PROCLUS’ COMMENTARY ON PLATO’S PARMENIDES eee Translated by GLENN R. MORROW and JOHN M. DILLON with Introduction and Notes by JOHN M. DILLON PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 1987CCopyeight © 1987 by Princeton Univesity Press pubis by Princeton Unisunty Press, inns Ste Prince, New Jersey 08540 Inthe United Kingdom: Uritcesom University Press, Oford Aus Rts Reserve Library of Congres Cataloging in Publication euind om the lst prince page of cis book. 1ST 9-69107505-8 ISDN 0-691-12089-2 GbE) willbe ‘ise Princeton Paperbace printing, with crsections 1992 “This hook his Been compose in Linatron Lembo Prinecton Univesity Press books are printed on acibtee paper hed mest the guides Tor permanence and Surat Wiehe Comimicte on Production Guietines att urthe Coun on Library Rrsoress tor Book Lon Printed inthe United States of America a579 ms os? UXORI DILECTISSIMAECONTENTS PREFACE ix CERERAL INTRODUCTION xt |. Lie and Works, with a Brit Inroduction ko Proce’ Philosophical Sse xi B, Previous Commentary on the Pameudes mah CC. The Place ofthe Parmenides Conte in Prachi’ Werk soexiy 1D. The Problem of the ity Lago of Zena Sexvill E, Previous Flitions and Translations xii NOTE ON THE PRESENT TRANSLATION xlv Book |. Introduction 3 Commentary 19 Book Il. Introduction 3 ‘Commentary 101 Book Ill. Introduction 145 Commentary 157 Book IV. Introduction 195 Commentary 210 Book V. Introduction 324 Commentary 332 Book VI. Intreduction 385, Commentary 400 Book Vil. Introduction 474 Commentary 492 Brsuiocrarny 60s INDEX OF PROPER NAMES a) SUBJECT INDEX ou INDEX OF PLATONIE PASSAGES atePREFACE In 1973, Glenn Morrow, Adam Seybort Professor Emeritus of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, died, while srl] rather less than half way through a translation of Proclus’ Commentary om the Parmenides. He had published the Commentary om the First Book of Euclid in 1970 and had plainly developed in his retixement a taste for the tortuous ramifications of Proclus' style and thought. Charles Kahn of the University of Pennsylvania, Morrow's literary ex- ecutor, asked me if would be willing to complete the work, Laccepted the task without much though, although I had various other comunit~ ‘ments, since I ele that it would be a good excuse to give a close reading toa work that might otherwise be tempted to avoid. The consequence ‘was ten years of hard labour (though with many interruptions), the re- sults of which I present to the world with relief not unmixed with trepidation. [Nicholas of Cusa is said co have valued Proclus’ Conmentary on the Parmenides above all other books (the Sacred Scriptures, we trust, apart), and it has been 2 major influence on many other thinkers, both inthe Greck East, and later, through William of Moerbeke's translation (probably done in the 1280s), in the Latin West, The roll call begins ‘with Damascius and “Dionysius the Areopagite,” includes such figures as Aquinas, Ficino and Pico, and may best be seen, perhaps, as ending with Hegel’ and Schelling ‘As usefidl interpretation of Plato’s Pannenides, the Commentary be- gan to be dismissed in the last cencury, as the new critical approach t0 Plato began to take effect. [ present it here, not primarily 2s an exegesis of Plato’s text (though from time to time Proclus” insights are useful, = atleast challenging), but rather as a monument of Neoplatonic met- aphysics, disguised, as so much Neoplatonic philosophy is, in che form of commentary. Thave been enormously helped in the preparation of this translation By the unstinting aid provided by Prof. L. G, Westerink of SUNY Buf lo, who patiently checked every page of t and provided a host of cor- Fections, often involving brilliant emendations of the text. For access te William of Moerbekc’s Latin translation, and for miany fenitiul sug- {sstions over and above it, well as much enjoyable discussion of the Problems, 1am greaily indebted to Dr. Carlos Steel of the University ch ines: Lae’ praise of de Permnides Commenter, in hin Volenen herd ie der Phionphie 1 (Wephe, 24 oh, ol. XIV. p26). and Phoenomenoloi fer ts price. wh I, p53. : iPREFACE of Lonvain, who is currently completing an edition of the Latin xt, he fst volume of which has aleady appeared,? with the second :0 39> Peach: Cons re are ean Tato Cao To tS TET Levnen de Moarete GENERAL INTRODUCTION A. LIFE AND WORKS, WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO PROCLUS' PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM I do not propose to devote much space to 4 survey of Proclus’ career and philosophical position, since ehis has been done adequately else~ ‘where, not least by Glenn Moreow in his introduction to Prochus’ Eu clid Commencary, which may be regarded 28 a companion volume to this,! but for the convenience of the reader something should be said Lire Proclus was born in Constantinople, of a prosperous Lycian family from Xanthos, on February 8, 4.0. 412.? His father, Patricius, a aw- yer, was there on business at the time, bue returned shorty afterwards to Xanthos, where Proclus received his basic education. [tis plain that Proclus’ parents were staunch pagans (Marinus describes them as “out- standing in virtue,” /P6) andit is interesting to observe how relatively ‘comfortably Patricius operated in the empire of theodosaus Il (408~ 450), {As soon as was reasonable (perhaps in his mid-teens), bis father sent Proclus to study in Alexandria, with 2 view to his following bim into the lexal profession. There he lived with a prominent sophist, Leonas, ‘who introduced him into the roling circles of Egypt including Theo dorus, the governor at the time. At some point around year 430, Leonas was sent by the governor on.a mission to Constantinople and took the young Proclus with hima eo continu his studies, Poclus was a this stagc, it seems, already inclining to philosophy rather than law, BE extisopl she sera hat conc tone tornat dees: about his future, which Marinus piously attributes to che influence of Athena (VPS), but which may be more plausibly ascribed to the ex- 1 SfSass the accounes of RT. Wali, in Neplstonion ch = nts of T. Walls, in Molson, ch 5, A.C: Lloydin ch. 190 smn Hisry ofr Grckand Early Vent Feespiy, and Salter and Wee Shae (a Btroduion to vol 1 of their Bude ection ofthe Hetone Tho Tae Tesne LJ Rosin, The Pilrphy of Proxks, is sil usta Excelent sho SOM SAE te "Proth” Hana SI 0957p ele eat ‘most exclusive srurce for Procas fe ste hagogzaphical biography of his ne suc ae Refotted uscissor as head of che School) Maris. Marinas scully gireree Bolas = “alt P38) and this ancxac date for Ms birth. Manin tlle slo that he died 45 (124 yeas from aceesnom of Jann So, Brocus in way chaste ston philwopers all aly noctng about hiaucGENERAL INTRODUCTION JF meeting students and professors of philosophy who bad Js of Athens, On his rerum to Alexandria, be beet Jed tn the leerres ofthe Aristotelian Olympiodons nd not long cere ards, becoming, dissatisfied with the approach 10 philosophy he aperienced in Alexandcs, st sain 43 or 431 for Athens in search of deeper truths Phat hs father had co szy about tis is nor recorded by Marims, but tdets not seem that his allowance was cut, so we may asumee paternal food wil, Once arived in Athens, he attached himself othe Matos Baieo) of Syrianus and the aged Plutarch, and made an excelent Impression. Plutarch bad offically zetired, but agreed co read AS ese dima an Plato's Pado withthe young man, and even took ak b colive with him. No commentary by Proclus en either of these vim Survives, but Pletarch apparently urged him co write up bis worm i ther sessions, so this carly experience probably had consid rable influence on his dectrine of the soul hfher Plutarch's death two years ater, Procius moved in with Syn anes and in the next two years worked through the whole of Arion art hum (VP 13), and following on that, the works of Plato, Sino Ntosinus emphasises that he went through Plto “in proper order," We aan Think, that Syranus observed someting ke the Tbh aay dtjacnce of ten dialogues. beginning with rhe Alcibiades 1 and caging withthe Philebus, followed by the ro “summit” of PloHte philosophy, the Timaeus and the Pomenides ‘This admiticdty would pot provide for either the Repsblicorthe Laws, which Marinas in P= ot geoures us that he studied 2s well, so space was found for chem ter 14 ashes gome age. Marini also tells us that by the age of wee aoseocetn, after abont ight yeos of residence in Adiens, Prods Ng eemaposed a commentary on the Tieaews, “and many other 1A wae eo re problems of dating which eis statement involves a weed below nszet-C). By the time ofthe Timzeus Commentary SI to judge from the past tenses in wbich, ‘anus would appear to have died, Prattas consistently refers to his views. The generally agreed date of Syrians’ death is “c. a.D, 497," hough the evidence snot 7 defic Sant sec know (om Marinus, V7 26)is that, after the complete a ae Dlavonie studies, Syriamus propesed to Proclus, and fo 0 fe ce ee omnis, that he expound to them either the O=BH owas oF the Chaldacan Crave, as being the ultimate repostens of FMtological wisdom, but Procivs and Domnitus could nor oB828 3 to crepe, wanted to read, and Syrianus died shorly afterwards Hi ey em to have succeeded tothe headship ofthe Patonie perience of been through the school Prod. fe Ale UAL, and Ani, Pre, Plat Piioephys We also find in some of his works 2 cendensy © clevace orc Logos into something lke a Further hypostasis 208 3 tendency t© separsee a higher and a lower Soul (he lower Being Nature), but in general Plotinus resists ¢ thing he as sociates with Gnostic Wo Jye multiplication of entitics, som olly-mindedness (Er. 0.9.1) i eft many questions ope or his successors, and ePS ally shoo, with Tomblichas, Neopltonim becomes one ofa ain a well, the desee ro accommodate the mulKinds ot ‘uaditional tend not-sotraditioal) deities, as wel as entities 250 feom the Cand ot ecules and he Orphic wrtings,togeter, wih 2 PR Seager to Ain the gaps in Ploina’wriverss Te #22 ‘mold plicity of elaborations. Some Basic Principles Despite its appearance of Byzantine statficso" and complexit Proclus’ philosophy is a dynamic system, @ system ‘postulating contin- pre decal motion, and we should therefore begin by SamnEC BO basic Las governing the being ofthe ineligible and in- deed of the sensible, world. “The Deviation of Maps for» Uity an hat exists,” states proposition 11 ofthe Elen of PHONED proceeds from 3 single Bist cause.” This principle then elaborated: on below .co they severally jase of all existing things, when ‘and otlaers more “There is a first ca ‘a root, some near to it proceed as branches from remote. “The basie problem ‘with which all Neoplatonic speculation ceil row Plotinus on, is how 4 mullplicity, and Woe. uli pliciey of levels of being, can derive from 2 rouilly transcendent and Ejmple One. Plotinus had propounded the theory cof undiminis Sivmngby thc One, teimage of theinexhaussbIssPee ‘which creates Fag affected by cxcation e-§ Bat. V. 3.12100 8 10). The Wifverse thus produced from the Onc ia plenum which no gap ea ee tee, Eon Ul, 9.3). From lamblichus ony 3 Ha said, dois principle leads €o a progressive multiplication ‘of entities—not of Y= "4. Armtrong inbisbook, The achiegae of + A tension wel esribed by A. Se tere, 194) (ene. Haklert, 195M edtgble Unsere te Peden Sp de. 13. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ‘realms remains, but of moments within ach ee tata fies in space, leave no vacuum, but everywhe oo terms between extremities, which provide fe ane. ae sieseiess ieee eae ide for them a mutual linkage" Relations of Conses and Efers cause brings into existence th Pee eee ‘tence things like co itself befor ET fects, another subject of basic importance for Proclus* yovein. This 5 read in this connection.’ The first principle 6) is that ‘every cause properly so-called id Perea ta skein senile tmnt ins ct nde ome etn are in their canses, as we shall see) must caus sro nbitvanvall oe elimi nctohe on eran esc: ios eel by poli Se Boi preduced bs eon ae epee ich the secondary were themselves derived” ee both operates pric ae Duh prs porcini ghee ee Pecans Si ‘The idea is that the efficacy of the high : GE tetlned or nine ps fo nsec eo joul}, but extends on down thr : Wofthse podics and acuaiy eyo to oases cae by Feeiimedies roy, Ths mean ane res ie tek el ane tt Waters depend or ex Tile News cubexstence, more accurately) onthe One a Percent ise of being for inanimate objects, Soul GeBPet cmon le PUL 6 wc lnd nce werk our oe Gap Seco eboans ofthe One thetic moms Bolg BPersss of Noung, ia Inele el Oy ei of his Elements of Theology), The docts hire iaprie| a Bice 2 eae. 216, commenting on ET eiapalics SS - BP 25-746 guodonmentor Pork tory of wilGENERAL INTRODUCTION an ingenious application at In Parm, 69158, to the relations among Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates yal Creativity ‘While causes are not affected by their effects, every effect both Pro~ ceeds from its cause and is implicit init, As we lear in EY, prop. 30: All hat is immediately produced by any principle both remains in the producing cause and proceeds from i.” Further, prop. 31 els us, “All ite proceeds from any principle reverts ip respect of its Being upon that from which it proceeds.” ‘These propositions, and those that fol- Jew (32-39), express the doctrine of cyclic creativity, enunciated by Plotinus in such passages as V, 2.1 or V1, 5.7, and thereafter basic to Neoplatoniam. Werner Beierwaltes makes this te chief theme of his reat work, Proklor: Groudzige seiner Metaptysi,* and bei ight co do See The cyclic process of est n the causal principle, procession from it snad reversion cowards it (107), rpiotos, Emrpogr) governs all activity ‘both in the intelligible and in the physical worlds. The original rest i. one’s eanse is a state of potentiality (éivayis) which cam also be viewed srthe cause’s potency (these two senses of Bérayus are combined in Neoplatonic thought) while both procession and reversion are required before actuality (Bvépyeta) is achieved. Procession alone would result tly an mdefiniteres; an cutiy fixes its csence only through reflecting, tnckcon its cause. The cause has thus a double fanction, both producer “ofthe effect and goal of perfection for it. The process of émworpode is exceedingly complex, as every lesser cause is simultaneously acting 38 She goal of ies own product's reversion and is engaged in reversion tipon its oven cause, and allare ultimately everting upon the One °A particular Feature ofthis cyclical process of causasion 3s the doe trine of causal series or ‘chains" (wexpad) of entities on different levels of being dependent on a single cause. ET, prop. 21, declares: “Every Seder (rigss) has its beginning in a monad and proceeds ¢9 2 stale plicty (wipes) co-ordinate therewith; and the auleplicity in any ¢F= er may be carried back voa single monad”; and prop. 97:""The origin ‘case of each series (veo) communicates is distinctive property (Gur) the entire sores; and what the cause i primarily the sents aie poedinate degrees (nab ipeot).” Every cntcy, in fat is in the ‘Shain’ of some henad, To anticipate slightly, in later Neoplatonism: beginning with lamblichus, dhe realm of the One ras enriched With Paiplcty of rather contradictory-rounding entities called hers viele served as dhe Supra-inteligible, but parecipated, fxst principles MPT asses of being, ‘The traditional Platonie Forms arc upstaged by ‘ tonceraann, Frankfurt m Min, 1965, GENERAL INTRODUCTION these new entities, since the Forms are intellecs, and thus not suff Gh er pl pen sla tse comes strangely cluttered, in the interests of logic and the princi plenicade : ee "The corollary of prop. 21 és worth quoti h quoting i extenso, I think, since it gives conspectus of how Proclus sees individual entities teach level of being relating, first, co the monad of their own realm, and then to what is above them , From this it is apparent that in the nature of body unity and plus Mie ca ich a:manner sharate one Naniec tas the vag natures dependent from it, and, conversely, these are derived from done Nature, that of the whole; that the Soul-order, originating from one primal Soul, descends roa manifold of souls and again Caries back the manifold othe one; that intellective essence be- Tongs an intellective monad and a manifold of intelligences pro ceeding from a single Intelligence and reverting thither; that for the One which is prior (all things there isthe manifold of the Scns nd for te bemas he upward esi inking them wit the One, Ths thers ae boas consequent upon the primal One igences consequent on the primal Intelligence, souls conse~ quent on the final Soul, and a plurality of natures con: the universal Nature. die re Proclus makes use of this de Pros ¢ ofthis doctrine of pluraites ruled over by monads tear the beginning ofthe Paredes Commentary, at 20 sas using Petmenids' dete o the One. The mona of eb evel hs fon t0 its own taxis of reality analogous to that of the Onc to whole of reality (cE PTH, 5, pp. 38.37. 8-W). cai ea Panicipation Related to thi 5 this process of cyclic creativity is the di cited to th is the distinction betweea Pamiciputed’ (eedearés) and ‘unparticipated’ (@y0exron) 25 ea Sa tpbestsss. The primal monad ofeach level of reali spi Banztde Oneitself is unparcicpated’ ris a "whole-befo (Ayer x ron), {cE BT, prop. 67), whi IPated in by the indi tllects or souls), All ated in by ehe entices tntellece itso the ine! ther hand, ie partic y, beginning megotis witht Goat a ae ‘participated’ moment, as being partic- Higble ond, mnt so perdipted On theGENERAL INTRODUCTION hhenadic realm) and indeed can be seen as the lowest element of that fealm, ET, prop. 23, is a basic statement of this relationship. 1t lays “Town that “all that is mnparticipated produces out of itself che partici- pated, anda participate levels ofan hypostass ae inked by upward tension ro unparticipated entities.” “The complexities of this relationship have recently been well dis= cussed by A. C. Lloyd in a paper, “Procession and Division in Pro Sjon” The motive for making this distinction between unparticipated: hd participated is to preserve the transcendence of higher entities, while allowing for the processes of cceation. The extreme realism of Proclus" philosophical position leads to his postulation of distinct en Ean bypostasis, but things become tities answering to each aspect of afterall, Allof Proclus’ triadic clearer if we think of them as just aspe cconstnsctions are also unites “The three moments of the hypostasis of Nous are illustrated vividly rear the beginning of the Parmenides Commentary (Bock 1, 628.10) where Parmenides, Zeno and Socraics are likened, respectively, to the ‘anpartieipated and divine Intcllece, ‘participated Iruellec’ and ‘paric= tls intellect’ (.. the individual intellect as participant in the generic Intellect), Other important passages arc 745.40-746.20; 1041, 20-30, and 1069.23-1070.15. Poremility-Actalty (Dyvamis-Eversi) “This pair of concepts, as mentioned above, is involved with those of Canad and effect. and procession and return, Svroqts I have rendered ‘potendality’, but (again, a8 mentioned above), the idea of powet OF povency i plesent ini, as well s the more strictly Ansrorlin Om. Sept The One, Fora start, i Plots’ doctrine, # the bivanes 29r0 (Gin. V_ 1.9.9, eT, 8.10.1) n the sense both of potentahity 208 BP Plotinus elsewhere makesa clear distinction between the tency, though : relive potency ofthe One abd the passive povency of Mater (Ee. My he S15 20ff), la this latter passage, Tarellec is presented as évényrt gernalisation of the One's potentiality. “All chis 3s naturally taken over by Proclus, dough in an important passage, PTIIL 9, p.31.14fE, he exempts the One itself even fromm the possesion of potoney, assigning peimal potency to the Limit of the Poslebun, which he sces.as a sccond One. Dynanis and energela rama Pe are pencipes ofthe Peoclne universe, At ET, prop: 7p aoe the anions, "All that exists potentially is advanced to 2ctuaHel by the agency of something which is acully wbat the other BO ally he basic Arstovclian “chicken-before-egg” principle iow Necplatonically. The being (sie) of causal principle implies i Po GENERAL INTRODUCTION tency, and its potency must come to actulisation. Dynamis occ fpand vais “This will slice, Tthink , a6 a conspectus of the basic concepts wit Bei Precis opcrter wiki mike lg wares go cousn ao ts speak. Let us tura now toa brief survey of the components of that uni- verse The Hypostases The One and the Honadic Reals tn hi dain ofthe Ons, the Athnin Scho and Pro Pf treat om an innovation brought m by Tamblichus ta aolve Be cblean of the tesion already presencia iSiaisi span tees fie One a5 oeally simple and transcendent and the One's the souree of Allbeing lamblichus cut the Gordian Knot by postulating ewe Ones, the fist completely umpamezble (and thus unrelated to anything fol: Toming if, the second tll “anconnected tothe trad (ofthe nowtic rnp 8.1 p63.) via roclus actually atacks sucha in EI Q roe aconeeptin ET, prop. 20; “Beyond the {te no the rp fo Geen ie a Gos that is therefore the frst principle ofall things, a hss been shown (prop. 12, The Ones both fra an fil nus of te oe mosh capac ts the Cond Baro.) Any thes ualifcaton would diminish tax Plotnas ayn EM 8.1 Al Bs springs from the One a fst cane (ET prop. 1) Gneness in general sha which hols together every level of exineneo—and lual—and gives it form. Good feuth may be found at Jn Pann fone duties chips miei ba MOS andin chefs recaps has becn said above, hovwev De eat se mess he Ons not ane ia se ere ee eine (321) ana multpheryefbawis” so sei Bamblichean development chat the Athenian School did 2d Teghe Petition of dyad ofantthetial prin, TinkandLine Bei conan tate Rar ang ft Tm. 7 Dillon). Ae ET, prop. 90, Prcis declares: stay auf compost flinitand fins there ene ate es cadets he prima Lint andthe pana Lin iple over the Following five propositions.GENERAL INTRODUCTION PT Ul, 9. This dyad must be prior to ‘There is also a full discussion at 10 the extent that they the benads, since they partake of Limitessness are multiple (cf. BT, prop. 159). “The henads themselves arise from an application of the law that a cause must produce what is most like itself before anyehing else, the jaw of plenitude. Being multiple, they form a bridge between the One gndallnuliplicity. They are participated entities. which the One is not, aad form appropriate surmunits forall ‘chains’ (sera) of beings (cf, In Par, VI, 1043.54). They arc narthemselves, of cours, intellets. but the aes Of the noctic realm are present in chem “causally” (ka airiae). ‘The henads are necessarily more unified than intellects (cf. In Tim. Mh 12-2347}, and yet each isan individual in some mysterious way. There is asort ofhicrarchy among thera of more and less universal ones (ET, prop. 136), though presumably withous their being divided into genera ire limited in number (prop. 149), and equal to the tents which participate in them (prop. 135). They sense of “pre-intelligence” (ET, and species. They number of real exist exercise pronia in the etymologisin prop. 120), but also, i seems, in the normal sense (prop. 122). hey provide a place, above the level of Intellect, to situate the gods of e- Fdonal religion, and they can all be referred to as theo “The doctrine of henads is mad= more complex by the fact shat Pro- cus provides for lenads at every level af bring, noctic, noeti-nectie, oer, psychic, and so on (ET, props. 151ff.) but these must be secs as just peinciples of uniy within cach hypostass(anonads), not bets in the strict sense ‘The fullest presentations of the doctrine ace ology, props 113-165, and Platonic Theology I chs. 1-6, Both Dod seey ermnmentary on the former (esp. PP. 257-260), and Saffrey abd Westesink, an their Introductien to the latter, give very helpfil expo sitions of bath the history of the dectrine and its comp! sur in the Elements of The- Nous ‘Already lamblichus had divided the Plotinian hypostasis of No re eligible” and an ‘incllectual’ Tevel (ebopos rowns. moepia} ineih tadically subdivided (see Procius’ account of this at fa Tit tain that appendix 308.184; also Appendix C of my lemblichi Fragment rake suggewted Chara noctcnoeri level sould be aswuned fem {ako sage find that an onnecesary specslation). Syrians aid Hae peljtled out this scheme furthee by producing 2 three-fold dit sorting the “atcllgible-inellectual’(vonrs ead repos) rele Som me ous ewo again, 1 application. ofthe prieiple Of Planitade. Each of thes levels is divided ino ‘moments, there erent astrocture, variously named to answer to differenseneities GENERAL INTRODUCTION cconed by Syrianus in the Second Hypothesis oft thesis of the Parmenies, which Fe lo connina deo stictyporaiuo? an nal omplenity (see below, p. xxi), but broadly answering tothe pattern Seen wir, or mavip ~ Bivcuas-- Evlpye, Books IU-V of the = pysia. Books Ill-V of the Platonic Theology are largely taken up wi : Fa ogy ate largely taken up with che discussion of these Ail this proliferation takes its start from the di from the distinction in aspects o Nous fist exablished by Plosous (fe Ew. 6,20, 420,60), but never formalised by him, though it was later by Posphyry and lam- blichos. For the Athenian School, the moments of Being Life, and Mind predominate variously deoughout the hypostais, each gener= sing respon el he tan bg oes shall of mitrors. There ate thice triads of intelligible-intelleceaal gods and hebdotnad ofintellecnal ones all sen by Syrianasas mentioned he Fisstand Second Hypotheses ofthe Permenies (cf below, xe), Sax Peamore ont tc dicta een the Unpeded Monad of Nous, its participated levels, and finally its smandfestado panipaion” ache next evel of Sou : ites 1 Platonic figure of the De jeniurge similasy suffers eriadic proli eration. There is a demiurgic level of being ( ii) te, ope), ands Gor of the demiunges or demiag id, wh resides over it and over the “demiurgie gods" (Whough the Demiatge ea ae fe ricerca eae ithe ems on Tin 280 (99-319) whic nce al su ef TE .Or she presen purposes that the role of he demiuric evel of ' ransmit the Forms of the noctie reali to S lature and the physical cosmos. A Pasa eee most interesting application of Pro- of demiurgic a Bischof Semioric acon so be found att Porm TV, ee in the introduction to that book) ‘ing (the intellectual realm Once a henad), and pre sin the poychic re pst Di Sul ih at pecapa n Nose Mees uucndny over sa ne Lene Te Ahura Pci comsto dacs Sages itll we intro Patton sac sn ans nipofamis nb lar ow hy aan fin Git mentioned eat, in prop. 164 There we Duar Op te niron hn, boeco tees sod itsmanecat World Soul, as well a frou indvidaalGENERAL INTRODUCTION “These latter are arranged in an elaborate hierarchy of angelic, dae- moni¢ and heroic, human and finally irrational levels, all dependent on their proper divine henad, in the sense of being ints ena, or chain. The ilstinction of these levels of being, and of thosc in the realm af Nous, fs relevant to the protracted discussions of Books Il] and 1V of the Par- snenides Commentary of the various levels at which the Forms manifest themselves, For the details sce the introductions to those books. Pro- lus, of course, adopts the Platonic Theary of Ideas in the form in ohich it was bequeathed to him, of which he gives us a useful account atthe beginning of Book IV (837-853) ‘Other than this, Prochus’ views on the lower levels of Being, Soul, Nature, and Matter, and the multifarious beings contained in them, are not relevant to a study of the Parmenides Commeniary, which is con= femed only with the henadic and noetic realms. Soul and Nature are move the concer of the Tirsaeus Commentary. A description of them ‘vould, I think, unnecessarily lengthen this survey. Readers anxious for Trore derail should turn to Beurler’s excellent RE article, “Proklos,” fo ‘whieh I am much indebted in this brief account. Discussions of particular aspeets of Proclns’ philosophy relewant 0 the Parmenides Commentary may be found in the introductions to indi- vidual books. Lwould draw ateention here to the following: in Book I fis allegorical method (pp. 5-7); in Book I, the structure of dhe salam fof Forms (pp. 94-98); in Book Ill, arguments for the exiscence and ma SOF what things are there Forms?” (pp. 145-156); in Jars in Forms, together with disens don of various levels of Form (pp. 195-209); in Book V, dialectic, and in particular “Parmenidean” dialectic (pp. 325-331); in Book Vis ‘the number and subject matcer of the hypotheses of the Panmenides i wolving a conspeets ofthe stracear of Procs" universe and those of iis predecessors (pp. 385-390); and in Book VIL, the detailed stmcrurs of the hypostasis of Nous—a subject more proper to. commentary 09 the Second Hypothesis, but appropriate (negatively) here (pp. 47 Sp) Tecan be seen fiom this survey how the Parmenides and the BT seoes (which is concerned with the Soul and all below i6) cowld Be {ken by Neoplatonists to cover, complementariy, the whole g2mll of existence, ‘ture of Forms— Book LV, participation of particy! B PREVIOUS COMMENTARY ON THE PARMENIDES he Commentary (630.15-645.8) Proclus himself, in the Preface to th tation of the Par givesa schematicaccount of the history ofthe interpe GENERAL INTRODUCTION snenides which theres no reason to contradict, He does not present ic as {roca sicrson, buts cy undead ch? “The eathest interpretation of the dinlogue!” was that it was a logical es poled repr in ce ati on ie Zenen uthod of argument, to be compared in this to the parody on Protag- se Jocrine in the Thsseus This inverpreavon i dtnguished Fomone, which we find zepresented in Albinus (Lagoge, ch. 3; Dida- sao and Thy ay og, Ter 389), ih regard it asa logical exercise witha positive, edveational purpose Ie is poss Bete there fer erpceon we that ofcic New hod eo would have found the Parmeter, on thet imerpectaion, a A esr scien for eeachiig dheie of detieuctive argument, rena they found the Theetevsa seful source documeat fora skep- tial theory of knowledge.” But thre is wo question of any New Acc fuemic writing » commentary on the dials cia | When the Platonic School zsturned to dogmatism with Antiochus Fe ciation ofthe Parmeniderneust have altered. The fst part would ‘now be seen, not as 2 demolition of the Theory of Idess, but simply as A parifcation oft from naive misintrpretations, while the second part as etal een as an exersen lop metos, very mach Pare zgnides himsclf advertises it in the dialogue. Thus Albinus in Dido Syl Figures in Farmenides arguments [othe second a1, hile the diel he appears to extract fom the second hypothesis asa ol! a wellasvaious hypothetical and “nine syllogism (ee 187A, A5bE, 150), Taurus ies 136s the basis fora dscsion is noion of nwa (Aus Gels, NA VI 3) ay httong minke Middle Patonists then thers sno indication shat aayone sw the second pat ofthe dialogue 2 contsning any posi Efosiic ha somepeope did ER. Dodds, non important atl," © elaborate seruerure of telity of the Neopythagorean Mihrc seat masta oC loge” erpeonin Proto Academy. ao fos BIER Cie, Arachis ans ne Ande, 2p. a Geaee jst *Sisled bs bmscd docs ns vopond any pesca wees = eee ea Beste Ognt pnp Oe CoraGENERAL INTRODUCTION Moderatus (Ist cent, 4.0.)!—or rather, that attributed by Moderatus to Plato—is based upon a metaphysical interpretation of the second part of the Parmenides. The relevant passage is 2s follows Ik-seems thar this opinion conceming Matter was held first among Greeks by the Pythagorcans, and after them by Plato, as indeed Moderatus tells us. For he (6c. Plato), following the Pythagorean declares that the first Oncis above Being and.allessence, while the Second One—which is the truly existent (entis on) and the object Of intellection {noéton)—he says is the Forms; tae third, which is the soul-ealm (psychikon), participates (metecke) in The One and the Forms, while the lowest nature which comes afer i that of the sense-realm, does tot oven participate, but reccives order by reflection from those others, Dodds’ proposal that this rests on an exegesis of the Parmersides is most persuasive. The “three kings” of the Second Letter (312e) might be jpartas well, but that curious document may itsele seen as playing the Parmele. bu this be dependent ona metaphysical incerpretation of the P scheme, che First Hypothesis coneemas a supra-¢ssential One; the Sec~ ond, 2 “One-thateis,” of Nous; and the Third, Soul. It may even be that the Fourth is being asserted co concern Nature, or the physical sworld, but that is not so clear If Moderatus is being influenced by any previous authoricy here, that is not apparent to us. Nor does there scem to be any sign of such an ingerpretation of the Parmenides among “orthodox” Platonists before Plotinus (though Numenius and/or Ammonius Saccas may well have been influenced by it). %* However, unless one wishes to deny this pase sage to Moderatus altogether, it seems to me that Dodds’ elucidation valid, and that we have hete an indication of a metaphysical e8 ishing a¢ least in the Neopythagorean tradi- of ti egesis of the dialogue flout ton “This Neopythagorean interpretation of che dialogue, on the ether jhand, does not seem to concord with the first of dhe “metaphysical” interpretations listed by Proclus (Book I, 635.31-638.2). This interpre tation, he says, takes che subject of the dialogue as Being, a8 in Par tnenides’ poem. As I suggest in the introduction to Book J, this ca by Simplicius, Bigs 230.340 Diels Relayed to us, via Porgyty poapaseys Ow Mets so chat isis primary conc “The pasage #omatrestec tere *Spoeghyry, in his Lif of Ptines (0) equates Longins 25 sting tat Nomen eer al anlan wroteon nest pris of Pao and Py thao Cree a short of Plas precio and filles.” Dr. Hold Tarr 2 aE guna bet amethyst exes fhe Panne 9 SE TERS pacicissealy noc mache 6002 GENERAL INTRODUCTION hardly apply t0 anyone after Plotinus, and since it does not apply to Moderatus, one is left with the rather desperate suggestion that Plo as conteorny Origen the Platonisr, isintended, a man of whose Slows Proclus takes some cognisance, presumably because Porphyr did so. ead ‘The first Platonist to adopt unequivocally the “metaphysical” inter= pasion ofthe Pomends ie Plonnus. Patmos docs not, of course Arrite commentaries as such, but his programmatic treatise Enn. V, 1, “On the Three Principal Hypostases,” becomes, in effect, rom chapter Bon, an exegesis ofthe ltter part ofthe Panmenidet, particularly of the First Hypothass, Interestingly enough, Plotinus leads into this exe- ges with a reference to the Thrce Kings of the Second Later. In pre~ Seating this exegesis, which takes the Onc of the First Hypothesis to be the One above Being, that ofthe Sccond to be Intellect, and that ofthe Third tobe Soul, Plotinos shows consciousness of presenting anew de~ parture (while defiantly maintaining his accord with the most ancient aust aon) when he says (918). "Thase encing. then nonovelties, no inventions of today, but long sinec stated, thous sh not Ssightforsatdlys our doctrine het is an exegesis of these earlier once, gnd.cn show the antiquity of those opinions onthe testimony of Plato jams” (MacKenna’s trans, slightly emended). This will a least ime ply that he fels himself to be going agains the consensus of mainline Bitonsm, though not accent agaist Anon, o> even Nox Plotinus’ 1 senior pupil, Amclius, at least had views on the subject sates f the hypotieses, 2 we earn fom Proc" doorighy in Book VI (1062.31-1053.33).twillot go through the scheme in deal cpt so nore thar Amelia, as one might expect, follows Potinus in fication ofthe subjects f che frst three hypotheses, though he B0es onto find subjects fo ree eso to find subjects forall th restos wel (ight, on his caleulation)- nies no need to suppose, however, hat Amelus wots a com Moy cathe Parvo us sch (ve know nothing of is vows on ny Other aspect oft, waless one counts his doctine that there were Tepe ob) Wh Mopyas, on he oer av ree ther complex. [cis faiely plain, fe ° ait i y phan, from his probable position ina series oC doxographies Gee below, p. xxi) uA Hesaorotca poee- Fa dee, tb sal eazounds the sation 6 French acrzmow Turin Commenur, boldly cated for him by lar Pierre Hadot.* Hadat brings much learning to bear "The Faege ge oP 220M ms, evrything cle in he commen Mme Howtudbyan reheat Gree HY aes cammeNte de Prpinee vr la Parmide”™ Roe des Ee 10-38, and Prphyrees Veta, volGENERAL INTRODUCTION sallels thag he adduces still, Uthink, create 8 con the question, but the pa smmentary covers the more than a probability. The Anonymous Cor patches, from 137¢ to 143a, so that much of ie coincides with text, in neneary, Iti therefore interesting the surviving part of Proclss’ Comm to compare them where they can be compared he Rest point of contact comes at Anon. [, 25. Hadot, whets the usher io dicussing the proper sense in which the One may be de- aaatd a5 expon (13747). Aftcr rejecting che view of Speusippus and serther authonty whose name is corrupt chat it is sfinte n smaliness ious oyuapérnra), the author advances his own view cha i 60 bes efits infinite power, and ts being the cause ofall existing things, sea fist principle of all things that follow upon it. «and because ane Fronds even the notion of ‘one’ (hit 7b airy waraheinew eal chy 00 dvds bxivo.a).” ‘Now this view does indced appear in Proclus, as Hadot pois out, at 1118-194, in the course of a doxography on just this question. Bu 2 Licare complications. This view appears second ina bist of four, Cult aire ng in that of Syrians and Proclns, Working backwards, we find ew probably that of Tamblichus, thatthe One i infimie beat aes Trent, and je ranscends Nous. Then comes the vicw that iis sahinee “ae dexpnBivogor nal ds duran yevramensy, and because 1 eae Se alimieos in all cxietent things, andl extends the sift OF the Poughout all existent dings.” The fist view given is at ie ‘One is infinite because itis intcaversable (@éuegirnrey) and bese ie requiring no mic itself. Now serves as Timittoall other things, wl Se a jew is also erticised by Plotinus in Ens. Vi 9.6, who the proceeds to adopethe second view ised here: “We mast theo hold eroeene One sinfinice not by reason ofits intraversability either saS2E of ts power (re drepsnrare or in umber, but rather from the infinity rs Burdge0s)-” Tote entirely probable chat Porphyry would be in agreement swith Pioeinus on this, Plotinus also declares (5.341) thst smallness should aeorpe cegarded 2s being in question here, as it might be if one HEE “Tscussing the mathematical point. The first view listed by roclas hovefore pre-Plotinian, and the second view that of PorphY what therefore Prerve, though, is 2 numberof smallinconsiscrcies COME Pere Sad the Anon. Prochisateibutcs to Porphyry @) the FSR Proc ae Degas iis not jos ce couse OF existe things: INE the ao ane timitdnes in all existent things (hich, indeed, Make cress There is also no mention in Procus of the idea Se the Fa eeeecen die wation of “One,” 2 poise made miu transc the evidence so far, one might soy chat the comms nt oc intivenced by Posphyry, but could be that of PUPIL GENERAL INTRODUCTION “The next poine of contact, afer long gap in the {geets. II-VI) on the question whethe Se ccieriassouee ‘ther the Onc is other than the Othe {its unlikeness (0 the Others is brought in too, although this sed orl AS9cTA.). The exc of he Anan esuncsa the pint where te aporia is being raised as to whether God can im this case be dw ia other than” and “unlike to” Intellect. The answer hi Sauces One (or God) does nor differentiate fr See on) dss itself from other chings by unl provokes but by psesing an “incompatale sperioy feiufidnros irepox) to everything else, in ‘ M in vittue of which every- thing clse is, as it were, nothing, The author then ge : the unsuitability of applying th peiuser sae applying the terms ‘other’ and samc’ to the O: ‘where nothing atall is in fact happening to the sun, and four thinking : the sun, and of ou cinkin Eibictasarscontgarnwsiirwc ne moe “These images find no.ccho,unfort 1, unfortunately, in what should be the al purge of Proce (Bek Vi, B4.1185 10) Here an po fe ror abou lst in paris ba how he One canbe a Bes cen aor ng, an ir de 2 the One transconds and is separate from Bg cy wo Sones en pte 5 ity” (dppactos daepox7}—a notable verbal echo of Pinon Il, 3, ee rs tier ofthe Anon’ image, points to the two usages cot always,” oo at length. Indeed, apart from the partial coincid 3 a a oe the text of Anon, ieee ext point of con a ease Poin of contact occurs at 1415-46, the proof a "¢ “in time,” and so neither o% peaiinien reat He "aso citer oldernor younger north nn age Bee pone Taney pee = a a discussion of how the One should eae aus tims which is mot rete on of the logical form of Pla is corresponds to Pt a fi Be roc 4), and both Proclus d in Anion., who tums directly to the and Anon. then ese pe Gee tbe ssmyo ten inane pines heGENERAL INTRODUCTION physian authorship, but unfortunately Anon.’ text breaks off usta he fine stared the problem (VIIL, 35). We do at least have 2 minimal verbal coincidence (godurrixds 6 Aéyos, VIIL, 33, and 1225.38), but chat is not raich to go on. “When the ext resumes again (sects. IX-X) we areat the end of the First Hypothesis, discussing the unknowability of God, 3 propos, pre sumably, 1423-8, but there is no point of contact berween Proclus and “Ann, bere, and Braclus does not give a doxographical survey which vould cnableus to identify any Porphyrian doctrine “After that, we ate in the Second Hypothesis, and all hope of com= parison ends. The confrontation between the two texts has been fans Eisingly inconclusive. There are points of contact, but nothing, 7 think, that could not be explained by a conumon source in Poxphyry, ‘while nothing chat is really distinetive about Anon, comes through im Proclus, But one might well make two points here. First, if this is not Porphyry, who on carth is it? Teis not Lamblichus, and the pattem of Peaclay’ doxographical notices seems to show that the commentaries of Porphyry and lanablichus were the only ones, apart from that of Syrianus, with which he was familia, Occasionally there é a fourth Opinion given, but this can usually be explained as somcone Porphyy evefuting, and need not denote another full-scale commentator. St condly, ong might argie that Proclus might not in fact be using Por Dphyry's commentary a¢ first hand, but only thiough lamblichus of Syrisnus, Incredible as chs mighe seem, we should aot underestimate the capacity of late antique commentators to bypass primary sourses Sven secondary ones were available. Thus Proclus may only have beets Saqunted with the main points of Porphyry’s exegesis and not WE iac inerary elaborations. On che whole, T am prepared to leave He ie gm. Tan. with Porphyry on the basis ofthe analogies which Hadoe thse Brought to light, while being unable 1 share Hador’scereanty hat he has solved the puzzle. ‘Aer Porphyty, we also have sufficient evidence chat famblihisy composed acommentary onthe Parmenides, Apar from evidence of sowe on the subject of the hypotheses (1054.35-1055.25, with eeyShase) ave have about ren references to hima in Damascus! De FM son che later part of which we may now, following, Western ‘earn to term his Commentary on tke Parmeries), which cleathy 6 from 2 Pamenides Commentary (xs. 3-14 in my collection). The ‘rom ch he contributed to the Sytianic-Procline view of the dale Boe cleae, but he certainly will have allegorised the characters @ ve Deodus, PTI, pp Femi rin. nc, that every hing frome Fee ea ool Tp SB fs cometary on he Perec PG ag eis the Second Hy pees 1421) _ Semparable ho GENERAL INTRODUCTION adopted 2 postive interpretation ofthe arguments ofthe frst part. As ati hie passages a Books VLand VIl, where a series of thre author- BENS presented, culminating in Syriamus, which leads ro che probae tility that che previous two are Porphyry and lamblichus. In a numb Bfanes, iris possible to discern something, cther inthe eontent or in Proclas way of referring co them, tha is characteristic of one oF the fer and have adverted to thete in the noes. Certain can never be Ghajed here, but [think i likely that we have the options of Por: fave detailed attention to the text. However, theres no indicat Fs) fBplichas ancipaed ie claborae sve of detentions ofleves of ten rokedontby Syrins forthe ietnd Sond Hypa. _plgbeceb ie ovo ts pgs so rea bas for fare From Books VI AND VIT ° only Toms vi vos 38405437 s 3.3 1034.37.18. timo ton. masa Viggat-t4029 for Sae.19 mao es tapas haa wu naso 26114113 na1ss44a.0 sn Haizeaisnr m7 iacte ats fatsap-tor9 eis an ts28 (66K. 25-68K.14 The existence of. of commentaries a by Porphyry and familichns, then, thathe ) i Book VI, 1058.21-1061.20, but there is : min connection withthe identifiation ofthe suber