 1 8.9-13. For Proclus' mapping of the spiritual world on the basis of
religious texts see L. Brisson, 'Proclus et l'Orphisme', Proclus. Lecteur et Interprète , above n.lO, 43-104; and 'La
place des Oracles Chaldaïques dans la Théologie Platonicienne', Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne , above n.4,
109-62.

50 Proclus, In Tim. 1 355.16-458.1 1.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STEPHEN GERSH: PROCLUS' COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS 1 53

of the encosmic gods51; and the second demiurgy52 which is the work of
- according to the Proclean hierarchy of reality the third level within th
- and includes the making of individual mortal lives.53 In order to find d
about these processes one can now benefit from the excellent analyses o
The third object is 'binary structure' (ouotoixicc). As the commen
structure extends from the highest to the lowest level of reality whereby
somehow both united to one another and have acquired opposite status'
aXXr'Xoi(ļ Kai àvriôexov èXa%e (púaiv).55 The resulting binarities c
according to individual levels of being: for example, on the level of the g
are opposed to the Titans, on that of Intellect sameness is opposed to ot
motion, and on that of Soul the rational is opposed to the irrational.56
understood in different ways by different groups of thinkers since the op
and dyad or of superior and inferior is Pythagorean, that of limit and unli
Plato, while that of Ether and Chaos or of Olympians and Titans is Orph
structural binarities can be understood according to combinations of l
example, in relation to the opposition of incorporeal and corporeal the
incorporeal an opposition of more intellectual and more materiate and wi
an opposition of celestial realm and realm of becoming.58 Proclus finds
in the recapitulation of the Republic and the myth of the Atlantians, the u
of terms being more especially the signified of the former and the oppo
more particularly the signified of the latter.59 However, the binary struct
feature of the cosmology described throughout Plato's 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 I
Time In Tim. Ill 1.4-96.32, and for the encosmic gods In Tim. Ill 97.1-199.12.
52 Proclus, In Tim. HI 199.13-356.28.
53 For individual mortal lives see Proclus, In Tim. HI 304.3-356.28. The second demiurgy als
Zeus' production of individual immortal souls.
54 See especially Lernould, Physique et Theologie, above n.l, 44-51.
55 Proclus, In Tim. 1 77.25-80.10.
56 Proclus, In Tim. 1 174.3-6.
57 Proclus, In Tim. I 174.12-22.

58 Proclus, In Tim. 1 78.19-26.

59 Proclus is very explicit in relating different parts of the Timaeus to different metaphysica
following: 1. The recapitulation of the Republic , the myth of the Atlantians, and the main cos
demiurgy {In Tim. 1 72.19-26); 2. The recapitulation of the Republic and the myth of the Atlan
binary structure, although the former is concerned with the unification and the latter with t
pairs (In Tim. I 78.14-19); 3. It was as right for Plato to describe the production of the worl
and secondly in its unity as it was for him to describe its production first in images and then
79.22-6). Of course, multiplicity and images are associated with the recapitulation and the
paradigms with the main cosmology. See above, n. 13.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms