Jump to content

Proclus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Added {{Original research}} tag
Restored revision 1045617458 by Dudhhr (talk): Mass amounts of original research, please move your changes to your sandbox
Tags: Twinkle Replaced Undo
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|5th-century Greek Neoplatonist philosopher}}
{{distinguish|Procles}}
{{distinguish|Procles}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{Very long|date=September 2022}}
{{Copy edit|for=grammar and style, overly expansive prose|date=September 2022}}
{{Original research|date=September 2022}}
}}
{{about-otherpeople|Proclus Diadochus, the Neoplatonist philosopher|Proclus}}
{{about-otherpeople|Proclus Diadochus, the Neoplatonist philosopher|Proclus}}
{{More footnotes|date=January 2014}}
{{Infobox philosopher
{{Infobox philosopher
| name = Proclus Lycius
| name = Proclus Lycius
| image = Procli_Diadochi_Lycii_Institutio_Physica_in_London,_British_Library,_Harley_MS_5685,_fol._133r.jpg
| image = Procli Diadochi Lycii Institutio Physica in London, British Library, Harley MS 5685, fol. 133r.jpg
| caption = The beginning of Proclus' ''Fundamentals of Physics'' in the manuscript London, British Library, Harley 5685, fol. 133r (12th century)
| caption = The beginning of Proclus' ''Fundamentals of Physics'' in the manuscript London, British Library, Harley 5685, fol. 133r (12th century)
| birth_date = 8 February 412
| birth_date = 8 February 412
| birth_place = [[Constantinople]], [[Thracia]], [[Eastern Roman Empire]]<br />(now [[Istanbul]], [[Turkey]])
| birth_place = [[Constantinople|Constantinopolis]], [[Thracia]], [[Eastern Roman Empire]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|485|4|17|412|2|8|df=y}}
| death_date = {{death date and age|485|4|17|412|2|8|df=y}}
| death_place = [[Athens]], [[Achaea (Roman province)|Achaea]], Eastern Roman Empire<br />(now [[Athens]], [[Greece]])
| death_place = [[Athens]], [[Achaea (Roman province)|Achaea]], Eastern Roman Empire
| other_names = "The Successor"
| other_names = "The Successor"
| era = [[Ancient philosophy]]
| era = [[Ancient philosophy]]
Line 22: Line 17:
| notable_ideas = [[Platonism|Platonic]] [[theology]]
| notable_ideas = [[Platonism|Platonic]] [[theology]]
| influences = {{hlist |[[Plotinus]] |[[Iamblichus]] |[[Aristotle]] |[[Plato]] |[[Plutarch of Athens|Plutarch]] |[[Syrianus]]}}
| influences = {{hlist |[[Plotinus]] |[[Iamblichus]] |[[Aristotle]] |[[Plato]] |[[Plutarch of Athens|Plutarch]] |[[Syrianus]]}}
| influenced = {{hlist |[[Damascius]] |[[Pseudo-Dionysius]] |[[Ammonius Hermiae]] |[[Al-Kindi]] |[[Marinus of Neapolis|Marinus]] |[[Marsilio Ficino]] |[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] |[[Nicholas of Cusa]]}}
| influenced = {{hlist |[[Damascius]] |[[Pseudo-Dionysius]] |[[Ammonius Hermiae]] |[[Marinus of Neapolis|Marinus]] |[[Marsilio Ficino]] |[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] |[[Nicholas of Cusa]]}}
}}
}}


'''Proclus Lycius''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|r|ɒ|k|l|ə|s|_|l|aɪ|ˈ|s|i|ə|s}}; 8 February 412&nbsp;– 17 April 485), called '''Proclus the Successor''' ({{lang-grc-gre|Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος}}, ''Próklos ho Diádokhos''), was a [[Greek philosophy|Greek]] [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonist]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]], one of the last major classical philosophers. He set forth one of the most elaborate and fully developed systems of [[Neoplatonism]]. He stands near the end of the classical development of [[philosophy]] and influenced Western [[medieval philosophy]] (Greek and Latin).<ref>{{cite book|first=Laurence| last=Rosan| date= 1981|title= Neoplatonism and Indian Thought |editor-first= R. Baine |editor-last=Harris |publisher= State University of New York Press|isbn= 978-0873955461|pages=45–49}}</ref>
'''Proclus Lycius'''{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xxxix|loc=Introduction|1992}} ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|r|ɒ|k|l|ə|s|_|l|aɪ|ˈ|s|i|ə|s}}) (410<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last=Kaufmann|first=Walter|title=Philosophic Classics|publisher=Prentice-Hall, INC.|year=1963|volume=Thales to St. Thomas|location=Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (New Jersey, USA)|pages=536|id=ark:/13960/t11n91p54}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Taylor |first=A. E. |title=Plato The Man and His Work |publisher=Methuen & Co. Ltd |year=1955 |location=London |pages=14 |id=ark:/13960/t1zd32m3c |ref={{sfnref|Taylor A. E.|1955}} |orig-year=1926}}</ref>/411{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=vii|loc=Preface by Tarrant}}{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=2|loc=General introduction to the Commentary}}<ref name=":28">{{Cite book|last=Sorabji|first=Richard|title=The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200-600 AD|publisher=Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.|year=2005|isbn=0-8014-8987-3|volume=1 Psychology (with Ethics and Religion)|location=Ithaca, New York|pages=419}}</ref>/ 7 Feb.<ref name=":13">{{Cite book |title=All From One: A Guide to Proclus |publisher=Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America |others=C. Wildberg, H. Tarrant, M. Martijn, L. P. Gerson, G. Van Riel, P. d'Hoine, J. F. Finamore, E. Kutash, J. Opsomer, D. O'Meara, C. Helmig, L. Brisson, R. M. Berg, C. Steel, D. Baltzly, A. Sheppard, P. Adamson and F. Karfík |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-19-964033-1 |editor-last=d'Hoine |editor-first=Pieter |location=United States of America |pages=6 |editor-last2=Martijn |editor-first2=Marije}}</ref>{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=3 (footnote 1)|loc=Introduction}} or 8 Feb. 412{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=6|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg|2017}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xi|loc=Preface, Introduction and Notes by Dillion}}<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Phillips|first=Lawrence B.|title=The Dictionary of Biographical Reference|publisher=Sampson Low, Son, & Marston Crown Buildings, 188 Fleet Street|year=1871|location=London|pages=766|id=ark:/13960/t4qj7c873|display-authors=etal}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |year=1870a |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=William |volume=3 |location=Boston |pages=533 |id=ark:/13960/t23b60t0r}}</ref>&nbsp;–17 April 485 AD{{Sfn|Tarrant|2014|p=vii|loc=Preface}}{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}{{Sfn|Taylor A. E.|1955|p=14|loc=The Platonic Writings}}{{Sfn|Phillips|1871|p=766|loc=PRI-PRO}}{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=534|loc=Vol.3: Proclus}}), also called '''Proclus the''' '''Successor''',{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=title page|loc=front matter}}{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=3|loc=Proclus and pagan practice in Athens}}{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=533|loc=Vol.3: Proclus}} '''Proclus the''' '''Platonic'''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=3|loc=Introduction}} '''Successor''', or '''Proclus of Athens'''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=6|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} (Greek: Πρόκλος Διάδοχος<ref name=":20">{{Cite book|title=Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Pvblicam Commentarii|publisher=Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana|year=1899|editor-last=Kroll|editor-first=Gvilelmvs|volume=I|location=Lipsiae|pages=1|language=la, el|id=ark:/13960/t9183nh8x}}</ref><ref name=":21">{{Cite book|title=Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaevm Commentaria|publisher=Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana|year=1903|editor-last=Diehl|editor-first=E.|volume=I|location=Lipsaie|pages=1|language=la, el|id=ark:/13960/t2m66v61s}}</ref><ref name=":22">{{Cite book|title=Procli Diadochi in Primum Euclidis Elementorum Librum Commentarii|publisher=Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana|year=1873|editor-last=Friedlein|editor-first=Godofredi|location=Lipsiae|pages=1|id=ark:/13960/t5gb2dm74}}</ref> ''Próklos Diádochos'',{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=3|loc=Proclus and pagan practice in Athens}} or διάδοχος Πλατωνικός{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=533|loc=Vol.3: Proclus}}), is one of the most influential [[commentary of a philosophical text|philosophical commentators]] of antiquity and is regarded by some scholars as the greatest [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonic]] philosopher of the 5th century AD.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=v|2017|loc=Preface}} The title of Successor (Greek: διάδοχος) was given to the head of the [[Platonic Academy|School of Plato]] in [[Athens]] and signified that Proclus was the successor of his predecessor and also the latest successor of continuous Platonic scholarship going back to [[Plato]], the founder of the School of Plato in Athens.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xi (footnote 1)|loc=Proclus: Life and Works}}


==Biography==
Proclus was a prolific writer of ancient Greek philosophy leaving behind extensive commentaries on [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and [[Plotinus]], books and treaties on Neoplatonic [[theology]], [[epigram]]s and [[hymn]]s.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=1|2017|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} He set forth one of the most authentic and systematic expositions of [[Neoplatonism]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=ix|loc=Introduction}} and his works represent the most complete statement of [[Platonism]] scholars possess.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Dillon|first1=John|title=Neoplatonic Philosophy|last2=Gerson|first2=Lloyd P.|publisher=Hackett Publishing Company, Inc|year=2004|isbn=0872207072|location=Indianapolis; Cambridge|pages=xiii|language=en|chapter=Introduction}}</ref> Proclus stands at the end of [[ancient Greek philosophy]] and at the beginning of [[Middle Ages]] philosophy and is hence historically significant as he is a major connection between those two ages of philosophy.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=ix|loc=Introduction}}
Proclus was born on February 8, 412 AD (his birth date is deduced from a [[horoscope]] cast by a disciple, [[Marinus of Neapolis|Marinus]]) in [[Constantinople]] to a family of high social status in [[Lycia]] (his father Patricius was a high legal official, very important in the [[Byzantine Empire|Eastern Roman Empire]]'s court system) and raised in [[Xanthos|Xanthus]]. He studied [[rhetoric]], [[philosophy]] and [[mathematics]] in [[Alexandria]], with the intent of pursuing a judicial position like his father. Before completing his studies, he returned to Constantinople when his rector, his principal instructor (one Leonas), had business there.


Proclus became a successful practicing lawyer. However, the experience of the practice of law made Proclus realize that he truly preferred philosophy. He returned to Alexandria, and began determinedly studying the works of [[Aristotle]] under [[Olympiodorus the Elder]]. He also began studying mathematics during this period as well with a teacher named Heron (no relation to [[Hero of Alexandria]], who was also known as Heron). As a gifted student, he eventually became dissatisfied with the level of philosophical instruction available in [[Alexandria]], and went to [[Athens]], the pre-eminent philosophical center of the day, in 431 to study at the Neoplatonic successor of the famous [[Academy]] founded 800 years earlier (in 387 BC) by [[Plato]]; there he was taught by [[Plutarch of Athens]] (not to be confused with [[Plutarch of Chaeronea]]), [[Syrianus]], and [[Asclepigenia]]; he succeeded Syrianus as head of the Academy, and would in turn be succeeded on his death by [[Marinus of Neapolis]].
{{TOC limit|3}}


He lived in Athens as a vegetarian bachelor, prosperous and generous to his friends, until the end of his life, except for a voluntary one-year exile, which was designed to lessen the pressure put on him by his political-philosophical activity, little appreciated by the Christian rulers; he spent the exile traveling and being initiated into various [[Greco-Roman mysteries|mystery cults]]. He was also instructed in the "[[Theurgy|theurgic]]" Neoplatonism, as derived from the [[Orphism (religion)|Orphic]] and [[Chaldean Oracles]]. His house has been discovered recently in Athens, under the pavement of [[Dionysiou Areopagitou Street]], south of Acropolis, opposite the theater of Dionysus. He had a great devotion to the goddess Athena, who he believed guided him at key moments in his life. Marinus reports that when Christians removed the statue of the goddess from the [[Parthenon]], a beautiful woman appeared to Proclus in a dream and announced that the "Athenian Lady" wished to stay at his home.<ref>Marinus of Samaria, [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/marinus_01_life_of_proclus.htm ''"The Life of Proclus or Concerning Happiness"''], Translated by [[Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie|Kenneth S. GUTHRIE]] (1925), pp.15–55:30, retrieved 21 May 2007.</ref> Proclus died aged 73, and was buried near [[Mount Lycabettus]] in a tomb. It is reported that he was writing 700 lines each day.
== Biography ==
[[File:Byzantium476.png|thumb|410x410px|The [[Byzantine Empire]] c. 476 AD showing the major cities in which Proclus lived, [[Constantinople]], [[Alexandria]] and [[Athens]].]]
Proclus was born in [[Constantinople]], now [[Istanbul]],{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxii|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} [[Turkey]], to a wealthy [[Lycians|Lycian]] family.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xi|loc=General Introduction}} The name his family gave him was probably ''Proklos'', a Greek form of the Latin ''Proculus'', which reveals that he was born ''procul a patria'', or "far from home".{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=7|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} There is confusion about the exact date of his birth, but the one given as February 8, 412 AD was educed from a [[horoscope]] cast by his biographer [[Marinus of Neapolis]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=6|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg|2017}}


==Works==
=== Constantinople and Alexandria ===
The majority of Proclus's works are commentaries on dialogues of [[Plato]] (''Alcibiades'', ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'', ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''). In these commentaries, he presents his own philosophical system as a faithful interpretation of Plato, and in this he did not differ from other Neoplatonists, as he considered that "nothing in Plato’s corpus is unintended or there by chance", that "that Plato’s writings were divinely inspired" (ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ''ho theios Platon''—the divine Plato, inspired by the gods), that "the formal structure and the content of Platonic texts imitated those of the universe",<ref>{{Citation|last=Calian|first=Florin George|title="Clarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides|date=2013|url=https://memo.imareal.sbg.ac.at/wsarticle/maq-sonderband/ciarifications-of-obscurity-conditions-for-procluss-allegorical-reading-of-platos-parmenides/|work=Obscurity in medieval texts|pages=15–31}}</ref> and therefore that they spoke often of things under a veil, hiding the truth from the philosophically uninitiate. Proclus was however a close reader of Plato, and quite often makes very astute points about his Platonic sources. A number of his Platonic commentaries are lost.
Soon after his birth, his mother Marcella{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=6|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} and his father Patricus,{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=2|loc=Proclus and pagan practice in Athens}} a lawyer in the [[Byzantium]] courts,{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxxix|loc=Introduction}} moved from Constantinople, where Patricus was working, back to their home district [[Lycia]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=7|loc=1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} Proclus received his early education in [[Xanthos|Xanthus]],{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xi|loc=General Introduction}} (now [[Kınık|Kinik]],{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xi|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} Turkey) a city in Lycia, where he also studied rhetoric and law.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=2|loc=General introduction to the Commentary}}


Proclus, the scholiast to Euclid, knew [[Eudemus of Rhodes]]' ''History of Geometry'' well, and gave a short sketch of the early history of geometry, which appeared to be founded on the older, lost book of Eudemus. The passage has been referred to as "the Eudemian summary," and determines some approximate dates, which otherwise might have remained unknown.<ref>James Gow, ''[https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9d8DAAAAMAAJ A Short History of Greek Mathematics]'' (1884)</ref> The influential commentary on the first book of [[Euclid]]'s ''Elements of Geometry'' is one of the most valuable sources we have for the history of ancient mathematics,<ref>{{cite book|last=Heath|author-link=T. L. Heath|title=The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements Vol. 1|year=1908|chapter=Proclus and His Sources|page=29|quote=It is well known that the commentary of Proclus on Eucl. Book I is one of the two main sources of information as to the history of Greek geometry which we possess, the other being the ''Collection'' of Pappus}}</ref> and its Platonic account of the status of mathematical objects was influential. In this work, Proclus also listed the first mathematicians associated with Plato: a mature set of mathematicians ([[Leodamas of Thasos]], [[Archytas|Archytas of Taras]], and [[Theaetetus (mathematician)|Theaetetus]]), a second set of younger mathematicians ([[Neoclides]], [[Eudoxus of Cnidus]]), and a third yet younger set ([[Amyntas of Heraclea|Amyntas]], [[Menaechmus]] and his brother [[Dinostratus]], [[Theudius of Magnesia]], [[Hermotimus of Colophon]] and [[Philip of Opus]]). Some of these mathematicians were influential in arranging the Elements that Euclid later published.
Between c. 427–428 AD, when he was 15{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg|p=8}} or 16{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg|p=8}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xi|loc=General Introduction}} years old, his parents sent him from Lycia to [[Alexandria]] to study rhetoric, [[Roman law]], mathematics and philosophy<ref name=":8">{{Cite book|last=Whittaker|first=Thomas|title=The Neo-Platonists|publisher=The University Press|year=1918|location=Cambridge|pages=157|id=ark:/13960/t8bg3pj9v}}</ref> with the intent of pursuing a [[Judiciary|judicial]]{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxii|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} position like his father.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxxix|loc=Introduction}} In Alexandria his teachers were the [[sophist]] Leonas of Isauria{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=2|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} and the grammarian [[Orion of Thebes]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=8|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} Proclus was introduced by Leonas to distinguished members of Alexandrian society, including Alexandria's 'Governor', Theodorus.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Siorvanes |first=Lucas |title=Proclus Neo-platonic Philosophy and Science |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |year=1996 |isbn=0748607684 |location=Great Britain |pages=4 |language=en|chapter=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}}</ref> After a few years in Alexandria he accompanied his [[Rector (academia)|rector]] and principal instructor Leonas to Constantinople because he wanted to continue his guidance from him.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=8|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}


In addition to his commentaries, Proclus wrote two major systematic works. The ''[[Elements of Theology]]'' (Στοιχείωσις θεολογική) consists of 211 propositions, each followed by a proof, beginning from the existence of the One (divine Unity) and ending with the descent of individual souls into the material world. The ''Platonic Theology'' (Περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα θεολογίας) is a systematization of material from Platonic dialogues, showing from them the characteristics of the divine orders, the part of the universe which is closest to the One.
In Constantinople there were professors and students who had studied philosophy in Athens,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xii|loc=General Introduction|1992}} in particular the Athenian Neoplatonists Empress Eusocial and her father Leontius.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=2|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} Whilst in Constantinople, and possibly due to the influence of professors and students there, Proclus turned his attentions to the study of philosophy and returned to Alexandria.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|pp=xi-xii|loc=General Introduction|1992}}


We also have three essays, extant only in Latin translation: ''Ten doubts concerning providence'' (''De decem dubitationibus circa providentiam''); ''On providence and fate'' (''De providentia et fato''); ''On the existence of evils'' (''De malorum subsistentia'').
In Alexandria, he began determinedly studying the works of [[Aristotle]] under the guidance of the 5th century Neoplatonic philosopher [[Olympiodorus the Elder]] and, dropping rhetoric,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=8|loc=1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} studying mathematics under the guidance of the 5th century Alexandrian mathematician Heron (or Hero{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=8|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}).{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxii|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} Proclus was a brilliant<ref>{{Cite book |last=Watts |first=Edward J. |title=Hypatia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2017 |isbn=9780190659141 |location=United States of America |pages=21 |language=en}}</ref> student with a remarkable memory{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxxix|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} that helped him to quickly comprehend the logical works of Aristotle.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxiii|loc=Introduction}} Olympiodorus the Elder was sufficiently enough impressed by Proclus to offer him his daughter in marriage.{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=534|loc=Vol.3: Proclus}} However, like [[Plotinus]], and other philosophers in the [[Roman Empire]] prior to him, Proclus travelled extensively to try and find the right teacher, and that might have led him to depart Alexandria.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xii|loc=Introduction}}


He also wrote a number of minor works, which are listed in the bibliography below.
=== Athens ===
In c. 430 or 431 AD,<ref>{{Cite book |title=Brill's Companion to the Reception of Homer from the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity |publisher=Brill |year=2021 |isbn=9789004472686 |editor-last=Manolea |editor-first=Christina-Panagiota |series=Brill's Companions to Classical Reception |volume=22 |location=Leiden, Netherlands |pages=408 |language=en |ref={{sfnref|Manolea|2021}}}}</ref>{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} before he was 19{{Sfn|Manolea|2021|p=408 footnote 2|loc=Chapter 19 Allegory, Metaphysics, Theology by Sheppard}} or 20{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxxix|loc=Introduction}} years old, he sailed from Alexandria to [[Athens]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} where, in a parable recounted by Proclus' biographer [[Marinus of Neapolis]], upon his arrival to Athens, and after being received at the [[Piraeus]] (a port city within Athens) by fellow-countryman Nicolaus{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=4|loc=General introduction to the Commentary}}{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=534|loc=Vol. 3: Proclus}} of Myra{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=277|loc=Chapter 14 Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard|2017}} and escorted into the city, he was met by the gatekeeper ready to close the city for the night, who said: "''Certainly unless you had come, I should have closed the gates.''"{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xi|loc=Introduction Proclus: Life and Works}}{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=225|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}}


==System==
==== Plutarch of Athens and Syrianus ====
{{more citations needed section|date=January 2016}}
In Athens he lived with the late 4th to early 5th century Greek Neoplatonic philosopher [[Plutarch of Athens]],{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xx|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=8|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=158|loc=The Athenian School}} who had officially retired and was in the last years of his life.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} Plutarch of Athens instructed Proclus on Aristotle's ''[[On the Soul|De Anima]]'' and Plato's ''[[Phaedo]].''{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} After Plutarch's death in 432 AD,{{Sfn|Manolea|2021|p=408|loc=Chapter 19 Allegory, Metaphysics, Theology by Sheppard}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=8|loc=Introduction}} Proclus was under the guidance of the 5th century Greek Neoplatonic philosopher [[Syrianus]],{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xx|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=8|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} the head of the [[Platonic Academy|School of Plato]] in Athens.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=10|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} Two students studying alongside Proclus and also under the guidance of Syrianus were [[Hermias (philosopher)|Hermias]]{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=1|loc=Introduction}} and [[Domninus of Larissa]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} Proclus is also said to have been taught, and initiated into,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Interpreting Proclus|publisher=Cambridge University Press|others=S. Gersh, L. Siorvanes, A. Sheppard, J. M. Dillon, C. D'Ancona, D. J. O'Meara, M. Trizio, L. Alexidze, C. Steel, P. Porro, M. Fu¨hrer, M. J. B. Allen, T. Leinkauf|year=2014|isbn=9780521198493|editor-last=Gersh|editor-first=Stephen|location=United Kingdom|pages=36|chapter=Part I: Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}</ref> Chaldaean wisdom{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=75|loc=The Theory Behind Theurgy}} by the 5th century Greek philosopher [[Asclepigenia]], wife of [[Theagenes (patrician)|Theagenes]], and the daughter of Archiades{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=238|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} and Plutarch of Athens.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Waithe|first=Mary Ellen|title=Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C. –500 A.D.|publisher=Springer|year=1987|isbn=9789400934979|series=A History of Women Philosophers|location=Netherlands|pages=201|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Crawford|first=W. S.|title=Synesius The Hellene|publisher=Rivingtons 34 King Street, Covent Garden|year=1901|location=London|pages=60, 395|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t0js9k765}}</ref>
Proclus's system, like that of the other Neoplatonists, is a combination of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements. In its broad outlines, Proclus's system agrees with that of [[Plotinus]] with a notable difference: unlike Plotinus, Proclus did not hold that matter was evil, an idea that caused contradictions in the system of Plotinus. However, following [[Iamblichus]], Plutarch of Athens, and his master Syrianus, Proclus presents a much more elaborate universe than Plotinus, subdividing the elements of Plotinus's system into their logically distinct parts, and positing these parts as individual things. This multiplication of entities is balanced by the [[monism]] which is common to all Neoplatonists. What this means is that, on the one hand the universe is composed of hierarchically distinct things, but on the other all things are part of a single continuous emanation of power from the One. From this latter perspective, the many distinctions to be found in the universe are a result of the divided perspective of the human soul, which needs to make distinctions in its own thought in order to understand unified realities. The idealist tendency is taken further in [[John Scotus Eriugena]].


There is a double motivation found in Neoplatonic systems. The first is a need to account for the origin and character of all things in the universe. The second is a need to account for how we can know this origin and character of things. These two aims are related: they begin from the assumption that we can know reality, and then ask the question of what reality must be like, in its origin and unfolding, so that we can know it. An important element in the Neoplatonic answer to these questions is its reaction to [[Scepticism]]. In response to the sceptical position that we only know the appearances presented by our senses, and not the world as it is, Plotinus placed the object of knowledge inside the soul itself, and accounted for this interior truth through the soul's kinship with its own productive principles.
Proclus lived in Syrianus' house and was under his guidance for five{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=10|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} years, two{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xxiii|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} of which he spent studying the complete works of Aristotle{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xii|loc=General Introduction|1992}} and afterwards,{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=1|loc=Introduction}} the works of Plato.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xii|loc=General Introduction}} He also studied Syrianus' commentary on [[Orphism (religion)|Orphic]] [[theogony]], the works of [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and works by [[Iamblichus]] on the [[Chaldean Oracles]].{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliii|loc=Proclus: His Life and Writings}} Later in his life he was to spend five years writing a commentary on the Chaldean Oracles.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliii|loc=Proclus: His Life and Writings}}


===The One===
Whilst in Syrianus' house, Proclus was arranged to marry Aedesia,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=10|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} a relative{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=9|loc=Introduction}} of Syrianus, an arrangement that Proclus declined. Aedesia later married [[Hermias (philosopher)|Hermias]] with whom she had two children, [[Ammonius Hermiae]] and [[Heliodorus of Alexandria]]; both children eventually became students of Proclus.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=22|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=9|loc=Introduction}} It is likely that the house of the head of the School of Plato in Athens was bequeathed, so that the house of Plutarch of Athens became the house of Syrianus{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliv (footnote 21)|loc=Introduction}} and then the house of Proclus<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Anthon |first=Charles |title=A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography |publisher=Harper & Brothers |year=1878 |location=New York |pages=709 |language=en|id=ark:/13960/t5q818b4j}}</ref> and it was also a school where the head of the school held discussions and taught.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xi|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} The school operated financially much like a private school with revenue from a substantial bequest that paid teachers and was supplemented by student payments.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xii|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}}
The first principle in Neoplatonism is [[henology|the One]] (Greek: ''to Hen''). Being proceeds from the One. The One cannot itself be a being. If it were a being, it would have a particular nature, and so could not be universally productive. Because it is ''beyond being'' (''epekeina tes ousias'', a phrase from Plato's ''Republic'' 509b), it is also beyond thought, because thinking requires the determinations which belong to being: the division between subject and object, and the distinction of one thing from another. For this reason, even the name ''The One'' is not a positive name, but rather the most non-multiple name possible, a name derived from our own inadequate conception of the simplicity of the first principle. The One causes all things by conferring unity, in the form of individuality, on them, and in Neoplatonism existence, unity, and form tend to become equivalent. The One causes things to exist by donating unity, and the particular manner in which a thing is one is its form (a dog and a house are individual in different manners, for example). Because the One makes things exist by giving them the individuality which makes them what they are as distinct and separate beings, the Neoplatonists thought of it also as the source of the good of everything. So the other name for the One is the Good. Despite appearances, the first principle is not double; all things have a double relation to it, as coming from them (One) and then being oriented back towards them to receive their perfection or completion (Good).


The particular characteristic of Proclus's system is his elaboration of a level of individual ones, called ''henads,'' between the One which is before being and intelligible divinity. The henads exist "superabundantly", also beyond being, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (''seirai'') and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. He identifies them with the Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all ''sunny'' things. Each henad participates in every other henad, according to its character. What appears to be multiplicity is not multiplicity at all, because any henad may rightly be considered the center of the polycentric system.
==== Head of School of Plato ====
[[File:MANNapoli 124545 plato's academy mosaic.jpg|thumb|1st century BC mosaic of the [[Platonic Academy|School of Plato]] in Athens. Proclus was head of the school from c. 437–485 AD|250x250px]]
After Syrianus' death, c. 437 AD,{{Sfn|Manolea|2021|p=408|loc=Chapter 19 Allegory, Metaphysics, Theology by Sheppard}} Proclus, at about the age of 25, became the head of the School of Plato in Athens,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|loc=General Introduction|pp=xii-xiii}} where amongst his students were:
* [[Agapius of Athens]];{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=7, 423|loc=Introduction to the Life and Philosophy Of Damascius; Notes to Pages 3–4}}{{Sfn|Hooker|2017|p=vi|loc=Introduction}} who later set up his own school of philosophy in Constantinople where he taught [[John the Lydian|John Lydus]];<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism |publisher=Routledge |others=H. Tarrant, R. Sorabji, G. Reydams-Schils, F. Ferrari, J. D. Turner, V. Adluri, H. Baltussen, A. Smith, L. Brisson, M. Martijn, S. Ahbel-Rappe, J. Halfwassen, S. Slaveva-Griffin, R. Chiaradonna, J-M. Narbonne, R. M. Berg, L. P. Gerson, J. F. Finamore, F. M. Schroeder, G. Aubry, P. Lautner, A. Linguiti, J. Wilberding, K. Corrigan, S. Stern-Gillet, B. Collette-Dučić, P. Adamson, P. Remes, D. J. O’Meara, P. Vassilopoulou, D. Moran, D. Y. Dimitrov, S. Pessin |year=2014 |isbn=9781315744186 |editor-last=Remes |editor-first=Pauliina |location=Oxford; New York |pages=366 note 14 |language=en |editor-last2=Slaveva-Griffin |editor-first2=Svetla}}</ref>
* Archiadas, grandson of Plutarch of Athens;{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=9|loc=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}}{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=226|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}}
* [[Ammonius Hermiae]],{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=9|loc=Introduction}} who in c. 470 AD became head of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria;{{Sfn|Manolea|2021|p=408|loc=Chapter 19 Allegory, Metaphysics, Theology by Sheppard}}
* [[Anthemius]],{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=39|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}} later to become a Western Roman Emperor;
* [[Asclepiodotus of Alexandria]],{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=5|loc=Book I Introduction}} who was one of Proclus' best students and later left Athens to become a senator in [[Aphrodisias]];{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=27|loc=Procius'Life, Times and Influence}}
* Hegias, son of [[Theagenes (patrician)|Theagenes]];{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=236|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}}{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=39|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}
* [[Heliodorus of Alexandria]],{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=22|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} brother of Ammoniums Hermias, and who went on to become a philosopher in [[Alexandria]];{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=22-23|loc=Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}
* [[Isidore of Alexandria]],{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=5|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} who was the head of the neoplatonic school in Athens after Marinus of Neapolis;{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}}
* [[Marinus of Neapolis]],{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=419}} who succeeded Proclus as the head of the neoplatonic school in Athens, and was his biographer;{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}}
* [http://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/nu/394 Nicolaus the Rhetor];{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=35 and footnote 8|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}<ref>{{Cite book |title=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |year=1870b |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=William |volume=2 |location=Boston |pages=1192 |id=ark:/13960/t9f47mp93}}</ref>
* Pericles;{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=281|loc=Proclus}}
* [[Severianus of Damascus]],{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|pp=423|loc=Notes to Pages 3–4}} later to become [[Anthemius]]' chief minister in Rome;{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=39|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}
* [[Zenodotus (philosopher)|Zenodotus]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rappoport|first=S.|title=History of Egypt|publisher=The Grolier Society|year=1904|volume=2|location=London|pages=313|language=en|chapter=The End of the Pagan Schools|id=ark:/13960/t47p91v4x}}</ref>


===Intellect===
Scholars of the 19th, 20th and 21st century also say that [[Pseudo-Dionysius]] the Areopagite was probably a student<ref>{{Cite book|last=Russell|first=Bertrand|title=A History Of Western Philosophy|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1945|isbn=0671201581|location=New York|pages=418|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Westcott |first=Brooke Foss |title=Essays in the History of Religious Thought |publisher=Macmillan and Co. |year=1891 |location=London; New York |pages=147 |language=en|chapter=Dionysius The Areopagite |id=ark:/13960/t2d797r6j}}</ref> of Proclus or a student of the late Neoplatonic school of Athens<ref>{{Cite book |title=Proclus and his Legacy |publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH |others=J. Dillon, D. D.Butorac, D. A. Layne, S. Gersh, H. Tarrant, D. A. Vasilakis, H. S. Lang, A. Vargas, I.Ramelli, E. Watts, M. Luz, R. Coughlin, T. Lankila, B. Schomakers, E. S. Mainoldi, S. K.Wear, F. Lauritzen, L. Gigineishvili, J. M. Robinson, E. Tempelis, C. Terezis, T. Riggs, T.Zampaki, M. Chase, E. Giannakis, G. Steiris, T. Kirby, Y. T. Langermann, M. Zovko |year=2017 |isbn=9783110471625 |editor-last=Butorac |editor-first=David D. |series=Millennium Studies |volume=65 |location=Berlin; Boston |pages=201 |language=English |editor-last2=Layne |editor-first2=Danielle A.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Erdmann |first=Johann Eduard |title=History of Philosophy |publisher=Swan Sonnenschein & Co.; Macmillan & Co. |year=1890 |volume=1: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy |location=London; New York |pages=281 |language=en|chapter=Compilers and Commentators |id=ark:/13960/t0cv4j10d}}</ref> or a hearer{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=187|loc=The Influence of Neo-Platonism}} of Proclus' lectures.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rosan|first=Laurence Jay|title=The Philosophy of Proclus|publisher=Cosmos|year=1949|isbn=1898910448|location=New York|pages=223|language=en|chapter=Influence of Proclus}}</ref> During his directorship of the school, the Proclean curriculum included [[Orphism (religion)|Orphic Theogony]], [[Homer]], [[Hesiod]], [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean Oracles]], [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], [[Euclid]] and [[Plotinus]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=31|loc=Chapter 2 Proclus' Place in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant}} Proclus, like [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], had an extensive literary education and was deeply committed to language, style, and literary matters which might explain why [[Allegory|allegorical reading]] is so strongly yoked to Neoplatonism.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xii|loc=Introduction}}<blockquote>"''It is manifest however, that the elements are every where bound to each other by analogy.'' ''For analogy, as we have said, imitates divine union, and is a demiurgic bond.''"—Proclus, ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.51.3–5{{Sfn|Taylor|1820a|p=428|loc=Book III}}</blockquote>[[File:Athena Parthenos LeQuire.jpg|thumb|A 42 ft. replica of [[Athena Parthenos]] in the [[Parthenon (Nashville)|Nashville Parthenon]], Centennial Park, Tennessee, USA. Proclus was a devotee of the goddess [[Athena]] and was in [[Athens]] when the original statue was removed from the [[Parthenon]] possibly between 450–470 AD.|340x340px]]
The principle which is produced below the level of the One and the Henads is the divine Intellect (''[[Nous]]''). The One cannot have a determinate nature if it is to be the source of all determinate natures, so what it produces is the totality of all determinate natures, or Being. By determination is meant existence within boundaries, a being ''this'' and not ''that''. The most important determinate natures are the ''Greatest Kinds'' from Plato's ''Sophist'' (Being, Same, Other, Rest, Motion) and Aristotle's ten categories (Quantity, Quality, etc.). In other words, the One produces what Plato called the Forms, and the Forms are understood to be the first determinations into which all things fall. The One produces the Forms through the activity of thinking. The One itself does not think, but instead produces a divine mind, Intellect, whose thoughts are themselves the Forms. Intellect is both Thinking and Being. It is a mind which has its own contents as its object. All things relate to the first principle as both One and Good. As Being, Intellect is the product of the One. But it also seeks to return to its cause, and so in Thinking it attempts to grasp the One as its Good. But because the simplicity of the One/Good does not allow Intellect to grasp it, what Intellect does is generate a succession of perspectives around its simple source. Each of these perspectives is itself a Form, and is how Intellect generates for itself its own content.
Marinus of Neapolis, a mathematician, student of Proclus and Proclus' eventual biographer{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction|1992}} or hagiographer,{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=419|loc=Main Thinkers Represented in the Sourcebook}} says Proclus lived in Athens as a predominantly{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=230|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} vegetarian scholar, prosperous and generous to his friends and that Proclus had a great devotion to the goddess [[Athena]], and believed the goddess guided him at key moments in his life.{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus|pp=221, 223, 228, 239}} A particularly striking incident of that devotion was after Roman authorities removed a colossal statue{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliv}} of the goddess [[Athena]] from the [[Acropolis of Athens|Acropolis]], near where Proclus lived.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Post-Herulian Athens |publisher=Suomen Ateenan-instituutin säätiö |others=Arja Karivieri |year=1994 |isbn=9519529527 |editor-last=Paavo |editor-first=Castrén |location=Helsinki |pages=116 |language=en|chapter=The 'House of Proclus' on the Southern Slope of the Acropolis: A Contribution by Karivieri}}</ref> Soon after, Proclus recounted a dream he had to Marinus, in which the goddess Athena told him to quickly build a temple{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=239|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} in his house dedicated to her.{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=280|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=837|loc=Vol. 3: Simplicius}}


Plotinus speaks about the generation of Intellect from the One, and Intellect's attempt to return to the One in a thinking which is also a desiring. Proclus systematises this production through a threefold movement of remaining, procession, and return (''mone, proodos, epistrophe''). Intellect remains in the One, which means that it has the One as its origin. It proceeds from the One, which means that it comes to be as a separate entity. But it returns to the One, which means that it does not cut itself off from its source, but receives the good which is its identity from the One. This threefold motion is used by Proclus to structure all levels of his system below the One and above material reality, so that all things except those mentioned remain, proceed, and return.
There is confusion between scholars about which particular statue of Athena, Marinus says was removed in his 5th century biography of Proclus (Greek title: ΠΡΟΚΛΟΣ η περι ευδαιμονιας<ref>{{Cite book |title=Procli Philosophi Platonici Opera Inedita |publisher=Apud Aug. Durand |year=1864 |editor-last=Cousin |editor-first=Victor |location=Paris |pages=1 |language=la,grc |id=ark:/13960/t2q53kc4m}}</ref>). Scholarly publications in the 19th,{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=837|loc=Vol. 3: Simplicius}} 20th{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=22|loc=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}}{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliv}} and 21st century{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=241|loc=Commentary}} plus one late 18th century English translation of Marinus' biography of Proclus,{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=239|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} say that the statue of Athena ''inside'' the [[Parthenon]], 26 [[Cubit|cubits]] high{{Sfn|Bostock|Riley|1857|p=311|loc=36.4: Artists who excelled in sculpture}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Potter |first=John |title=Archieologia Graeca |publisher=Thomas Tegg; Blackie & Son; South College Street |others=James Boyd |year=1839 |edition=4th |location=London; Glasgow; Edinburgh |pages=31-32 footnote 7 |language=en|id=ark:/13960/t0ms6984t}}</ref> and made of ivory and 40 to 50<ref>{{Cite book |title=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |year=1870c |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=William |volume=1 |location=Boston |pages=272 |language=en|chapter=Athenae |id=ark:/13960/t14m93874}}</ref> [[Talent (measurement)|talents]] of gold;{{Sfn|Frazer|1898|p=35|loc=Chapters xxiii-xxiv Zeus Polieusthe Parthenon}}{{Sfn|Potter|1839|p=31 footnote 7|loc=Grecian Antiquities}} called the [[Athena Parthenos]], is the statue that Marinus says was removed. However, some 21st century scholars{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=15|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} say that it was the bronze statue of Athena ''outside'' the Parthenon, which was about 50 ft.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=25 (note 58)|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}{{Sfn|Smith|1870a|p=250|loc=Pheidas}} to 70 ft. high including the pedestal,{{Sfn|Smith|1870c|p=|loc=Athenae|pp=280-281}} called the [[Athena Promachos]], that Marinus, in his biography of Proclus, says was removed. 20th and 21st century scholarly publications date Marinus' account of the removal of ''a'' statue of Athena between 450–470 AD.{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=22|loc=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=15|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}


Proclus also gives a much more elaborate account of Intellect than does Plotinus. In Plotinus we find the distinction between Being and Thinking in Intellect. Proclus, in keeping with his triadic structure of remaining, procession, and return, distinguishes three moments in Intellect: Intelligible, Intelligible-Intellectual, and Intellectual. They correspond to the object of thought, the power of the object to be grasped by the subject, and the thinking subject. These three divisions are elaborated further, so that the intelligible moment consists of three triads (Being, Eternity, and the Living Being or Paradigm from Plato's ''Timaeus''). The intelligible-intellectual moment also consists of three triads, and the intellectual moment is a hebdomad (seven elements), among which is numbered the Demiurge from Plato's ''Timaeus'' and also the monad of Time (which is before temporal things). In this elaboration of Intellect as a whole, Proclus is attempting to give a hierarchical ordering to the various [[metaphysical]] elements and principles that other philosophers have discussed, by containing them within a single triadic logic of unfolding.
Marinus reports Proclus was a prominent member of Athenian society, remained unmarried, despite numerous noble and wealthy alliances offered to him, and that he had no children.{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=229|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} He also says Proclus took the liveliest interest in the welfare of his friends, their wives and their children;<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bigg |first=C. |title=Neoplatonism |publisher=Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge; E. & J. B. Young & Co |year=1895 |location=London; New York |pages=319 |language=en |id=ark:/13960/t13n20g6g}}</ref>{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=229|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} promoted and increased literary studies,{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=228|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} and at times took part in politics despite the inimical Christian atmosphere.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} On occasion he also gave advice to magistrates, composed letters for noblemen,{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=228|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus}} took part in public education and was under the protection of a distinguished member of Athenian society called Rufinus.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} Marinus also reports Proclus usually gave five lectures a day, held informal evening conversations, spent nights writing hymns, employed himself in Orphic and Chaldaic devotions,{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|p=|loc=The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus|pp=230, 231}} and that in his prime, Proclus was writing, or dictating to a scribe, 700 lines a day.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=11|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}


Proclus's universe unfolds according to the smallest steps possible, from unity to multiplicity. With Intellect emerges the multiplicity which allows one being to be different from another being. But as a divine mind, Intellect has a complete grasp of all its moments in one act of thought. For this reason, Intellect is outside of Time.
==== Sabbatical ====
During his entire time in Athens, Proclus left only once, and that was to [[Lydia]] for a year-long{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} sabbatical{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=13|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} designed to lessen the pressure put on him by his political,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} religious{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxviii (footnote 4)|loc=Introduction}} and philosophical activity.{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=20|loc=Introduction}} During his sabbatical, he spent time traveling and being initiated into various local [[Greco-Roman mysteries]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} and put to good use the knowledge he gained in Lydia later in his career.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=6 (footnote 8)|loc=General introduction to the Commentary}} Scholars are unsure about when Proclus went on his year-long sabbatical, but they suppose it was when he was an established scholar, possibly when he was about 40 years-old{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=22|loc=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}} in c. 450 AD;{{Sfn|Steel|2007|p=2|loc=Introduction}} however, he may have left Athens earlier, because of the closing of public temples by the Roman emperor [[Theodosius II]] in 435 AD, and returned after Theodosius’ death.{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=6|loc=Introduction}} Whilst in Lydia, Proclus met the philosopher [https://www.bloges.wiki/wiki/de/Perikles_von_Lydien Pericles of Lydia], whom he addressed in his work ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'', and may be the same Pericles cited in his works ''Commentary on Parmenides'' and ''Platonic Theology''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=38|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}


Intellect as the second principle also gives rise to individual intellects, which hold various places within Proclus's cosmos.
==== Succession ====
Proclus was head of the School of Plato in Athens for nearly fifty years until his death in 485 AD. He died in Athens at about the age of 73 and was buried near [[Mount Lycabettus]] in the same tomb as Syrianus.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=19|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} His inheritance was given to Athens and to his native city of Xanthus.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xi|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} He was succeeded by [[Marinus of Neapolis]],{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=ix|loc=Forward by I. Mueller}} and then by [[Isidore of Alexandria]],{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiii|loc=General Introduction}} a young and much admired former student of Proclus,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=5|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} chosen by Marinus of Neapolis,{{Sfn|Rappoport|1904|p=313|loc=The End of the Pagan Schools}} and a pallbearer at Proclus' funeral.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=39|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}}


In terms of his sources, Intellect is like taking the Platonic Forms and placing them in the self-thinking thought which is Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
=== House of Proclus and Epitaph ===
[[File:The archaeological site of the House of Proclus on Dionysiou Areopagitou Pedestrian Street on October 20, 2020.jpg|thumb|386x386px|Modern day [[Athens]], adjacent to the south slope of the [[Acropolis of Athens|Acropolis]], showing the covered ruins of the House of Proclus on [[Dionysiou Areopagitou Street]] with the walls marked. It is likely that the house of the head of the Athenian school was bequeathed, so that the house [[Plutarch of Athens]] became the house of [[Syrianus]] which then became the house of Proclus.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xliv (footnote 21)|loc=Introduction}}<ref name=":3" />]]
The ruins of Proclus' house in Athens were first discovered in 1879, but it was not until 1955 that the excavator Giannis Meliades claimed the site to be the '''House of Proclus''<nowiki/>', a claim also supported by the publications of American Byzantine scholar [[Alison Frantz]] in 1975{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=31|loc=Introduction}} and 1988, Finnish Professor [[:fi:Arja Karivieri|Arja Karivieri]] in 1994<ref>{{Cite book |title=Post-Herulian Athens: aspects of life and culture in Athens A.D. 267-529 |publisher=Suomen Ateenan-instituutin säätiö |year=1994 |isbn=9789519529523 |editor-last=Castrén |editor-first=Paavo |location=Helsinki |pages=115–139 |language=en |chapter=The 'House of Proclus' on the Southern Slope of the Acropolis: A Contribution by Karivieri}}</ref> and Finnish Professor [[:fi:Paavo Castrén|Paavo Castrén]]{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=255 (footnote 4)|loc=Commentary}} in 1994.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=16|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Afonasina |first1=Anna |last2=Afonasin |first2=Eugene |date=2014 |title=The Houses of Philosophical Schools In Athens |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292423946 |journal=ΣΧΟΛΗ |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=9–23 |via=ResearchGate}}</ref> The excavations are well documented and the archaeological finds from the House of Proclus are on display at the [[Acropolis Museum]] in Athens.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=16|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}} The ruins are now covered, but the walls are clearly marked on [[Dionysiou Areopagitou Street]] where the street meets the steps coming down from the south of the [[Acropolis of Athens|Acropolis]], opposite the [[Theatre of Dionysus]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=16|loc=Chapter 1 Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg}}


===Soul===
The following translated epitaph, composed by Proclus,{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xiv|loc=Introduction}} is engraved in Greek on the single tomb of both Proclus and Syrianus:<blockquote>[[File:Mount Lycabettus from the Areopagus on June 7, 2020.jpg|thumb|375x375px|[[Mount Lycabettus]], a limestone hill in Athens near where Proclus and his teacher [[Syrianus]] were buried.|left]]"''I Proclus, here the debt of nature paid,''
[[Soul]] (''Psyche'') is produced by Intellect, and so is the third principle in the Neoplatonic system. It is a mind, like Intellect, but it does not grasp all of its own content as one. Therefore, with Soul, Time comes to be, as a measure of Soul's movement from one object of thought to another. Intellect tries to grasp the One, and ends up producing its own ideas as its content. Soul attempts to grasp Intellect in its return, and ends up producing its own secondary unfoldings of the Forms in Intellect. Soul, in turn, produces Body, the material world.


In his commentary on Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' Proclus explains the role the Soul as a principle has in mediating the Forms in Intellect to the body of the material world as a whole. The Soul is constructed through certain proportions, described mathematically in the ''Timaeus'', which allow it to make Body as a divided image of its own arithmetical and geometrical ideas.
''(My country Lycia) in the dust am laid;''


Individual souls have the same overall structure as the principle of Soul, but they are weaker. They have a tendency to be fascinated with the material world, and be overpowered by it. It is at this point that individual souls are united with a material body (i.e. when they are born). Once in the body, our passions have a tendency to overwhelm our reason. According to Proclus, philosophy is the activity which can liberate the soul from a subjection to bodily passions, remind it of its origin in Soul, Intellect, and the One, and prepare it not only to ascend to the higher levels while still in this life, but to avoid falling immediately back into a new body after death.
''Great Syrianus form'd my early youth,''


Because the soul's attention, while inhabiting a body, is turned so far away from its origin in the intelligible world, Proclus thinks that we need to make use of bodily reminders of our spiritual origin. In this he agrees with the doctrines of [[theurgy]] put forward by [[Iamblichus]]. Theurgy is possible because the powers of the gods (the ''henads'') extend through their series of causation even down to the material world. And by certain power-laden words, acts, and objects, the soul can be drawn back up the series, so to speak. Proclus himself was a devotee of many of the religions in Athens, considering that the power of the gods could be present in these various approaches.
''And left me his successor in '''the truth'''.''


For Proclus, philosophy is important because it is one of the primary ways to rescue the soul from a fascination with the body and restore it to its station. However, beyond its own station, the soul has Intellect as its goal, and ultimately has unification with the One as its goal. So higher than philosophy is the non-discursive reason of Intellect, and the pre-intellectual unity of the One. Philosophy is therefore a means of its own overcoming, in that it points the soul beyond itself.
''One common tomb, our earthly part contains,''


==Influence==
''One place our kindred souls, —th' aetherial plains.''"{{Sfn|Taylor|1792|p=32|loc=The Life of Proclus}}</blockquote>
Proclus can be considered as the spokesman of mature [[Neoplatonism]]. His works had a great influence on the history of western philosophy. The extent of this influence, however, is obscured by the channels through which it was exercised. An important source of Procline ideas was through the [[Pseudo-Dionysius]].<ref>Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, by [[Pope Benedict XVI]], General Audience Address for May 14, 2008</ref> This late-5th- or early-6th-century Christian Greek author wrote under the pseudonym [[Dionysius the Areopagite]], the figure converted by St. Paul in Athens. Because of this fiction, his writings were taken to have almost apostolic authority. He is an original Christian writer, and in his works can be found a great number of Proclus's metaphysical principles.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/RDOTEO|title=The Elements of Theology: A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary|last=Dodds|first=E. R.|date=1992|publisher=Oxford University Press UK}}</ref>


Another important source for the influence of Proclus on the Middle Ages is [[Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius|Boethius]]'s ''[[Consolation of Philosophy]]'', which has a number of Proclus principles and motifs. The central poem of Book III is a summary of Proclus's ''Commentary on the Timaeus'', and Book V contains the important principle of Proclus that things are known not according to their own nature, but according to the character of the knowing subject.
== Philosophy ==
Proclus's neoplatonic philosophy and theology is formalized and systematized in his work ''Elements of Theology'' and elaborated on in his lengthy works: ''Platonic Theology'', ''Commentary on Timaeus'' and ''Commentary on Parmenides''.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xi|loc=Introduction}} Although Proclus was a great systematizer, little of what he wrote was original.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}} He formalized, systematized, elucidated and elaborated on the main sources of Neoplatonic philosophy and theology that were already in the writings or teachings of [[Orpheus]], [[Homer]],{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=144|loc=Notes to pages 46-47}} [[Hesiod]],{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2012|p=114|loc=Notes to page 115}} [[Pythagoras]],{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xvi (footnote 27)|loc=Forward by I. Mueller|ps=}} [[Socrates]],{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=144|loc=Notes to pages 46-47}} [[Plato]], [[Plotinus]], [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], the [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean Oracles]], [[Iamblichus]] and [[Syrianus]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xv|loc=General Introduction|1992}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=36|loc=2 Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by H. Tarrant}}


A summary of Proclus's ''Elements of Theology'' circulated under the name ''[[Liber de Causis]]'' (the ''Book of Causes''). This book is of uncertain origin, but circulated in the Arabic world as a work of Aristotle, and was translated into Latin as such. It had great authority because of its supposed Aristotelian origin, and it was only when Proclus's ''Elements'' were translated into Latin that Thomas Aquinas realised its true origin.
=== Neoplatonic Theology ===
Proclus' doctrines of Neoplatonic theology are based on 211 propositions, and proofs of those propositions using his authorities, in his systematic work ''Elements of Theology'' that formalized, systematized and elaborated the early and loosely systematized Neoplatonic theology of [[Plotinus]], [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and [[Salutius|Sallustius]], into a later Athenian Neoplatonic theology.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Introduction|pp=ix-x}}


Proclus's works also exercised an influence during the Renaissance through figures such as Georgius Gemistus [[Pletho]] and [[Marsilio Ficino]]. Before the contemporary period, the most significant scholar of Proclus in the English-speaking world was [[Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist)|Thomas Taylor]], who produced English translations of most of his works, with commentaries.
The structure of the propositions in ''Elements of Theology'' has two major subdivisions, the first, propositions 1–112, introduce typical Neoplatonic metaphysical antitheses consecutively.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}} Some important examples of typical Neoplatonic metaphysical antitheses are, multiplicity and unity, cause and effect, progression and return, and potentiality and actuality.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}} The second subdivision, propositions 113–211, uses the results of propositions 1–112 to construct theories about the realm of henads and the essential hypostases of Nous and Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}} The propositions result in a more complex and more dynamic theology than that of early Neoplatonic theology, with the complexity due to a much greater formalization and systematization of Neoplatonic hypostases, and hierarchies of beings in those hypostases.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Introduction|pp=ix-x}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}}


His work inspired the [[New England Transcendentalism|New England Transcendentalists]], including [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], who declared in 1843 that, in reading Proclus, "I am filled with hilarity & spring, my heart dances, my sight is quickened, I behold shining relations between all beings, and am impelled to write and almost to sing."
==== Eternity ====


Modern scholarship on Proclus essentially begins with [[E. R. Dodds]] edition of the ''Elements of Theology'' in 1933. Since then he has attracted considerable attention, especially in the French-speaking world. Procline scholarship, however, still (2006) falls far short of the attention paid to [[Plotinus]].
Eternity is the cause of life, power and energy in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Spanu|first=Nicola|title=Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles|publisher=Routledge|year=2020|isbn=9781000166378|location=London and New York|pages=71|language=en|chapter=The Structure of the Divine Dimension}}</ref><blockquote>"''eternity is the cause of never-failing life, of unwearied power, and [resolute]{{Sfn|Spanu|2020|p=|loc=The Structure of the Divine Dimension|pp=71, 91}} energy''"—Proclus, ''Platonic Theology'' III.18.59.16–26{{Sfn|Taylor|1816a|p=190|loc=Book III}}''{{Sfn|Spanu|2020|p=|loc=The Structure of the Divine Dimension|pp=71, 91}}''</blockquote>The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine of Eternity is formalized in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 52–55.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=51-54|loc=Of Time and Eternity}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=227-230|loc=Commentatry}} Those propositions are a formalization of the early Neoplatonic understanding of eternal ''existence'' and eternal ''activity'', otherwise known simply as eternity.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=51-54|loc=Of Time and Eternity}} Proclus' understanding of eternal ''existence'' had its roots in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 37e ff. and ultimately to the early fifth century BC philosopher [[Parmenides]] ''[[On Nature (Parmenides)|On Nature]]'' v. 66.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=227|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>


The following epigram is engraved on the tomb which houses Proclus and his master Syrianus:
"''But that which is ever changeless without motion must not become elder or younger in time, neither must it have become so in the past nor be so in the future...''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 38a{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=121|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 37d-38b}}</blockquote>


:"I am Proclus,
Proclus' understanding of eternal ''activity'' had its roots in Aristotle's ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' 1154b27.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=228|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>
:Lycian whom Syrianus brought up to teach his doctrine after him.
:This tomb reunites both our bodies.
:May an identical sojourn be reserved to our both souls!"


The crater [[Proclus (crater)|Proclus]] on the [[Moon]] is named after him.
"''This is why God always enjoys a single and simple pleasure; for there is not only an activity of movement but an activity of immobility, and pleasure is found more in rest than in movement.''"—Aristotle, ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1154b27{{Sfn|Ross|1925|p=1154b|loc=Book 7.14 Ethica Nicomachea}}</blockquote>


==Bibliography==
In the early Neoplatonism of Plotinus, ''[[Enneads]]'' 3.7.4, eternal ''existence'' and eternal ''activity'' were combined into a Neoplatonic understanding of eternity.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=228|loc=Commentary}} <blockquote>


===Proclus's works===
"''And eternity may be properly denominated a God unfolding himself into light, and shining forth, such as he essentially is, viz. as immutable and the same, and thus firmly established in life.''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 3.7.4{{Sfn|Taylor|1895|p=122|loc=On Eternity and Time}}</blockquote>
*''Platonic Theology'': A long (six volumes in the [[Collection Budé|Budé]] edition) systematic work, using evidence from Plato's dialogues to describe the character of the various divine orders
*''Elements of Theology'': A systematic work, with 211 propositions and proofs, describing the universe from the first principle, the One, to the descent of souls into bodies
*''Elements of Physics''
*''Commentary on Plato's "Alcibiades I"'' (it is disputed whether or not this dialogue was written by Plato, but the Neoplatonists thought it was)
*''Commentary on Plato's "Cratylus"''
*''Commentary on Plato's "Parmenides"''
*''Commentary on Plato's "Republic"''
*''Commentary on Plato's "Timaeus"''
*''A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's "Elements"''
*Three small works: ''Ten doubts concerning providence''; ''On providence and fate''; ''On the existence of evils''
*Various ''Hymns'' (fragments)
*''Commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles'' (fragments)
*''The Life of Proclus, or On Happiness'': written by his pupil, Marinus of Samaria


A number of other minor works or fragments of works survive. A number of major commentaries have been lost.
The Neoplatonic understanding of eternity was passed into Christian theology through [[Augustine of Hippo|St Augustine]] in ''[[Confessions (Augustine)|Confessions]]'' XI.11 and ''[[On the Trinity]]'' XII.14, [[Boethius]] in ''[[The Consolation of Philosophy]]'' V.6 and [[Thomas Aquinas|St Thomas Aquinas]] in ''[[Summa Theologica]]'' First Part, Q.10, Article 5.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=228|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''Eternity therefore is a perfect possession altogether of an endless life''"—Boethius, ''The Consolation of Philosophy'' V.6{{Sfn|Rand|Stewart|1958|p=401|loc=The Consolation of Philosophy V.vi}}</blockquote>


The ''Liber de Causis'' (Book of Causes) is not a work by Proclus, but a summary of his work the ''Elements of Theology'', likely written by an Arabic interpreter. It was mistakenly thought in the Middle Ages to be a work of Aristotle, but was recognised by Aquinas not to be so.
==== One and Many ====
Proclus begins his ''Elements of Theology'' with the systematical exploration of the antithesis of the One and the Many, an opposition that was fundamental to Greek philosophy for about 1000 years, as it was a search for the First Principle of every thing immaterial and material.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=187-188|loc=Commentary}} In his ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 696.33 ff., Proclus finds four solutions for the First Principle, (a) pure multiplicity, or the Many (b) explicit multiplicity with implied unity, (c) explicit unity with implied multiplicity, and (d) pure unity, or the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} Solutions (b) and (c) are known as partial unities.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} The last of these solutions, (d) pure unity, or the One, was the traditional Neoplatonic belief that had its roots in the first hypothesis of Plato's ''Parmenides'' 137c ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''Well then, said Parmenides, if there is a One, of course the One will not be many. Consequently it cannot have any parts or be a whole. For a part is a part of a whole; and a whole means that from which no part is missing; so, whether you speak of it as 'a whole' or as 'having parts', in either case the One would consist of parts and in that way be many and not one. But it is to be one and not many. Therefore, if the One is to be one, it will not be a whole nor have parts.''"—Plato, ''Parmenides'' 137c-d{{Sfn|Cornford|1939|p=116|loc=Hyp. I. Absolute Unity}}</blockquote>''Elements of Theology'' propositions 1–6 try to prove the existence of solution (d) pure unity, or the One, by finding contradictions, to the other three solutions (a), (b) and (c).{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} The arguments used in the proofs of Proclus' propositions are supported by his authorities in Plato's dialogues ''[[Parmenides]]'' and [[Sophist (dialogue)|''Sophist'']], Plotinus' ''[[Enneads]]'', Aristotle's [[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|''Metaphysics'']], and [[Syrianus]]' ''Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics''.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188-193|loc=Commentary}}


A list of modern editions and translations of his surviving works is available at:
===== The One and Partial Unities =====
:{{Cite web
| title = Editions and Translations: Proclus (after 1900)
| work = De Wulf–Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
| url = http://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclused.html
}}


==See also==
* [[Allegorical interpretations of Plato]]


==Notes and references==
In ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 1, of the four solutions for the First Principle of every thing immaterial and material, the only solution Proclus found a contradiction to, or found not to exist, was (a) pure multiplicity, or the Many.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} His authority for the basis of the contradiction was Plato's ''Parmenides'' 157c ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''Yet the Others are not wholly destitute of the One, but partake of it in a way.''"—Plato, ''Parmenides'' 157c{{Sfn|Cornford|1939|p=206|loc=Hyp. III. The Others as ' Other Ones '}}</blockquote>However, Proclus' formal argument in proposition 1 against pure multiplicity, or the Many, was different to Plato's and is elaborated on in his ''Platonic Theology'' II.1{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188-189|loc=Commentary}} The other three solutions to the First Principle (b) explicit multiplicity with implied unity, (c) explicit unity with implied multiplicity, and (d) pure unity, or the One{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} were supported by arguments from his authorities.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=189-190|loc=Commentary}} The thesis that any thing that ''is'', immaterial or material, must have unity to some degree was also supported by Plotinus in ''Enneads'' 6.9.1 and 5.6.3.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} In the proofs of propositions 2–4, he was able to establish the existence of (d) pure unity, or the One, and distinguish it from both the partial unities (b) and (c) and show (d) pure unity, or the One, is necessary for both the partial unities (b) and (c) to exist.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}}

Also, in ''Elements of Theology'', in the proof of proposition 5, the two types of partial unity (b) and (c) were determined not to be the source of the One and so, because the One was necessary for (b) and (c) to exist, and since there was nothing else, they had to progress from the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=7|loc=Of the One and the Many}} Further, in the proof to proposition 6, both types of partial unities (b) and (c) were found to be composed of the same indivisible units, or henads.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=189|loc=Commentary}} Hence, the One, and the two types of partial unities, (b) and (c), that progressed from the One, formed a hierarchy that Proclus used as a basis of his next set of propositions, the doctrine on Hierarchy of Causes.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=189|loc=Commentary}}

==== Causes ====
In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', propositions 7–13 begin to formalize and systematize causes and culminate in linking the First Cause to the One, the Final Cause to the Good,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=193-200|loc=Commentary}} and finally identifying the One to be identical to the Good. Proposition 7 is fundamental to the entire structure of Neoplatonic theology and asserts: a cause is superior to its effect.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=194|loc=Commentary}}

Proposition 7 has its roots in [[Plato]]'s ''[[Philebus]]'' 27b, is stated clearly in [[Cicero]]'s ''[[De Natura Deorum]]'' II.33.86, and is fundamental to the early Neoplatonism of [[Plotinus]], ''[[Enneads]]'' 5.4.1, [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], ''Sententiae'' xiii, and [[Iamblichus]], ''[[On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians|On the Mysteries]]'' III.20.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=194|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''Socrates. The agent or cause always naturally leads, and the patient or effect naturally follows it?''

''Protarchus. Certainly.''

''Socrates. Then the cause and what is subordinate to it in generation are not the same, but different?''

''Protarchus. True.''"—Plato, ''Philebus'' 27{{Sfn|Jowett|1892d|p=595|loc=A question about pleasure; another about mind.}}</blockquote>Proclus is the only ancient philosopher to prove the assertion: a cause is superior to its effect, using arguments from his authorities in the proof, one of those authorities being [[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' 1094a1.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=194|loc=Commentary}}

===== A Transcendent Final Cause =====


Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 8 argues for the existence of a transcendent final cause of the universe, or a transcendent Good, like propositions 4–5 argued for the existence of a transcendent One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=194|loc=Commentary}} In proposition 8, in the proof of the existence of a transcendent Good, Proclus uses the Neoplatonic theological belief that the Good is the good that ''all things'' desire, a belief that has its roots in Plato's ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' 509b, ''Philebus'' 20d, Aristotle's ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1094a1 and Plotinus' ''Enneads'' 5.5.13.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=195|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.''"—Aristotle, ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1094a1{{Sfn|Ross|1925|p=1094a|loc=Ethica Nicomachea Book I}}</blockquote>

===== Self-Sufficient =====


In ''Elements of Theology'', propositions 9 and 10 claim self-sufficient is a mean term, or intermediary term, between the Good and the good things of sense experience.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=196|loc=Commentary}} Hence, the term self-sufficient forms a bridge between immaterial levels of reality and the material level of reality.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=196|loc=Commentary}} Proposition 9 asserts that things that are self-sufficient, or derive their well-being from themselves, are more similar to the Good than things that are not self-sufficient,{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=9|loc=On the Self-Sufficient}} and hence are more like the Good and superior to those that are not self-sufficient.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=11|loc=Of Causes}} Proposition 10 asserts: everything that is self-sufficient is inferior to the Good.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=11|loc=Of Causes}} Proclus' arguments for the fine difference between self-sufficiency and the Good in a monistic system are seen in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.90.9 ff. that has its roots in Plato's ''Timaeus'' 33d.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=196|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''For by design was it created to supply its own sustenance by its own wasting, and to have all its action and passion in itself and by itself: for its framer deemed that were it self-sufficing it would be far better than if it required aught else.''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 33d{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=103|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 33c-34a}}</blockquote>

===== A Transcendent First Cause =====


In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', proposition 11 claims ''all things'' proceed from a single first efficient cause of the universe,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Causes|pp=11-13}} thereby assigning a transcendence to the first efficient cause of the universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=197|loc=Commentary}} The arguments in the proof of Proposition 11 reject any views that deny efficient causality, reject doctrines of Bi-causality, reject assumptions of an infinite chain of unilateral causation, and reject Empedoclean pluralism.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=197|loc=Commentary}} In proposition 12, Proclus identifies the first efficient cause of the universe with the final cause of the universe, an argument that has its roots in Plato's ''Republic'' 509b.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=198|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power.''"—Plato, ''Republic'' 509b{{Sfn|Jowett|1892c|p=210 (Book VI)|loc=Book VI.509: The analogy of the visible and invisible.}}</blockquote>Proposition 12 argues that in the chain of causes, there is nothing higher than the final cause of the universe and there is nothing higher than the first cause of the universe, where higher means both morally better and more unified.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=199|loc=Commentary}}

===== The Good is Identical to the One =====
In ''Elements of Theology'', the propositions 7–13 culminate in proposition 13 in which Proclus links the first cause, of everything immaterial and the material universe, to the One, identified by propositions 1–6,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=199|loc=Commentary}} and then links the One to the final cause, of everything immaterial and the material universe, to the Good, and hence deduces the Good is identical to the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=15|loc=Of Causes}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=199|loc=Commentary}}

Scholastic opinion is that Proclus' authorities for his proofs of propositions 7-13 include, Plato's ''Timaeus, Republic'', ''Phaedo'', ''Philebus'' and ''Meno'', Aristotle's ''Physics'', ''Metaphysics,'' ''Nicomachean Ethics'' and ''Eudemian Ethics'', [[Aristoxenus]]' ''Elementa harmonica'', Plotinus' ''Enneads'', the Pythagorean philosopher Euryphamus, [[Philo]] and [[Plutarch]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Causes|pp=196-200}}<blockquote>"''Of those who maintain the existence of the unchangeable substances some say the One itself is the good itself; but they thought its substance lay mainly in its unity.''"—Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' 1091b13{{Sfn|Ross|1928|p=1091a|loc=Book N.3 Metaphysica}}</blockquote>It is generally agreed by scholars that Aristotle is mainly referring to Plato in ''Metaphysics'' 1091b13.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=199|loc=Commentary}}

==== Hypostases ====
Proclus' ''[[Elements of Theology]]'' propositions 14–20 formalize and systematize Neoplatonic hypostases.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=200|loc=Commentary}} Propositions 14–20 systematically build a hierarchy of hypostases, culminating with proposition 20 that concludes with the claim that there are three hypostases and one material level of reality. The three hypostases in hierarchical order are: the One, the hypostasis of Nous and the hypostasis of Soul. The One is the most essential hypostasis, the hypostasis of Nous descends from the One, the hypostasis of Soul descends from the hypostasis of Nous and the material level of reality, or the material universe, descends from the hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=206-209}} Proclus elaborates on the Neoplatonic hypostases of Nous and Soul in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.243.19 and II.251.5, in his ''Commentary on Cratylus'' 118, in his ''Platonic Theology'' III.24.164 and II.5.93 and in his ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 703.12 ff., and 1069.23 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=|pp=207-208}}

The three Neoplatonic hypostases: the One, Nous and Soul, also known as a trinity, have their roots in:{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=206-207|p=}}

* Plato's ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', which was identified by [[Moderatus of Gades|Moderatus]] with the Form of the Good (hypostasis of the One);
* the Demiurge of Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]],'' which was identified by [[Posidonius|Poseidonius]], [[Antiochus of Ascalon|Antiochus]] or the Old [[Platonic Academy]] with Aristotle's doctrine of Nous in ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'' Λ.7 (hypostasis of Nous);
* the World Soul of Plato's ''Timaeus'' and ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]'' Book X (hypostasis of Soul).

The Neoplatonic doctrine of the Trinity, comprising the hypostases of the One, Nous and Soul, was known to the [[Middle Platonism|Middle Platonist]] [[Plutarch]], but was given its established pattern and structural cohesion by the early Neoplatonist [[Plotinus]] in his ''[[Enneads]]'' 2.9.1–18, 3.8.9, 4.4.11, 4.3.5 and 5.3.10–12.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=|pp=207-208}}<blockquote>"''Consequently there are no principles other (than the three divine hypostatic substances); and the first rank will have to be assigned to Unity [the One], the second to Intelligence [Nous], as the first thinking principle, and the third to the Soul.''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'', 2.9.1{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918b|p=600|loc=ii.9 Against the Gnostics}}</blockquote>

==== Series ====
[[File:Homer British Museum.jpg|thumb|Marble bust of [[Homer]]. Homer is an important authority for Proclus|290x290px]]

In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, hypostases are progressions, or a series of causations,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}} from distinct ''unifying principles'',{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=363|loc=Glossary}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=91|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}} or henads.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=209|loc=Commentary}} Progression from henads is achieved through a likeness of members to themselves and ultimately to the henad that is at the summit of a series of causation.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}} Within each hypostasis there are also progressions, or a series of causations from ''unifying causes'',{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=364|loc=Glossary}} or monads.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208|loc=Commentary}} Similarly, progressions from a monad is achieved through a likeness{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}} of members to themselves and ultimately to the monad of that series of causation.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208|loc=Commentary}}

In ''Elements of Theology,'' Proclus' first uses the word 'series' (Ancient Greek: '[[wiktionary:σειρά#Ancient Greek|σειρά]]') in proposition 21 when writing about a monad and a series, or order, that is a unity derived from the monad.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=25|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}} For example, the generic attributes{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=209|loc=Commentary}} of the monad [[Helios]], progresses (where progressions imply likeness{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=91|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}}) into the material universe through a series of causation resulting in the [[Sun]] itself, people with a sun-like soul, sun-like animals, e.g. a rooster, sun-like plants, e.g. [[Heliotropium|heliotropes]] and stones like sunstones.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}} The roots of representing a progression from the heavens to the material world as a series, or a chain, (Ancient Greek: [[wiktionary:σειρά#Ancient Greek|σειρά]]), are Orphic, from Homer's ''[[Iliad]]'' Book 8 (Θ), 19–20{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208-209|loc=Commentary}} where '[[wiktionary:Σειρήν|σειρὴν']] is translated as 'a chain':<blockquote>"''Make ye fast from heaven a chain of gold, and lay ye hold thereof, all ye gods and all goddesses;''"—Homer, ''Iliad'' Book 8 19–20{{Sfn|Murray|1928|p=338–339|loc=Book VIII The Iliad}}</blockquote>

===== Vertical Series and Transverse Series =====
Scholars of the late Athenian Neoplatonic theology of Proclus represent progressions from a hypostasis as two types of series, a vertical{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=200, 208-209, 256, 260, 263, 267, 270}} series and a transverse{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=208-209, 255-257, 262, 270, 272-274,}} (or horizontal{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=|pp=474, 477}}) series.{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=|pp=316, 477-478}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=27|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} Scholars use multiple vertical series to represent progressions of ''generic'' characteristics that give a fundamental character to beings in the distinct hypostases of the One, Nous and Soul,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=255|loc=Commentary}} and scholars use multiple transverse series to represent progressions of ''specific'' characteristics that give an individualistic character to beings through Neoplatonic hypostases.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=255|loc=Commentary}} Vertical series develop from henads, which are unifying principles,{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=363, 364|loc=Glossary}} while transverse series develop from monads, which are unifying causes.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=209|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=363, 364|loc=Glossary}} Tracing a transverse series from the monad to its members, is moving from cause to effect, while tracing a transverse series from its members to the monad, is moving from effect to cause.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208|loc=Commentary}}

===== Series of Causation =====
The late Athenian Neoplatonic theology of Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 110, 111{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Supplementary Theorems on Causality|pp=99}} and 132,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=117|loc=Of Divine Henads, or Gods|pp=}} provides a continuous transverse series of causation from the unifying cause of the One ''through'' the hypostases, Nous and Soul and the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} It also provides a continuous transverse series of causation from the unifying causes, or monads, in the hypostasis of Nous ''through'' the hypostasis of Soul and the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} Finally, it provides a transverse series of causation from the unifying causes, or monads, in the hypostasis of Soul ''through'' the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=256-257, 270}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|pp=477-478|loc=Notes to Page 334}} In each series of causation, there are no gaps, or no vacuum.

The late Athenian Neoplatonic theology of Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 162–165,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Divine Henads, or Gods|pp=141-143}} also provides a continuous vertical series of causation from unifying principles, or henads, within each division of the hypostasis of Nous, within each division of the hypostasis of Soul and within the subdivisions of the material universe, leaving no gaps, or no vacuum.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|loc=Commentary|pp=282-284}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|pp=477-478|loc=Notes to Page 334}}

Further, ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 108, 109,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=97|loc=Supplementary Theorems on Causality}} assert a continuous vertical series of causation that connects a monad in a transverse series of causation to a monad in a subsequent transverse series of causation, thereby vertically linking all transverse series, leaving no gaps, or no vacuum.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=255-256}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|pp=477-478|loc=Notes to Page 334}} Hence, in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, there is a continuous vertical and transverses series of causation from the One to the material universe that forms a great 'chain', or series, of beings leaving no gaps, or no vacuum.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== Multiplicity from Unity ====
A fundamental principle in Proclus' doctrines is stated in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 11, which asserts: all that exists proceeds from a single first cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=13|loc=Of Causes, prop. 11}} The first cause can be seen like a root of a tree from which progresses the trunk and branches, the trunk being near the root while the branches are distant.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=198|loc=Commentary}} From Plotinus onwards, it was essential to explain how a multiplicity of things could proceed from a totally transcendent and Simple One.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}}

===== Law of Emanation and Law of Undiminished Giving =====
[[Plotinus]]' doctrines to explain multiplicity from unity are discussed in ''[[Enneads]]'' 2.9.3, 3.8.10 and 5.3.12, where he explains the universe is produced from the One like a limitless fountain that is undiminished by its giving and in which there are no gaps.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}} That limitless undiminished fountain is known as Plotinus' law of Emanation, in ''Enneads'' 5.1.6.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=212|loc=Commentary}} and law of Undiminished Giving, in ''Enneads'' 5.4.2:{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=214|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''What conception are we then to form of this generation of Intelligence by this immovable Cause [the One]? It is a radiation of light which escapes without disturbing its quietness, like the splendor which emanates perpetually from the sun, without affecting its quietness, which surrounds it with out leaving it.''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 5.1.6{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918a|p=182–183|loc=v.1 Three Principal Hypostases}}</blockquote>which has its roots in Plato's ''Timaeus'' 42e.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=214|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''So when [the One] had made all these ordinances for them [the One] was abiding after the manner of [its] own nature...''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 42e{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=147|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 42d-43a}}</blockquote>What Plotinus meant by 'no gaps' in his limitless and undiminished fountain is more precisely stated in his ''[[Enneads]]'' 6.9.8 where he claims immaterial beings are not separated by a quantitative interval, but by a qualitative interval.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}} However, Plotinus did not only leave a qualitative gap, but a qualitative gulf, between the One, the first hypostasis, which is pure unity, and the immediate consequent hypostasis of Nous, which has a multiplicity of entities.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}} This is significantly evident in ''[[Enneads]]'' 6.5.9 where he cannot explain how to get multiplicity from the One, without first putting multiplicity into it, thereby negating the pure unity of the One. {{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''If then this Essence may justly be called one, if unity may be predicated of its being, it must, in a certain manner, seem to contain the nature opposed to its own; that is, the manifold; it must not attract this manifoldness from without, but it must, from and by itself, possess this manifold; it must veritably be one, and by its own unity be infinite and manifold''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 6.5.9{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918b|pp=324-325|loc=Vol. 2, vi.5 Essence is Present Everywhere}}</blockquote>

===== Law of Continuity =====
Plotinus' law of Emanation was formalized by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 25, and Plotinus' law of Undiminished Giving was formalized in propositions 26 and 27.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=212|loc=Commentary}} To attempt to fill the qualitative gulf, left by Plotinus' law of Emanation and law of Undiminished Giving, between the One, the first hypostasis, and the immediate consequent hypostasis of Nous, Plotinus' laws were elaborated by Proclus by the addition of a third law, the law of Continuity, formalized in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 28.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}}

<blockquote>"''Every producing cause constitutes things similar to itself, prior to such as are dissimilar.''"—Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' Proposition 28{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=27|loc=Proposition XXVIII}}</blockquote>

The law of Continuity, in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, means there is only ''the minimum'' qualitative difference between the distinctness of an entity and its immediate consequent entity in a progression of entities.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}} [[E. R. Dodds]], in his ''Elements of Theology'', compares Proclus' proposition 28 with Saint Thomas Aquinas' ''Summa Contra Gentiles'' I.29 written about 800 years later, and with ''The Confessions of Jakob Boehme'' written about 1100 years later.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"...''it is of the nature of action that a like agent should produce a like action,''"—[[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]], ''Summa Contra Gentiles'' I.29{{Sfn|Dominican Fathers|1923|p=71|loc=Chapter XXIX}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"Eternity bringeth to birth nothing but that which is like itself"''—[[Jakob Böhme|Jakob Boehme]], ''The Confessions of Jakob Boehme''<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Confessions of Jacob Boehme |publisher=Methuen & Co. Ltd. |others=Introduction by Evelyn Underhill |year=1920 |editor-last=Palmer |editor-first=W. Scott |location=London |pages=87 |language=en |id=ark:/13960/t42r3r879}}</ref></blockquote>

===== Progressions from Unifying Principles =====
To explain how late Athenian Neoplatonists generated multiplicity from the One, scholars represent progressions (where progressions imply likeness{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=91|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}}) from ''unifying principles''{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=363|loc=Glossary}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=91|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}} of Neoplatonic hypostases as a vertical{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=209|loc=Commentary}} series of causation{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}} (vertical linkages), where the vertical series of causation is generated from a henad{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} at the summit{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=225|loc=Chapter 11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=91|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}} of a Neoplatonic hypostasis.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} By the late Athenian Neoplatonic law of Continuity, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 28, each being, or monad, in a vertical series of causation has either the ''minimum'' qualitative difference from the distinctness of the henad from which the series progresses (i.e. the monad is like the henad) or the monad has the minimum qualitative difference from the distinctness of the immediate consequent monad in the same vertical series (i.e. the monad is like the immediate consequent monad).{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}}

===== Progressions from Unifying Causes =====
Scholars of late Athenian Neoplatonism represent progressions from ''unifying causes'' of Neoplatonic hypostases{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=364|loc=Glossary}} as a transverse series of causation (transverse linkages) through hypostases, where each transverse series of causation is generated from a member of a vertical series of causation, or monad.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} By the late Athenian Neoplatonic law of Continuity, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 28, each being in a transverse series of causation has either the minimum qualitative difference from the distinctness of the monad from which the series progresses (i.e. the being is like the monad) or the being has the minimum qualitative difference from the distinctness of the immediate consequent being in the same transverse series (i.e. the being is like the immediate consequent being).{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}} Further, each transverse series is causally linked to another transverse series by a particular member of either transverse series.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=97|loc=Supplementary Theorems on Causality}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=255|loc=Commentary}}

===== Progressions from the One =====


In late Athenian Neoplatonic scholarship, there is no vertical series of causation{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=263|loc=Commentary}} progressing from the Neoplatonic hypostasis of the One, indicating the unifying principle of the One does not progress from the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} In the case of the One, only a transverse series{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=267|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=270|loc=Commentary}} of causation progresses from the One, indicating a unifying cause progresses from the One that causes a multiplicity of unifying principles, or a realm of henads.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Runia|Share|2008|p=152|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 2}} In the late Neoplatonic doctrine of Henads, henads are like a bridge between the pure simplicity of the One and the multiplicity of beings,{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=293|loc=Henads as Primal Individuals}} and are the transcendent sources of individuality.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}} The doctrine has its roots in Plato's Philebus 15a.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=258|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''...but when the assertion is made that man is one, or ox is one, or beauty one, or the good one, then the interest which attaches to these and similar unities and the attempt which is made to divide them gives birth to a controversy....for how can one and the same thing be at the same time in one and in many things?''"—Plato, ''Philebus'' 15a-b{{Sfn|Jowett|1892d|p=580|loc=The youth who has not yet 'passed his Metaphysics.'}}</blockquote>The henad immediately subsequent to the One has a ''minimum'' qualitative difference to the One by the Law of Continuity formalized in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 28,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}} whereby it is closely linked to the One, but it is not part of the One, nor is it an attribute of the One, which has the sole attribute of goodness.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=270-271}} The henads progressing from the One unfold other facets of the goodness of the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=270|loc=Commentary}} Similarly, each subsequent being has a ''minimum'' qualitative difference to its antecedent henad or antecedent being, which results in a continuity of beings.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=272|loc=Commentary}} Hence, Proclus explained how to generate multiplicity from the One while not violating the transcendency of the One.

==== Causes and Effects ====
In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 28 there is a fundamental Neoplatonic law that asserts: first, a producing cause brings into existence, through its effect, things that are similar to it, and afterwards, things are brought into existence that are dissimilar to it.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=33|loc=Of Procession and Reversion}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} That proposition led to the fundamental subject of relations between causes and effects that is systematically explained in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 25–29, 56, 57 and 75.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=212|loc=Commentary}} Propositions 25–29 assert: the late Athenian Neoplatonic theological laws of Emanation, Undiminished Giving and Continuity.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=212|loc=Commentary}}

===== Efficacy of Causes =====
Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 56 and 57 assert: things produced by lower beings are produced in greater measure by higher, or more essential beings.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} <blockquote>"''Every thing which is produced by secondary natures is produced in a greater degree by prior and more causal natures, by whom those which are secondary were also produced.''"—Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 56{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=44}}</blockquote>Propositions 56 and 57 means the production of things by higher, or more essential beings, is not limited to their immediate productions, it extends down through the production of their immediate productions, and further, to entities not caused by the more essential being's immediate production.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} Specifically, with respect to causes, propositions 56 and 57 mean that the ultimate cause of something is responsible for the entire series of causes that branch out from it.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=230|loc=Commentary}}

Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 56 and 57 mean, for example, that the level of Matter, placed on the lowest grade of reality by Neoplatonic theological doctrines, is totally dependent for its subsistence on the highest, or the most essential hypostasis, called the One.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} And in another example, the hypostasis of Nous, which is placed by Neoplatonic theological doctrines on a higher, or more essential hypostasis than Soul, is the cause of subsistence for all beings in the hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} The theory resulting from propositions 56 and 57 is elaborated in Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' III.6 and applied, in his ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 691.5 ff., to the relationship represented allegorically between [[Parmenides]], [[Zeno of Citium|Zeno]], and [[Socrates]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii-xviii|loc=General Introduction}}

Further, Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 75 asserts: causes transcend their effects, effects are in some manner inferior to their causes, causes are not in their effects, effects are in their causes.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}} Propositions 25–29, 56, 57 and 75 qualified the early Neoplatonic doctrine on Emanation into the later Neoplatonic doctrine on Illumination of the lower by the higher, or more essential.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xvii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== Rest, Progression and Return ====
Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 30–39 are the formalized and systematical doctrine on Cyclic Creativity that explain the late Athenian Neoplatonic understanding of the cyclic process: rest, progression and return.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=212|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The earlier Neoplatonic understanding of the cyclic process is recognizable in [[Plotinus]]' ''[[Enneads]]'' 5.2.1 and 6.5.7.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}}

===== Law of Immanence =====
In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 30, the law of Immanence, he asserts: the effect of a cause, simultaneously progresses from the producing cause and also remains in the producing cause.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=35|loc=Of Procession and Reversion}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}}<blockquote>"''Everything which is produced...abides in its producing cause, and proceeds from it.''"—Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 30 (abridged){{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=28}}</blockquote>The law of Immanence allows a being or monad in one Neoplatonic hypostasis to participate in the Neoplatonic hypostasis immediately subsequent to it, whilst still remaining in its hypostasis.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=217|loc=Commentary}} The early Neoplatonic doctrine of the law of Immanence can be found in Plotinus' ''Enneads'' 5.2.2 and 5.5.9.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=217|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''All that is begotten by anything else resides either in the begetting principle, or in some other being, in the case of the existence of any being after or below the generating principle''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 5.5.9{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918b|p=589|loc=V.5 Intelligibles within Intelligence}}</blockquote>The late Athenian Neoplatonic law of Immanence was used by [[Thomas Aquinas|St Thomas Aquinas]] in ''[[Summa contra Gentiles]]'' I.49'','' to show that God knows not only himself (like [[Aristotle]]'s God) but also all the creatures in Creation.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=217-218}}<blockquote>"''The likeness of every effect pre-exists somewhat in its cause: since every agent produces its like.''"—Saint Thomas Aquinas, ''Summa Contra Gentiles'' I.49{{Sfn|Dominican Fathers|1923|p=108|loc=Chapter XLIX}}</blockquote>

===== Progression and Return =====
In ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 31, Proclus asserts: effects are reunited to their cause,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=218|loc=Commentary}} or anything produced by a principle, returns to the principle that produced it.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=35|loc=Of Procession and Reversion}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} In general terms, the given metaphysical (Greek: ἀρχή) implies the ethical (Greek: τέλος).{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=219|loc=Commentary}} Proposition 30, the law of Immanence, is necessary for the progression to be timeless and a return to the producing principle to be possible.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=217|loc=Commentary}} Proposition 31 has its roots either in [[Middle Platonism]] or the Stoic school of the philosopher [[Posidonius|Poseidonius]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=218|loc=Commentary}}

According to Proclus, in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 15, only what is incorporeal and without parts is reunited, or returns, to its cause, and in so doing becomes ''identical'' to its cause.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=17-19|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}} Proposition 15 implies there is no resurrection of a material body, as it can be divided into parts and since it is impossible for these parts to be identical it means that a material body cannot be identical to its cause.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=106|loc=Proclus and Apokatastasis by Ramelli}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=17-19|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}} That belief was also held by the Christian theologian [[Origen]],{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=232|loc=8. Vehicles of Soul}} [[Gregory of Nyssa|Saint Gregory of Nyssa]] and the Christian monk [[Evagrius Ponticus]].{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=106|loc=Proclus and Apokatastasis by Ramelli}} Thus in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, for inanimate bodies, plants and animals, only phantasms of souls return to their cause, whilst for a human, only the soul is reunited, or returns, to its cause.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=106|loc=Proclus and Apokatastasis by Ramelli}}

Briefly, in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 32-38 assert: [32] as likeness is a condition of progression, so is return;{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=219|loc=Commentary}} [33] progression and return are a single movement (like [[diastole]]-[[systole]]);{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=219|loc=Commentary}} [34] the given ethical implies the metaphysical, the converse of proposition 31;{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=219|loc=Commentary}} [35] trinity in unity comprising (1) immanence, (2) progression, and (3) return to a cause that unifies and is a unity. The triad of: immanence, progression and return, governs Proclus' dialectic;{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=220|loc=Commentary}} [36 and 37] progression is from better to worse, return is from worse to better;{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=221|loc=Commentary}} [38] the return is through Neoplatonic hypostases in reverse order to that of the progression.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=222|loc=Commentary}}

In ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 39, Proclus claims there are three types of return.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=222|loc=Commentary}} (1) The phantasm of a soul in a simple material entity that only exists, like a stone, is reunited to its cause simply by participating in the cause. Here the return is by way of existence. (2) The phantasm of a soul in a more complex material entity that is alive, like a plant or an animal, is reunited to its cause by participating in the cause and by developing.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=56|loc=Chapter 3 Proclus' System by Martijn & Gerson}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=222|loc=Commentary}} Here the return is by way of life. (3) The soul of a material being that is capable of thinking, like a human, is reunited to its cause by participating in the cause, by developing, and by knowing the goodness of the cause. Here the return is by way of cognition.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=56|loc=Chapter 3 Proclus' System by Martijn & Gerson}}

===== Cyclic Creativity =====
The Neoplatonic doctrine on Cyclic Creativity is formalized and systematized in propositions 30-39 of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The doctrine on Cyclic Creativity has its roots in Plotinus' ''Enneads'' 5.2.1 and 6.5.7 and was fundamental to Neoplatonism thereafter.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The cyclic process is ''rest'' in the principle producing the cause, ''progression'' from the principle that produced the cause, and ''return'' to the principle that produced the cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The cyclic process governs all activity for immaterial and material entities.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}}

In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, principles that produce things through a cause are said to be at ''rest'' because all activity, immaterial and material, is governed by a progression through a cause ''from'' the productive (Greek: ποιητικόν{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=394|loc=Index of Subjects}}) principle and a return ''back'' to the productive principle.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The initial state of rest in a productive principle's cause is the potential, i.e. the potency, of the cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} In Proclus' Neoplatonic theological doctrines, both progression from ''and'' return to the productive principle are required for actuality, i.e. for any kind of reality to subsist or exist.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} If there was only a progression from the producing principle, the result would be uncertain.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The essence of an entity; where an entity can be a producing principle or an entity can simply be a person; is fixed only by reflecting back on the entity's cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} Hence, the cause has a two-fold effect, as it is the producer of the effect and the purpose of the effect, which is to perfect the cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}}

===== Epistrophe =====
In Proclus' Neoplatonic theology, the cause by which principles produce things has a two-fold effect, the first effect produces something, and the second effect is the return, i.e. the purpose, of the effect, which is to return to the cause, thus perfecting the cause.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}} The Neoplatonic term for this process is called epistrophe (Greek: επιστροϕἠ) and is a process where every cause is both the purpose of the producing principle and every cause is also returning to its own higher, or more essential cause, all ultimately returning to the One.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xviii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== Potentiality and Actuality ====
In the early Neoplatonism of Plotinus and the late Neoplatonic theology of Proclus, the principles potential (Greek: δύναμις) and actuality (Greek: ἐνέργεια) are concerned with cause and effect.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}} The two principles potentiality and actuality are fundamental and basic to Neoplatonic theology.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}}

In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 77 he asserts the thesis: all things that exist potentially progress to actuality by a medium that is actually what the other is potentially.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}} The proof of this proposition relies on proposition 7 which is the fundamental Neoplatonic principle that states: a cause is superior to its effect.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=241|loc=Commentary}} The involution of proposition 77 required Proclus to use two terms for potential, perfect potency and imperfect potency, to form a logical basis for the Neoplatonic theory of involution.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|loc=Commentary|pp=241-242}} Perfect potency and imperfect potency can also be regarded as creative potency and passive potency, respectively.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=242|loc=Commentary}}

The essence (Greek: οὐσία) of a causal principle implies its creative potency, but its passive potency must come to actuality.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|loc=General Introduction|pp=xx-xxi}} For example, the causal principle primal Limit has a creative potency, while its passive potency has come into actuality as matter.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=242|loc=Commentary}} And using that example, proposition 77 becomes: the potential that is matter, progresses to actuality by the principle primal Limit that is actually what matter is potentially. In Proclus' Neoplatonic theology, the One is exempt from the laws of potentiality and actuality and hence primal potentiality and primal actuality originates in a principle immediately following the One, the primal Limit.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}}

The roots of the thesis formalized by proposition 77 are in Aristotle's ''Metaphysics'' Θ.8{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=241|loc=Commentary}} The early Neoplatonic discussions of the terms potential and actuality are found in the discussions of Plotinus' ''[[Enneads]]'' 5; 1.7.9; 3; 6.1.26{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=241|loc=Commentary}} and 8.10.1.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}} The late Athenian Neoplatonic understanding of the terms potential and actuality are elaborated in Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' Book 3 chapter 9 31.14 ff.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xx|loc=General Introduction}} and his ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 979.1 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=241|loc=Commentary}}

=== The One ===
{{see also|Neoplatonism#The One}}
The overarching doctrine in Neoplatonic theology is of the One (Greek: τοῦ ἑνός{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=4|loc=Of the One and the Many}}). The Neoplatonic doctrine of the One has its roots in the first hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides (137c ff).{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=188|loc=Commentary}} The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine of the One, in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 8, 11, 12 and 20, assert that: that the One is the first principle of all things that exist and the One is identical to the Good; beyond the One there is no further principle; the One is the formal and final cause of the material universe and that is why it is the Good; and qualifying it further would diminish it; the last assertion being from the doctrine on the One in Plotinus' ''[[Enneads]]'' 3.8.11.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxi|loc=General Introduction}}<blockquote>"''Other beings, indeed, aspire to the Good, as the goal of their activity; but the Good itself has need of nothing; and therefore possesses nothing but itself. After having named it, nothing should be added thereto by thought; for, to add some thing, is to suppose that [the One] needs this attribute.''"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 3.8.11{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918b|p=549|loc=Vol. 2, iii.8 Of Contemplation}}</blockquote>

==== A Dyad ====
A development by [[Iamblichus]], that the late Athenian School of Plato headed by Proclus adopted, was the postulation of the antithetical principles Limit and Limitlessness, called a dyad, immediately following the One.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxi|loc=General Introduction}} That a dyad is the first level of reality that progresses from the One is an assertion that has its roots in Plato's ''[[Philebus]]'' 16c.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=49|loc=Book I Commentary}} Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 90–95 and ''Platonic Theology'' Book 3 chapters 7–9{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=246|loc=Commentary}} develop the Neoplatonic theological doctrine on A Dyad.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxi|loc=General Introduction}} Briefly, the doctrine asserts that: All Being proceeds from the One as first cause, every level of existence and every individual is held together and given form by the One, immediately following the One there are two principles, primal Limit and primal Limitlessness.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxi|loc=General Introduction}} The two principles, primal Limit and primal Limitlessness, are derived from Plato's ''Philebus'' 23c ff.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxi|loc=General Introduction}} Further expositions of a dyad, a distinguishing characteristic of late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, are found in Syrianus' ''Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics'' 112.14 ff., Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' I.176 and Proclus' ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 1119 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=246|loc=Commentary}}

==== Henads ====
The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine on Henads (Greek: ἑνάδες), that had its origins in Plato's ''[[Philebus]]'' by way of [[Neopythagoreanism]], was the invention of either Proclus or Syrianus and is regarded as a fascinating modification of the early Neoplatonic doctrines of Plotinus.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=258|loc=Commentary}} The doctrine on Henads systematized and elaborated by Proclus were found by Syrianus to be represented allegorically in Greek mythology by the traditional Greek gods.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxiv|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}} The doctrine was needed to fill a qualitative gap between the One and the hypostasis of Nous that was left by the early Neoplatonic doctrines of [[Plotinus]], especially evident in ''[[Enneads]]'' 6.5.9.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}} <blockquote>"If then this Essence may justly be called one, if unity may be predicated of its being, it must, in a certain manner, seem to contain the nature opposed to its own; that is, the manifold; it must not attract this manifoldness from without, but it must, from and by itself, possess this manifold; it must veritably be one, and by its own unity be infinite and manifold"—Plotinus, ''Enneads'' 6.5.9{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918b|pp=324-325|loc=Vol. 2, vi.5 Essence is Present Everywhere}}</blockquote>The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine on Henads introduces henads as a source of transcendental individuality, thereby introducing plurality into the hypostasis of Nous, but in such a way as to leave untouched the perfect unity of the One, and so minimizes the qualitative gap between the One and the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}}

The fullest systematized exposition of the complex Neoplatonic doctrine on Henads, held by Proclus' School of Plato in Athens, is found in his ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 112–165 and ''Platonic Theology'' Book 3, chapters 1–6.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 113–127 systematically define general characteristics of henads; propositions 128–150 systematically expound the relationship between henads and the universe of Being; propositions 133 and 151–159 systematically explain the relationship between henads and the One; and propositions 160–165 systematically classify henads according to the principles that can participate in them.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=259|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=257|loc=Commentary}}

Briefly, the doctrine of Henads asserts: the henads are more unified than beings in the hypostasis of Nous,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} are individual,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} are the transcendent sources of plurality,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=289|loc=Commentary}} are without internal differentiation,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=263|loc=Commentary}} are the measures of essence,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=262|loc=Commentary}} have a hierarchy without being divided into genera and species,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} are limited in number,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} are the source of providence,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=|pp=105, 263}} are the unifying principles at the summit of the divisions of the hypostasis of Nous,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=261|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} the divisions of the hypostasis of Soul{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} and the divisions of Nature,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=282|loc=Commentary}} and are allegorically represented by distinctive properties{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|pp=93, 111, 133, 267}} of particular gods in Greek mythology, which are then reflected in different levels of reality.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=267|loc=Commentary}}

The doctrine on Henads explain that the henads are participated entities, unlike the One, and are subsequent to a dyad and form a chain of beings between the One and all multiplicity.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} A major argument in the doctrine on Henads is that a cause brings forth that which is most like itself before anything else.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} The doctrine on Henads also has roots in Plato's ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' (see Proclus' ''Commentary on Parmenides'' Book 6 1043.9 ff.) and ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' (see Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.12.22 ff.){{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}}

=== Nous ===
{{See also|Neoplatonism#Nous}}
To the late Athenian School of Plato headed by Proclus, the Neoplatonic doctrine on [[Nous]] describes a complex hypostasis subsequent to the One.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} A detailed systemization and explanation of the complex Neoplatonic doctrine on Nous is in Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' Books 3–5.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} That doctrine has its roots in Plato's ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' and in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== Hierarchy ====
In late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrines, the Plotinian hypostasis of Nous is divided into three levels: Intelligible, Intelligible-Intellectual, and Intellectual.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} The Neoplatonist doctrine on Nous by [[Iamblichus]]' had already explained that the Plotinian hypostasis of Nous can be divided into an Intelligible level and an Intellectual level.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} The Late Neoplatonists, Syrianus and Proclus, by applying the Neoplatonic doctrine of Plenitude, in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 112, to Iamblichus' doctrine of Nous, elaborated their doctrine of Nous to include a third level, the Intelligible-Intellectual level (intelligible and at the same time intellectual), between the Intelligible level and Intellectual level.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}}

In the late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine of Nous, elaborated on in Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' Books 3–5, each of the divisions{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} of the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous, i.e. Intelligible, Intelligible-intellectual, or Intellectual, was further divided into triadic moments, or triads, by Syrianus where each triad is composed of a moment of Being, a moment of Life and a moment of Intellect.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== The Demiurge ====
The late Neoplatonists doctrine on Nous, elaborated on in Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' Books 3–5, explains that the Intellectual level of the hypostasis of Nous is the domain of the Demiurge.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} That doctrine explains that the Demiurgic level is composed of a demiurgic monad, demiurgic gods and the Demiurge itself.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} A major activity of the Demiurgic level is the transmission of Forms to the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul, where the Forms progress into souls through the World Soul, the soul of the material universe, and then into the material universe proper.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} The roots of the Neoplatonic doctrine on the Demiurge are in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 28c, which is discussed in great detail, including an examination of Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic views, in Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' I.99–319.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}}

==== Forms ====
The early Platonic understanding of a Form (Greek: εἶδος{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=398|loc=Index of Subjects}}) likened it to an immaterial principle with an intrinsically characteristic immaterial pattern, from which were produced material entities in the Form's likeness.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=203|loc=Book IV Introduction}} In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, a Form is more than an immaterial pattern that produces material entities in its likeness, a Form also perfects and conserves the immaterial and material entities it produces.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=269|loc=Book IV Commentary}} Nor are the immaterial and material entities simply the likeness of a Form that produced them, but also the produced material entities are protected by the Form and gain all their completeness and coherence from the Form.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=269|loc=Book IV Commentary}} Hence, in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, Forms are not just inert immaterial paradigmatical principles for the material entities they produce, but they are also living and active immaterial beings.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=204|loc=Book IV Introduction}}

The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine on Forms is discussed in great detail in Proclus' ''Commentary on Parmenides''.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiv|loc=General Introduction}} In Book 1 of ''Commentary on Parmenides'' the discussion is allegorical, Book 2 discusses the structure of Forms, Book 3 details arguments for the existence and nature of Forms, Book 4 discusses the participation of Forms in particulars.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiv|loc=General Introduction}}

===== Divine and Transcendent Forms =====
Late Athenian Neoplatonic theology has an understanding of divine and transcendent{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=168|loc=Chapter 8 Mathematics and the Sciences by O'Meara}} Forms as living and active immaterial beings with potency and power that are at once patterns and creators of secondary Forms in their likeness.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=213|loc=Book IV Introduction}} The hypostasis of Nous is a plenitude of divine and transcendent Forms{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=333|loc=Book III Introduction}} where divine and transcendent Forms exist primordially together and in unity in the Demiurge.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=174|loc=Book III Commentary}} In Neoplatonic theology, the purpose of a soul is to be like to beings in the hypostasis of Nous, or the level of the Demiurge, and the purpose, or good, for beings on the level of the Demiurge is to be like divine and transcendent Forms, on the summit, or Intelligible level antecedent to the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=224|loc=Book IV Commentary}}

===== Genus and Species =====
In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, a divine and transcendent Form is the genus transmitted through many separate secondary Forms and existing in each of them.{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=316|loc=Proclus}} Forms are organized through a hierarchy of genera and species,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=292|loc=Commentary}} the genus is not a group of species, like a whole of parts, but is active in each species and exists before each species.{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=316|loc=Proclus}} Species are different forms that are comprehended by a unique divine and transcendent Form, which is the genus that transcends its species and encompasses the causes of its species.{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=316|loc=Proclus}}

Proclus' view is that secondary Forms produce only species, not individuals. Human souls progress from a divine and transcendent Form, under which they are grouped, through a collection of Forms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=293|loc=Commentary}} In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, things that exist only in parts have no corresponding Form, e.g. eyes or fingers, accidental attributes like colour, objects made by humans (despite Plato's ''Republic'' Book X), arts and crafts like weaving, and there is no corresponding Form of evil.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=293|loc=Commentary}}

===== Hierarchy =====
{{See also|Neoplatonism#Divisions within hypostases}}
In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, a dyad of Limit and Limitlessness is the foundation of Forms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=246|loc=Commentary}} Forms are the first clear manifestation of a dyad of Limit and Limitlessness,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=272|loc=Commentary}} whereas henads are the first implied manifestation of a dyad of Limit and Limitlessness. Henads are not Forms, they are principles of unity ingrained in Forms by the One.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=258|loc=Commentary}} As henads are more unitary than traditional Platonic Forms, they are the foundational principles of Forms.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|loc=General Introduction|pp=xviii-xxix}} For Proclus, henads transcend Forms and are the unities or Limit-elements within Forms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=271|loc=Commentary}} For each henad there is only one corresponding Form, i.e. there is a one to one correspondence between henads and Forms,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=271|loc=Commentary}} and due to the continuity between henads and Forms, henads are knowable.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=272|loc=Commentary}} The late Athenian Neoplatonic doctrine on Henads bridges the gulf between the One and the hypostasis of Nous, where the hypostasis of Nous is the highest realm of Forms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=277|loc=Commentary}} The Neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus thought the number of Forms is finite.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=245|loc=Commentary}}

Late Athenian Neoplatonic theology organized Forms in the following hierarchy:{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|loc=Book IV Commentary|pp=316-317}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2009|pp=43-44|loc=Introduction to Book 3, Part II}}

* primal Forms that are in the highest division of the Plotinian hypostasis of Nous, called ''Intelligible'' by the late Neoplatonists;
*secondary Forms that are in the immediately subsequent division, called by the late Neoplatonists ''Intelligible-Intellectual'' (intelligible and at the same time intellectual);
*cohesive Forms that are cohesive of all things;
*Forms that bring completion to the lowest division of the Plotinian hypostasis of Nous, called ''Intellectual'' by the late Neoplatonists;
*intellectual Forms that are in the ''Intellectual'' division of the Plotinian hypostasis of Nous;
*assimilative Forms through which secondary Forms are made like Intellectual Forms;
* transcendent Forms that unify forms in the division of the Plotinian hypostasis of Soul called ''cosmos'' by the late Neoplatonists;
* immanent Forms that are in the ''cosmos'' that participate in the ''Intellectual'' division of Nous, in the hypostasis ''Soul'', in the hypostasis ''Nature'', and in the material universe.
In late Neoplatonic theology, forms that arrange and define matter, or measure material generation, are called immanent Forms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=|pp=209, 262, 289}} Immanent Forms are a whole of parts; the other Forms, or transcendent Forms, are wholes before the parts.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=240|loc=Commentary}}[[File:Raffael 067.jpg|thumb|[[Plato]] depicted in the fresco ''[[The School of Athens]]'' by ''[[Raphael]]'' carrying a bound copy of ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''. Plato is a very important authority for Proclus.|269x269px]]

===== Allegory in Plato's ''Timaeus'' =====

In a famous passage of Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' (30a) there is a hint of dualism where the material universe was in disorder before the Demiurge brought it into order.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=239}}<blockquote>''"For God desiring that all things should be good, and that, so far as this might be, there should be nought evil, having received all that is visible not in a state of rest, but moving without harmony or measure, brought it from its disorder into order, thinking that this was in all ways better than the other."''—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 30a{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|pp=91-93|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 30a-30c}}</blockquote>Proclus explains that the disorderly motion did not come from any evil principle residing in matter, but through the explicit effect of primal Forms, which are antecedent to the Demiurge.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=239}} In Platonic and Neoplatonic scholarship, the God that generates the material universe is identical to the Demiurge.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Burnet|first=John|title=Greek Philosophy|publisher=Macmillan and Co., Limited; St. Martin's Street|year=1920|volume=1 Thales to Plato|location=London|pages=169 (footnote 1)|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t3fz2q47x}}</ref>{{Sfn|Cornford|1939|p=92|loc=The Parmenides}}{{Sfn|Waterfield|2008|pp=ix, xxviii, xxxii, xxxiii, 128, 142}}<ref>{{Cite book|title=Plato; Selected Myths|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2004|isbn=0-19-280508-8|editor-last=Partenie|editor-first=Catalin|location=Oxford|pages=147 (270a)|language=en|chapter=Explanatory Notes 9. The Two Cosmic Eras by R. Waterfield}}</ref>{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=203 (footnote 6)|loc=Porphyry}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=200|loc=Soul-Body}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=37, 443|loc=}} The disorderly motion caused by the primal Forms was lacking order until the Demiurge established harmony and measure.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=239}}

===== Participation =====
The Platonic and Neoplatonic doctrine on Participation (Greek: μέθεξις{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=409|loc=Index of Subjects}}) is the theological explanation of how an immaterial being, known as a Form, can remain undiminished in its hypostasis and simultaneously be present in a material body.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=107|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} A rigorous theological explanation of the doctrine on Participation was keenly sought by scholars of Platonism, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism since the time of Plato.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=107|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} To elaborate the question is to ask, how can a Form in the hypostasis of Nous; which means the Form is eternal, immobile and an indivisible cause, remain in its hypostasis ''and simultaneously'' be manifested in the material universe as a number of material bodies that are temporal, mobile and divisible?{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The question is regarded by scholars as an objection to Platonism and was raised by [[Plato]] himself, through the character [[Parmenides]] in his dialogue ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' (131a4–e4{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 35}}), and also raised by [[Aristotle]] in one of his principal works ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'' (Met. Α 9, 991a20–b9 and Met. Ζ 14{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 35}}).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

====== Immanent Forms ======
The [[Middle Platonism|Middle Platonist]] [[Alcinous (philosopher)|Alcinous]], in his ''Handbook of Platonism'', records a theological explanation of the Platonic doctrine on Participation.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} In Alcinous' ''Handbook of Platonism'' (IV 155.39–41{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 36}}) a distinction is made between primal Forms in the late Neoplatonic level of Intelligible and immanent Forms that arrange and define matter, or measure material generation, in the material universe.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} For the distinction to be made, a merging of Platonic Forms with Aristotelian formal causes was required and achieved by treating Aristotelian formal causes as equivalent to immanent Platonic Forms.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} A similar distinction between primal Forms and immanent Forms was made by other Middle Platonists.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 36}} And also, Proclus in his ''Commentary on Parmenides'' and ''Commentary on Timaeus'',{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 37}} thought Plato himself had employed the distinction in his dialogue ''Parmenides'' (130b3–5), where Parmenides talks about the Form of likeness as opposed to likeness, and in ''Timaeus'' (51e6–52b5), where Timaeus talks about a likeness of the Form of likeness existing in receptacles such as fire, air, water and earth.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

====== Double Activity ======
In the late Neoplatonic theology, the doctrine on Double Activity provides a rigorous theological understanding of the relationship between Forms and material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The doctrine has its origins in Plotinus' discussion of double activity in his ''[[Enneads]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 34}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=205}}''<ref>{{Cite book|last=Emilsson|first=Eyjólfur Kjalar|title=Plotinus on Intellect|publisher=Clarendon Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-19-928170-1|location=Oxford|pages=22–68|language=en}}</ref> The doctrine on Double Activity formally and systematically explains the relationship between a Form and material bodies in such a manner so as to leave the Form undiminished in its transcendence, while simultaneously accounting for production of numerous participants in the hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The doctrine on Double Activity rigorously explains that when a Form produces a cause it results in no change to the producing Form itself,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=204-205|loc=Commentary}} i.e. the cause that is produced by the Form in no way diminishes the producing Form, and is simultaneously present in the material world as ''images'' of the Form that impose a likeness of the Form upon the material participants.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

The late Neoplatonic theological doctrine on Double Activity is formalized in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 23 and 24 and elaborated on in Proclus' ''Commentary on Parmenides'' (Book VI 1069.21–1070.12''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 38}}'') and Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' I.240.6–248.''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 38}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The formalization is in terms of the triad unparticipated, the participated and the participant.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The doctrine on Double Activity distinguishes between the object of participation, the participant, the attributes it receives from the participated Form, and the attributes of the eternal transcendent unparticipated Form.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The hierarchy of Forms allows the unparticipated Form to preserve its transcendent unity and allows the explanation of the unchanged character of formal principles in material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=108|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

Specifically, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 23 claims if immaterial Forms are to participate in the material world, they must be immanent Forms, and therefore divided. However, if one undivided immaterial Form is participated by divided immaterial Forms, the undivided immaterial Form must be a transcendent Form, or a Form that is not directly participated, i.e. an unparticipated Form.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=210-211|loc=Commentary}} The transcendent Form, or unparticipated Form, is related to immanent Forms as a monad is to other members of its series as it gives unity to the many immanent Forms and only affects the material world like Aristotle's God, i.e. it is strictly unparticipated.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=211|loc=Commentary}} Logically, the word ''intension'' is equivalent to the metaphysical term ''unparticipated''; the word ''extension'' is logically equivalent to ''participants'', and the link between ''intention'' and ''extension'' is participation.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=211|loc=Commentary}} Hence, the participated Form receives the intention of the unparticipated Form and creates, through it, the extension, or participants.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=211|loc=Commentary}}

===== Principles of Reason =====
For early Platonists, it was through principles of reason (Greek: λόγοι or logoi), housed in a soul, that enabled a soul to have an innate conception of Forms.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=137|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê Note 33 by Finamore & Kutash}} Principles of reason are a corollary to the Platonic theory of Memory of the Forms, or Platonic anamnesis, where a human soul brings forth principles of reason from within itself and so has a memory of Forms that caused the principles of reason.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=137-138|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê Note 33 by Finamore & Kutash}} The roots of the early Platonic understanding of principles of reason are in Plato's ''[[Phaedo]]'' and in Plato's ''[[Meno]]'' and elaborated on in Plato's ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=138|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê Note 33 by Finamore & Kutash}}

Early Neoplatonic doctrines of Plotinus in ''[[Enneads]]'' (2.3.17 and 3.5.9) identify the creative power of a Form with principles of reason in a soul, or logoi in a soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=121|loc=Chapter 5 Note 52}}''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=244|loc=Commentary}} Plotinus' early Neoplatonic doctrine on Principles of Reason held that principles of reason progress from Forms that are in the hypostasis of Nous, specifically the level of Intellect, and are the formative and organizing principles of material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} Plotinus' doctrine on Principles of Reason were a modification of the [[Stoicism|Stoic]] theory of seminal principles of reason (Greek: λόγοι σπερματικοὶ or [[Rationes seminales|logoi spermatikoi]]) and were further advanced by the late Athenian Neoplatonic theology of Proclus.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

Proclus' doctrine on Principles of Reason (''Commentary on Parmenides'' Book III 795.25-796.9{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}and ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 177''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 40}}'') claim the hypostasis of Nous is a plenitude of Forms (Greek: πλήρωμα εἰδῶν{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=156|loc=Of Intelligences}}).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} These Forms are present in the three divisions{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xxii|loc=General Introduction}} of the hypostasis of Nous called: (1) Intelligible, (2) Intelligible-Intellectual and (3) Intellectual, in a suitable manner.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} As the Forms progress from Nous, they are further divided and multiplied and are finally participated by a number of temporal and material particulars that disperse the productive power of the Forms into images of the Form in the material world, and hence natural material bodies are images of their Forms.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

===== Progression of Forms =====
In late Neoplatonic theology, Soul is a hypostasis between the hypostasis of Nous and the natural material world, whereby souls govern and generate natural material bodies through principles of reason.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 41}}'' Soul actively receive Forms from the hypostasis of Nous and animate them, thereby giving motion to the stable being of Nous.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} Souls progress into Nature and generate natural principles of reason, or immanent Forms, that are manifested in natural material bodies, where here Nature is an irrational agent operating as an internal principle that is inseparable from natural material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

Late Athenian Neoplatonic theology divides Forms in the hypostasis of Nous according to their idiosyncrasies, each acting as a monad for a series of participant Forms in the subsequent hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} This provides a multitudinous variety of Forms, all progressing from one transcendental monad at the summit of the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

In the late Neoplatonic theological understanding of a series of Forms, each participant of the series shares the particular (Greek: ἰδίωμα{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=413|loc=Index of Subjects}}) characteristic of the Form that is at a higher level in the series.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} However, the further removed a participant is from the monad of its series, the less powers (Greek: δυνάμις{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=411|loc=Index of Subjects}}) it will retain from the monad of the series.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} For example, all participants of the Form of Human will share the particular characteristic of being human, however only the unparticipated transcendental Form will have the power to be indivisible, eternal, and changeless.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} It is Proclus' understanding that powers determine the different appearances of Forms in participated material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

Proclus' doctrine on Progression of Forms (''Elements of Theology'' propositions 99-101 and 108–110) formalizes and systematizes the participation of Forms in the hypostasis of Nous, and is elaborated on in ''Commentary on Parmenides'' Book III 795.25–796.9.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=109|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

===== Paradigmatic Causes =====
In late Neoplatonic theology, everything in the material world is an image of Forms caused by the level of Intellect, hence the fundamental purpose of Forms is to be a paradigmatical cause of the material world.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The treatment of Forms as a paradigm has its roots in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' (30c and 31b<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kutash|first=Emilie|title=Ten Gifts of the Demiurge|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|year=2013|isbn=978-1-4725-1981-8|location=London; New York|pages=109|language=en}}</ref>) and ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' (132d3).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=110|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} That treatment of Forms as a paradigm was extended to become a paradigmatical cause by heads of Plato's [[Platonic Academy|Old Academy]] [[Speusippus]], and [[Xenocrates]], and popularized among Platonists of the [[Platonic Academy|New Academy]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} By the time of the [[Middle Platonism|Middle Platonists]], Aristotle's theory of four causes (efficient, material, formal and final) was commonly extended to include a fifth cause, the Platonic paradigmatical cause.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} The late Athenian Neoplatonists Proclus and [[Hermias (philosopher)|Hermias]] sometimes complemented the five causes by a sixth cause, the instrumental cause, that transmitted the efficiency of causes from higher levels to causes on a subsequent levels.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

A central proposition of the late Neoplatonic theology of Proclus is that a cause is immaterial and that it transcends its effects (''Elements of Theology'' proposition 75).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} Hence the immanent Forms, which are equivalent to Aristotelian formal causes, and material causes that form material bodies from material substances, are not regarded by late Neoplatonists as primary causes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} Proclus treated Aristotelian material causes and formal causes as secondary causes, similarly he regarded instrumental causes as secondary causes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=120|loc=Chapter 5 Note 47}}'' Thus, for late Neoplatonists, the primary causes were the Final cause, paradigmatic causes, and efficient causes and it is primarily these three types of causation that encompass the activity of Forms in the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=121|loc=Chapter 5 Note 48}}''

In the theology of the late Neoplatonists, the Final cause is the One and the Good and is antecedent to the Intelligible level, paradigmatical causes are in the intermediate level Intelligible-Intellectual (intelligible and at the same time intellectual) and efficient causes are in the Intellectual level, where the Demiurge is the primary efficient agent.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}} For late Neoplatonists, the Final cause is the One and the Good and is thus antecedent to Forms, whilst paradigmatical causes that govern progression, are inferior to Forms, and hence Neoplatonic Forms, at their highest level, are a median between the Final cause and paradigmatical causes, i.e. between the One and the Good and the summit of the Intelligible-Intellectual level, whereby Forms strive for the Final cause whilst struggling with paradigmatical causes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=111|loc=Chapter 5 Platonic Forms and Being-Life-Intellect by P. d'Hoine}}

=== Soul ===
The Neoplatonic theological doctrine on [[Soul]] describes the hypostasis Soul, which is between the hypostasis of Nous and the material universe.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} The roots of the doctrine are in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=134|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} The Platonic theory of Soul claimed a soul was an immaterial being that settled into a material body and animated that body through its hierarchy of faculties: rational intellect, motion, nutrition and growth.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} In the Platonic theory of Soul, the soul's faculty of rational intellect is separable from its material body and is immortal.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} Further the theory claimed gods, humans, animals, plants and stones{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=267}}{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=70|loc=Chapter Four}} had certain faculties of a soul, but only gods and humans had all the faculties of a soul, specifically, only gods and humans had the soul's faculty of rational intellect.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}

The late Athenian Neoplatonists formalized and systematized the early Neoplatonic doctrine on Soul in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 21,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} 109,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} 164–166{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} and 184–211{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} and elaborated the doctrine in Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} Propositions 184–211 systematically explain the late Neoplatonic arguments for the generation of human souls from the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=298|loc=Commentary}} their progression from to the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul, their subsequent generation into the material universe, and their return from the material universe to the hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=131|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}

A fundamental difference between the hypostasis of Nous and the hypostasis of Soul is that the movement of souls in lower divisions of the hypostasis of Soul is temporal, whereas Forms conceived in the hypostasis of Nous are eternal and unmoving and their progression into higher divisions of the hypostasis of Soul is instantaneous.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} Ancient scholars had a saying about Forms and souls, specifically mentioned by [[Hippolytus of Rome]] in his ''[[Refutation of All Heresies]]'', which says that "''Forms are called souls, having been cooled down...''" In that saying, there is a pun between the ancient Greek word for soul, ψυχή, and the ancient Greek word for cold, ψῦχος.{{Sfn|Legge|1921|p=103 (and footnote 3)|loc=Docetae, Monoimus, and Others}}

==== Characteristics of Soul ====
In Neoplatonic scholarship, the ancient Greek word 'ψυχή' is translated to the English word 'soul'.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}} Originally, since at least the time of [[Anaximenes of Miletus|Anaximenes]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}} the meaning for the ancient Greek word 'ψυχή' was 'life-breath', and similarly the ancient Greek word for 'alive' was 'ἔμψυχή', that is literally translated by scholars to 'ensouled'; hence there has been a long tradition in Greek thought for the close association between the concepts of 'soul' and 'life'.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}}

===== Immortal =====
In Plato's ''[[Phaedo]]'', the argument for immortality of the soul turns on the impossibility of conceiving a dead soul and rests on the assumption that a soul possesses life, not by chance, but by its own right and that a soul cannot be destroyed after its separation from a body.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}} That traditional definition of a soul was fundamental to the Neoplatonists [[Plotinus]], [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], [[Iamblichus]], and Proclus, who uses his authorities to once again argue in favour of that definition in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 188–189,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}} which assert that every soul is a principle of life ''and'' a living being.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=165|loc=Of Souls}} Also in proposition 188, Proclus distinguishes a soul from the Form of Life (from Plato's ''Phaedo'' 106d) which in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology is a being upon the Intelligible level, antecedent to the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=297}} Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 186–187 summarily explain, by applying the results of propositions 15–17 and 47–49 to the late Neoplatonic doctrine on Soul,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=296|loc=Commentary}} that every soul is immaterial, separable from a material body, indestructible and immortal.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=163|loc=Of Souls}}

===== Intermediary =====
In Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', proposition 190 claims every soul is an intermediary between the indivisible Forms in the hypostasis of Nous and the divisible material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=167, 297-298}} That claim of a soul's intermediary character has its roots in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 35a and was also asserted before Proclus by [[Xenocrates]], [[Eratosthenes]], [[Posidonius|Poseidonius]], [[Philo]] in ''[[Philo's works|De Opificio Mundi]]'' XLVI (135), [[Plutarch]], [[Titus Pomponius Atticus|Atticus]], [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]], the [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean Oracles]] in ''[[Corpus Hermeticum]]'' I.15, [[Plotinus]] in ''[[Enneads]]'' 4.4.15, and other early and late Neoplatonists, and was subsequently also a claim made by [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]] in his ''[[Summa contra Gentiles]]'' where he writes,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=297, 297 footnote 1, 298}}<blockquote>"''the human soul...is on the boundary line of corporeal and incorporeal substances, as though it were on the horizon of eternity and time...''"—Saint Thomas Aquinas{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=297, 297 footnote 1, 298}}{{Sfn|Dominican Fathers|1924|p=231|loc=Chapters LXXX and LXXXI}}</blockquote>About 800 years before Saint Thomas Aquinas, Proclus in his ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 191–192, asserted that every soul participates of both eternity and time and therefore is a perpetual being whilst also coming-to-be in the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Souls|pp=167,169}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=298-299}} Those assertions were justified by Proclus using Plato as his authority, specifically ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 37a and ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]'' 904a.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=298-299}} Further, in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 193, Proclus claims that the hypostasis of Soul is immediately subsequent to the hypostasis of Nous and is generated by the hypostasis of Nous, the hierarchical aspect being an adoption of Iamblichus' doctrine on Grades of Soul, while the generative aspect retained elements of Plotinus' doctrine on Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=299}}

===== Image of all Forms =====
In his discussion on the early Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul, Plotinus, in ''[[Enneads]]'' 6.5.7, claims that each soul possesses all Forms, a claim that has its roots in Aristotle's ''[[On the Soul|De Anima]]'' 3.8 431b21.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=299}} However, the late Neoplatonic theology of Proclus, ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 194–195, claim that all Forms are only ''potentially'' in each soul, but this potentiality is only actualized in the unparticipated First Soul and is not actualized in any other soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=299}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Souls|pp=167}} Hence, in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, each soul, apart from the First Soul, is claimed to possess only reflections, or images, of all Forms, and that also applies to each soul that is embodied in the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=300}} So, for Proclus, human science has an imperfect knowledge, or concept, of Forms, as each soul possesses only ''images'' of all the Forms and not the Forms themselves.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=300}} Hence, the late Neoplatonic doctrine on Soul ''rejects'' the mysticism of Plotinus, who claimed each soul possesses all Forms and a human could achieve some sort of mystical unification with the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xx|loc=Introduction}}

===== Indivisible =====
In his dialogues, Plato discusses parts of a soul, however the Neoplatonic claim, since the time of Porphyry and Iamblichus, was that these parts did not relate to a soul's immaterial essence and the quantitative expressions of the essence of a soul made known through the material body's organs.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=301 (footnote 1)|loc=Commentary}} Despite a soul being an immediate consequent of the hypostasis Nous, that is composed of indivisible Forms, a soul is also claimed to be indivisible by Proclus, in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 197.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=301|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=173|loc=Of Souls}} In that proposition, Proclus also claims that because of its intermediary location between the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous and the material universe, the principles of being, life and intellect in the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul are indivisible in a different sense to Forms and are divided differently to material beings and material bodies.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=173|loc=Of Souls}} As to what exactly the different sense is, Proclus does not make it clear.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=301|loc=Commentary}}

==== Classification of Souls ====
20th and 21st century scholars of late Neoplatonism have assigned various names to Proclus' hierarchical division of beings in the hypostasis of Soul, those beings in hierarchical order{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=294-296|loc=Commentary}} include (a) the Unparticipated Soul,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=295}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=585|loc=Book VII Commentary}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=478|loc=Notes to Page 334}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} or the First Soul;{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2012|pp=49, 117}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=585|loc=Book VII Commentary}} (b) the transcendent World Soul{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} and the immanent World Soul;{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=295}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxxiii|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} (c) the immanent souls of the stars and seven planets,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} or divine souls{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=161|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=294|loc=Commentary}} (d) souls of sublunary gods,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} angels, daemons and heroes;{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=88|loc=Chapter 4 The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash|pp=122, 132, 137 (Note 25)}}{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|loc=Translation|pp=69, 72, 76, 97}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=xxxiii, 5, 302, 387-388, 413}} and (e) human souls.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=234, 243, 261, 285, 293, 296, 303, 305, 320, 321}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=213, 251, 291}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2012|pp=1, 29, 32, 40, 65, 101, 126, 134, 146, 164}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=291|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} Particular souls of animal and plant life, and particular souls of material bodies{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 12 Providence and Evil by Steel|pp=245, 246}} such as stones, are not considered by Proclus as souls, but rather as phantasms of souls,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=296|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=63|loc=Of Souls}} as in late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, animals, plants and material bodies lack the soul's faculty of rational intellect.{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=250|loc=Types of Soul}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}

===== First Soul =====
In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, each hypostasis, the One, Nous and Soul,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=23|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=206-207|loc=Commentary}} progresses into further plurality through a series of causation from a unifying cause, called a monad,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=25|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}} The plurality of souls in the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul is caused by a progressive series of causation from a monad that is called by Neoplatonic scholars the First Soul,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=585|loc=Commentary}} or Unparticipated Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=295}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=585|loc=Commentary}} The roots of this type of formalization are in the [[Pythagoreanism|Pythagorean]] concept of [[Arithmetic progression|arithmetical series]], where each member of the series is generated by the preceding member and the entire series is generated by the first member, or monad.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=208-209|loc=Commentary}}
[[File:Plato Silanion Musei Capitolini MC1377.jpg|thumb|Replica of a bust of [[Plato]] by [[Silanion]] c. 370 BC for the Academia in Athens. Plato is a very important authority for Neoplatonic philosophers.|323x323px]]

The First Soul is also called the Unparticipated Soul because it does not participate in the hypostasis of Soul, it participates in the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiii|loc=General Introduction}} The impetus for including the First Soul, or Unparticipated Soul, in the early Neoplatonic theology of Plotinus and the late Athenian Neoplatonic theology of Proclus is Plato's ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'' 247c:{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=423|loc=Book VI Commentary}}<blockquote>"''But the region above the heaven was never worthily sung by any earthly poet, nor will it ever be. It is, however, as I shall tell; for I must dare to speak the truth, especially as truth is my theme. For the colourless, formless, and intangible truly existing essence, with which all true knowledge is concerned, holds this region and is visible only to the mind, the pilot of the soul.''"—Plato, ''Phaedrus'' 247c{{Sfn|Fowler|2005|p=475, 477 Phaedrus 247a-248b}}</blockquote>To the early Neoplatonist [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] there was no distinction made between the Demiurge and the First Soul, or Unparticipated Soul; however, to [[Iamblichus]] and the late Athenian Neoplatonists, the Demiurge was distinct from the First Soul, or Unparticipated Soul.{{Sfn|Runia|Share|2008|p=176|loc=Book 2: Proclus on the Causes of the Cosmos and its Creation}}

The First Soul is generally discussed by [[Aristotle]] in ''[[On the Soul|De Amima]]'' 2.4{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=146}} and [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] in ''[[Enneads]]'' 4.3.4{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=284|loc=Commentary}} and 2.9.4,{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=146}} and is systematically formalized by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 21{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} (where the First Soul is called Primal Soul{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=25|loc=Of the Grades of Reality}}), proposition 109{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} (where the First Soul is called the Universal Soul{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=97|loc=Supplementary Theorems on Causality}}) and propositions 164–166{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} (where in proposition 164 the First Soul is called the Unparticipated Soul{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=143|loc=Of Divine Henads, or Gods}}). The First Soul is elaborated on by Proclus in ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.105.15 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=284|loc=Commentary}} where the First Soul is called the Unparticipated Soul{{Sfn|Baltzly|2009|p=61|loc=The World Soul and its body}} and ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.143.21 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=284|loc=Commentary}} where the First Soul is called by 21st century scholars the indivisible case of a hypercosmic soul, or hypercosmic intellect.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2009|p=107|loc=Initial discussion on the soul's composition}}

===== World Soul =====
The Platonists thought the material universe was a living being, so it too had a soul, called the [[anima mundi|World Soul]], which animated and provided structure to everything in the material universe, including all living creatures, and therefore had all the faculties of a soul including the soul's faculty of rational intellect.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=122|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} In [[Timaeus (dialogue)|''Timaeus'']] 34b,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash|pp=124, 125}} Plato claimed that the World Soul was an immaterial being that provided reason, movement and structure to the material universe, and that it was generated by the Demiurge who set it in the centre of the material universe.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=123-124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}<blockquote>"''All this, then, was the plan of the god who is for ever for the god who was sometime to be. According to this plan he made it smooth and uniform, everywhere equidistant from its centre, a body whole and complete, with complete bodies for its parts. And in the centre he set a soul and caused it to extend throughout the whole and further wrapped its body round with soul on the outside; and so he established one world alone, round and revolving in a circle, solitary but able by reason of its excellence to bear itself company, needing no other acquaintance or friend but sufficient to itself. On all these accounts the world which he brought into being was a blessed god.''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 34a–b{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=58|loc=The World Soul}}</blockquote>In their explanation of the generation of the material universe, the late Athenian Neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus introduced a double aspect to Plato's World Soul and asserted one aspect of it was transcendent to the encosmic (or mundane) level in the hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} The encosmic level comprises temporal souls{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=327|loc=Appendix I Proclus' Metaphysical and Theological System}} including the immanent World Soul, angels, daemons and heroes and human souls.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2009|p=32|loc=Introduction to Book 3. Part II}} In the late Neoplatonic theology of Proclus, the aspect transcendent to the encosmic realm is called the transcendent World soul, and the aspect immanent to the material universe is called the immanent World Soul.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}

In the late Neoplatonic doctrine on Soul, the transcendent aspect of the World Soul is an immediate consequent of the First Soul and is the unifying cause of the encosmic realm.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} Hence, the transcendent aspect of the World Soul is also called the monad of the encosmic realm{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=124|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} and through a continuous series of causation, generates the immanent aspect of the World Soul that encompasses the material universe and imbues it with souls.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=126|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}}

In late Neoplatonic theology, the two aspects of the World Soul provide a continuous series of causation throughout the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul and into the material universe, thereby providing the material universe with unity, form and animation and hence giving it life, reason, movement, mutability and structure; the structure explained by mathematical ratios and proportions.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=125|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} A detailed discussion of the late Neoplatonic conception of the World Soul is in Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.102–317{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=126|loc=Chapter 6 Proclus on the Psychê by Finamore & Kutash}} especially ''Timaeus'' II.290.3{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} ff.

===== Divine Souls =====
Plato's belief that stars have divine souls is stated in his dialogue ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]'' 899b,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=294|loc=Commentary}} where the ''Athenian Stranger'' says :<blockquote>"''And of the seasons, stars, moon, and year, in like manner, it may be affirmed that the soul or souls from which they derive their excellence are divine; and without insisting on the manner of their working, no one can deny that all things are full of Gods.''"—Plato, ''Laws'' 899b, abridged{{Sfn|Jowett|1931|p=clxx|loc=Analysis 899-901}}</blockquote>The dictum '''all things are full of gods''<nowiki/>' is explicitly attributed to [[Thales of Miletus|Thales]] by Aristotle in ''[[On the Soul|De Anima]]'' 411a7.{{Sfn|Bury|1968|p=349 (footnote 2)|loc=Laws, Book X}}{{Sfn|Smith|1931|p=410a|loc=Book 1.5 De Anima}} Also, Platonists and Neoplatonists believed Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun, Moon{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=181|loc=Commentary}} and Earth{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=181|loc=Commentary}} had divine souls.{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=118-119|loc=The Heavenly Gods}}{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=232|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 1}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=223|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} Plato's claim that divine souls are embodied in stars, planets and the Earth led some 19th,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cocker|first=B. F.|title=Christianity and Greek Philosophy|publisher=Harper & Brothers|year=1870|location=New York|pages=159|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t4jm33q2t}}</ref>{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|p=301|loc=Book IV}} early 20th,{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=38|loc=The Demiurge}} and 21st{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=262|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} century scholars of philosophy and Neoplatonism to refer to the divine souls of the stars, planets and the Earth as 'celestial gods'. For Platonists and Neoplatonists, the belief the stars, the seven planets, where the Sun and Moon are regarded as planets, and the Earth have divine souls, has its roots in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 34a–40c.{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=136-137|loc=The Traditional Gods}} In those lines, Plato claims the immanent World Soul's reason and intellect is manifested in the axial rotation of the entire spherical universe and that axial rotation causes the forward motion of the stars, planets and Earth, which also have their own axial rotation caused by the reason and intellect of their individual divine souls.{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=118-119|loc=The Heavenly Gods}} The hierarchical order of generation by the Demiurge of the World Soul, then divine souls, is stated in ''Timaeus'' 40a.{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=118|loc=The Heavenly Gods}}

<blockquote>"''The form of the divine kind he made for the most part of fire, that it might be most bright and fair to see; and after the likeness of the universe he gave them well-rounded shape, and set them in the intelligence of the supreme'' ''to keep company with it, distributing them all round the heaven, to be in very truth an adornment (cosmos) for it, embroidered over the whole. And he assigned to each two motions: one uniform in the same place, as each always thinks the same thoughts about the same things; the other a forward motion, as each is subjected to the revolution of the Same and uniform.''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 40a{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=118|loc=The Heavenly Gods}}</blockquote>

In their interpretation of Plato's ''Timaeus'' 40a, the late Athenian Neoplatonists regarded the '''intelligence of the supreme''<nowiki/>' as the intelligence of the World Soul and '<nowiki/>''heaven''<nowiki/>' as the sublunary gods, '<nowiki/>''cosmos''<nowiki/>' as the material universe and '<nowiki/>''thoughts about the same things''<nowiki/>' as an axial rotation.{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=118-119|loc=The Heavenly Gods}} Proclus, in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 201, echoes the three activities of divine souls inferred in Plato's ''Timaeus'' 40a, the first being the activity of a soul in its embodiment of stars, the seven planets and the Earth, the second as a recipient of a divine intelligence from the World Soul and the third to impart axial rotation and forward motion to the stars, seven planets and the Earth.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=177|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=118-119|loc=The Heavenly Gods}}

The belief of Plato that stars have divine souls was passed into the broad range of [[Hellenistic period|Hellenistic]] ideas, and into Stoicism by [[Hierocles (Stoic)|Hierocles]], into the early Neoplatonism of [[Plotinus]] (in his ''[[Enneads]]'' 6.9.8), into the Neoplatonism of [[Iamblichus]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=294|loc=Commentary}} and into the late Neoplatonic theology of Proclus (in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 184) where he, like Plato, infers the souls of stars, the seven planets and the Earth, are divine souls.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=161|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=294|loc=Commentary}} Further, the Neoplatonist [[Iamblichus]] and late Athenian Neoplatonists [[Syrianus]] and Proclus claimed that divine souls were gods in the hypostasis of Soul, but were the attendants (Greek: ὀπαδός; from ''Phaedrus'' 252c{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=296|loc=Commentary}}) of gods in the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=163|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=296|loc=Commentary}} That claim, stated formally by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 185, has its roots in Plato's ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'' 248a.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=296|loc=Commentary}}

<blockquote>Such is the life of the gods; but of the other souls, that which best follows after God and is most like him, raises the head of the charioteer up into the outer region and is carried round in the revolution, troubled by the horses and hardly beholding the realities; and another sometimes rises and sometimes sinks, and, because its horses are unruly, it sees some things and fails to see others. —Plato, ''Phaedrus'', 248a{{Sfn|Fowler|2005|p=477 (Phaedrus 247c-248b)}}</blockquote>

===== Daemons =====
In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, daemons (Greek: δαίμονες) are a realm of souls between divine souls and human souls that are subdivided into sublunary gods,{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|loc=Book IV|pp=299-305}} angels, daemons proper, and heroes.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|pp=333-334|loc=Book V}} In Plato's dialogue ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', his analysis of the Ancient Greek word 'δαίμονες', translated into English as 'daemons'{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=69|loc=Translation}}{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|p=299|loc=Book IV}} (and sometimes 'spirits',{{Sfn|Fowler|1921|p=397d8–398c12|loc=Cratylus}}{{Sfn|Howatson|2008|p=39|loc=The Symposium}} or 'divinities'{{Sfn|Bury|1981|p=87|loc=Timaeus}}{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=137|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 40d-41a}}), leads him to the conclusion that the word was originally used by [[Hesiod]] to mean wise and 'knowing'.{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=69|loc=Translation}} In Platonism, the introduction of a realm of souls between divine souls and humans has its roots in Plato's ''[[Symposium (Plato)|Symposium]]'' (or ''The Banquet'') 202d–e (from ''The Speech of Socrates''):{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=294-295|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>

"''Love is no God.—What! said I, must Love then be a mortal ?—Far from that, replied she.—Of what nature was he then? I asked her.—Of like kind, answered she, with those natures we have just now been speaking of, an intermediate one, between the mortal and the immortal.—But what in particular, O Diotima?—A great daemon replied she. For the daemon-kind is of an intermediate nature between the divine and the human.''"—Plato, ''Symposium'' 202d–e{{Sfn|Taylor|1804|p=496–498|loc=The Speech of Socrates}}</blockquote>

The Platonic realm of souls called daemons were elaborated on in the Old [[Platonic Academy]] dialogue ''[[Epinomis]]'' (984b,{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=194|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} 984d,{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|p=139|loc=The Address to the Gods}} and 984e{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=138 (footnote 18)}}), written about by [[Xenocrates]], a head of the Old Platonic Academy, and were specifically studied by [[Posidonius|Poseidonius]] and his school.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} [[Plotinus]], using Poseidonius' formulation, writes briefly about daemons (or spirits) in ''[[Enneads]]'' 3.5.6 and 6.3.18, while [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] writes more extensively about daemons in ''On the Abstinence of Eating Animals'' 2.37 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} However, much of the Middle Ages belief in daemons is from extensive elaborations by Proclus in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' and ''Commentary on First Alcibiades''.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}} Specifically, Proclus, in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' Book V,{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|pp=333-334|loc=Book V}} subdivides the Platonic realm of souls called daemons into sublunary gods, angels, daemons proper, and heroes, the last three subdivisions are consistent with [[Celsus]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=295|loc=Commentary}}

===== Sublunary Gods =====
In ''Timaeus'' 40d Plato writes: "''To speak however, concerning the other daemons, and to know their generation, exceeds our ability.''"{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|p=299|loc=Book IV}} Proclus, in his commentary on that line in ''Commentary on Timaeus'' Book IV,{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|p=299|loc=Book IV}} claims Plato is writing about sublunary gods, and after an extensive analysis{{Sfn|Taylor|1820|loc=Book IV and Book V|pp=299-333}} of Plato's ''Timaeus'' lines 40d–41a concludes his commentary on sublunary gods with:<blockquote>"''The sublunary Gods therefore, are entirely unmingled with matter; adorning indeed things mingled in an unmingled, and things generated in an unbegotten manner. They likewise contain partibles impartibly, are the causes of life, the suppliers of intellect, the replenishers of power, the givers of soul, the primary leaders of all good, and the sources of order, providence, and the best administration. They also give subsistence to more excellent animals about themselves, are the leaders of angels, the rulers of daemons'' [proper]'', and the prefects of heroes; governing through this triple army the whole of generation.''"—Proclus, ''Commentary on Timaeus'', Book V{{Sfn|Taylor|1820b|pp=333-334|loc=Book V}}</blockquote>

===== Angels, Daemons proper and Heroes =====
Whilst Plato filled the theological realm between divine souls (or celestial gods) and humans with one order of daemons, Proclus elaborates Plato's hierarchy and subdivides the realm into sublunary gods, angels, daemons proper and heroes.{{Sfn|Taylor|1820|p=310|loc=Book V}} In his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' Book V, Proclus expands his theology of angels, daemons proper and heroes, by relating each to one of the three fundamental principles of Neoplatonic theology, being, life and intellect.{{Sfn|Taylor|1820|p=310|loc=Book V}}<blockquote>"''For the angelic is analogous to being, or the intelligible, which is first unfolded into light from the ineffable and occult fountain of beings. Hence also it unfolds the Gods themselves, and announces that which is occult in their essence. But the daemoniacal is analogous to infinite life. On which account it proceeds every where, according to many orders, and is of a multiform nature. And the heroic is analogous to intellect and conversion. Hence also, it is the inspective guardian of purification, and is the supplier of a magnificent and elevated life.''"—Proclus, ''Commentary on Timaeus'', Book V{{Sfn|Taylor|1820|p=310|loc=Book V}}</blockquote>For the late Athenian Neoplatonists, divine souls too had attendants, these attendants are called angels and are a subdivision of the Neoplatonic grade of souls called daemons.{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=110|loc=Notes to page 10}} A formalization of that claim is in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 202 where he states that the attendants of divine souls are subsequent to divine souls, but antecedent to particular souls of daemons proper, particular human souls that are heroic, and particular human souls.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=177|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=110|loc=Notes to page 10}} Further, in his ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 203, Proclus states that divine souls are greater in power, but more unified and hence less in number than daemons proper which are themselves greater in power but more unified and less in number to particular souls of heroes and particular human souls.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=177|loc=Of Souls}} Here, the general late Neoplatonic argument, formalized by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 204, is that as a monad progresses into plurality, it makes up in numbers what it loses in power.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=179|loc=Of Souls}} A similar argument was used by the 11th century Byzantine philosopher [[Michael Psellos|Psellus]] in ''De Omnifaria Doctrina'' 19 in his claim that humans are more numerous than angels.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=303|loc=Commentary}} For Proclus, the roots of his argument for proposition 203 are in Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 42d{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=303|loc=Commentary}} in which the interpretation for '''instruments of time''<nowiki/>' is planets:{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|pp=116-117|loc=The Heavenly Gods}}{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=146 (footnote 3)}}

<blockquote>"''When he had delivered to them all these ordinances, to the end that he might be guiltless of the future wickedness of anyone of them, he sowed them, some in the Earth, some in the Moon, some in all the other instruments of time. After this sowing he left it to the newly made gods to mould mortal bodies, to fashion all that part of a human soul that there was still need to add and all that these things entail, and to govern and guide the mortal creature to the best of their powers,...''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 42d{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=146|loc=Souls Sown in Planets}}</blockquote>Scholars{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=|loc=Commentary|p=303}}{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=146 (footnote 3)}} think that Plato in ''Timaeus'' 42d intended souls sowed into planets to be its eventual denizens; however, Proclus, in ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.280.20, regards them as human souls on the Earth placed under the leadership of particular planetary souls, that are their saviours and special patrons, and where each human soul acquires particular natural abilities from the soul of their divine patron planet, arbitrated by the souls of daemons sown into that planet.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=303-304|loc=Commentary}}

===== Embodied Daemons =====
As to where embodied daemons (i.e. the embodied souls of angels, daemons proper and heroes) are generated in the material universe, the late Neoplatonists drew their ideas from interpretations of ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 39e10–40a1:{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=261 (footnote 635)|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}}<blockquote>"''So many forms then as Mind perceived to exist in the ideal animal, according to their variety and multitude, such kinds and such a number did he think fit that this universe should possess. These are fourfold : first the race of the heavenly gods, next the winged tribe whose path is in the air, third whatso dwells in the water, and fourth that which goes upon dry land.''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 39e10 - 40a1{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|p=131|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 40a}}</blockquote>There have been important interpretations of ''Timaeus'' 39e10–40a1 by the Neoplatonist Iamblichus and late Neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|pp=193-194 and footnote 450|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} Proclus' interpretation agrees with his teacher Syrianus in preserving the hierarchical order of the regions, i.e. heavenly, aerial, watery, and dry land regions, but without assuming that the hierarchical order of the regions corresponded to an order of preference by daemons.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|pp=193-194 and footnote 450|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} The immaterial heavenly regions were only the realm of souls of sublunary gods, angels and daemons proper.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4|p=194}} The material aerial and watery regions could be inhabited by material angels, daemons proper, heroes and other material beings that in the case of aerial regions, lead their lives in the air, such as birds{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|pp=193-194 and footnote 450|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}} or in the case of watery regions, that thrived in water, such as fish; and the dry land could be inhabited by material angels, daemons proper, heroes, humans and other material beings that arose from the land and grew in it.{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|pp=194-195|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 4}}

===== Ókhēma-Pneûma =====
In his ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 196, Proclus claims that since every soul that participates in the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul has a perpetual existence, and since the ''invariable'' essence of those souls is to animate a body, then for every such soul there is a body that is animated perpetually, and consequently that body is also perpetually existent.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=171|loc=Of Souls}}

Proposition 196 is a formalization by Proclus of a long held Greek theory about the perpetual body of a soul called by scholars 'ókhēma-pneûma' (Greek: ὂχημα-πνεῦμα) where 'ókhēma' means chariot and 'pneûma' means spirit.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=313-314|loc=Appendix II}} The use of the term 'astral body' (Greek for 'astral': ἀστροειδες{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=313 (footnote 4)|loc=Appendix II}}) to describe ókhēma or pneûma or ókhēma-pneûma, (i.e. a body that is perpetually animated by a soul), seems to come from Proclus.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=313 (footnote 4)|loc=Appendix II}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=315-316|loc=Appendix II}} Scholars also use the terms 'first body' or 'vehicle of a soul' when referring to an astral body.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=183|loc=Of Souls}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=306|loc=Commentary}}

====== Plato and Aristotle ======
For early and late Athenian Neoplatonists, the origin of the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine came from the Platonic dialogues ''[[Phaedo]]'' 113d where boats return souls of the dead on [[Acheron]], ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'' 247b which contains the [[Chariot Allegory|chariot allegory]], ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 41e where stars are compared to chariots, and ''Timaeus'' 44e and 69c where the mortal body is called the soul's chariot; but especially from ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]'' 898e:{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=315|loc=Appendix II}}<blockquote>"''Athenian Stranger: If soul drives round the sun, we shall be tolerably sure to be right in saying that it does one of three things.''

''Clinias: What things?''

''Athenian Stranger: That either it exists everywhere inside of this apparent globular body and directs it, such as it is, just as the soul in us moves us about in all ways; or, having procured itself a body of fire or air (as some argue), it in the form of body pushes forcibly on the body from outside ; or, thirdly, being itself void of body, but endowed with other surpassingly marvellous potencies, it conducts the body.''"—Plato, ''Laws'' Book X 898e{{Sfn|Bury|1926|p=347–349|loc=Laws, Book X}}</blockquote>
In Plato's ''Laws'' 898e, the second possibility proposed by the ''Athenian Stranger'' of a soul "''having procured itself a body of fire or air, it in the form of body pushes forcibly on the body from outside''" suggested to late Athenian Neoplatonists the beginnings of a doctrine for an astral body.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=315|loc=Appendix II}} Together, the six Platonic references formed the basis of what late Neoplatonists and modern Neoplatonic scholars term the ókhēma doctrine.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=317}}[[File:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|323x323px|[[Plato]] (left) and [[Aristotle]] depicted in the 1509–1511 fresco ''[[The School of Athens]]'' by [[Raphael]]. Both Plato and Aristotle are very important authorities for Proclus.]]

In his development from ókhēma doctrine to the late Athenian Neoplatonic ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, Proclus, in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.28.20,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=315}} uses as his authority, Aristotle's doctrine of pneûma{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=315}} (Greek: πνεῦμα), which is stated in Aristotle's ''[[Generation of Animals|De Generatione Animalium]]'' 736b27 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=|loc=Appendix II|p=316}} In the philosophy of [[Aristotle]], pneûma is the basis for every nutritive and sensitive soul as well as a basis for the physiological condition of imagination (Greek: φαντασία), and further, pneûma is made of a material similar to the stars.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=315-316|loc=Appendix II}}<blockquote>"''Now it is true that the faculty of all kinds of soul seems to have a connexion with a matter different from and more divine than the so-called elements; but as one soul differs from another in honour and dishonour, so differs also the nature of the corresponding matter. All have in their semen that which causes it to be productive; I mean what is called vital heat. This is not fire nor any such force, but it is the spiritus included in the semen and the foam-like, and the natural principle in the spiritus, being analogous to the element of the stars''."—Aristotle, ''De Generatione Animalium'' Book II.3 736b30 ff.{{Sfn|Platt|1912|p=736b|loc=De Generatione Animalium Book II.2}}</blockquote>Although Aristotle's doctrine of pneûma theorized pneûma was a material element in a body common to humans and animals, and its means of transmission was biological reproduction, there were definite aspects in common with the late Athenian ókhēma-pneûma doctrine.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=316}} Aristotle's doctrine of pneûma and Proclus' doctrine of ókhēma-pneûma both agreed that pneûma was the carrier of the irrational aspect of a soul, and also agreed on its important association with imagination and its intuitive quality.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=316}}

After Aristotle and before late Neoplatonism, scholars have found theories of ókhēma or pneûma in the works of [[Posidonius|Poseidonius]], [[Alexander Polyhistor]], [[Atticus (philosopher)|Atticus]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=306|loc=Commentary}} [[Albinus (philosopher)|Albinus]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=306|loc=Commentary}} [[Galen]], [[Ptolemaeus Chennus]], [[Numenius of Apamea|Numenius]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Addenda et Corrigenda|p=|pp=347-348}} [[Hippolytus of Rome]], [[Origen]], the writers of the ''[[Corpus Hermeticum]]'', [[Plotinus]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=318 (with footnote 2)}} [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=319}} [[Iamblichus]], and the [[Chaldean Oracles]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=|pp=316-317, 319}}

====== Neoplatonism ======
The early Neoplatonism of [[Plotinus]] attached little importance to the theory of pneûma, although in ''[[Enneads]]'' 4.3.15 he echoes Poseidonius theory of pneûma by suggesting that soul's acquire a body from the heavens (called sublunary gods by the late Athenian Neoplatonists) before their embodiment in the material universe and in ''Enneads'' 4.3.24 he also echoes Poseidonius by suggesting that the body acquired from the heavens returns to the heavens before the soul's progression to more divine realms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=318 (with footnote 2)}} [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] was more elaborate than Plotinus in his writings on the theory of pneûma, but still echoed Poseidonius' theory of pneûma; however he closely connected pneûma with the irrational soul (which [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] calls 'anima spiritalis') and seems to have originated the idea that daemons have a misty pneûma that can change form at will, thus causing them to appear as ever changing shapes in the material universe, sometimes acting as gods, higher spirits or the souls of the dead.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=319}}

====== Late Neoplatonism ======
The late Roman Neoplatonist [[Macrobius]] in his ''[[Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis]]'' 1.2.13, 1.11.12 and 1.12.13, writes that a soul acquires a starry or luminous body in its progression from the sublunary gods into the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Addenda et Corrigenda|p=|pp=347}} Also, the late Alexandrian Neoplatonist [[Hierocles of Alexandria]] writes about his ókhēma doctrine in his ''Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras'' 478, which scholars think is derived from [[Plutarch of Athens]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=320 (footnote 3)|loc=Appendix II}}

In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, [[Syrianus]] and Proclus combine the earlier traditions of ókhēma and pneûma into their ókhēma-pneûma doctrine.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|pp=319-320}} The traditions they combine are (a) the theory of ókhēma ascribed to Ptolemaeus Chennus and Iamblichus, where an astral body is the permanent embodiment of each soul, and (b) the theory of pneûma ascribed to Plotinus, Porphyry and the Chaldean Oracles, were the soul acquires an astral body from the sublunary gods before it is embodied in the material universe, which subsequently returns to the sublunary gods before the soul's progression to more divine realms.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|pp=319-320}}

In the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine of Syrianus and Proclus there are two aspects to an astral body, (a) the transcendent aspect (ókhēma) that is immaterial, incapable of suffering, imperishable and is the perpetual ''source'' of irrationality in a human soul which survives every purgation, and (b) the immanent aspect (pneûma') that is a temporary accumulation made of fire, water, air and earth (in agreement with Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 42b) that carries the irrational soul proper, survives bodily death, but is eventually purged.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=320}} In the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, souls are always embodied, agreeing with Plato's ''[[Phaedo]]'' 113d and ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'' 247b, and the irrational soul proper is perishable, agreeing with Plato's ''Timaeus'' 69c and ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' 611b ff.''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=320}}''

====== Formalization and Systemization ======
The ókhēma-pneûma doctrine of Syrianus and Proclus is formalized and systematized in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 196 and 207–210 and elaborated on in ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.236.31 ff. and III.298.12 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=320|loc=Appendix II}} In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, the transcendent aspect of the astral body is the ókhēma, or chariot into which the Demiurge of Plato's ''Timaeus'' 41d–e places a human soul:''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Appendix II|p=320}}''<blockquote>"''And when he had compounded the whole, he portioned off souls equal in number to the stars and distributed a soul to each star, and setting them in the stars as though in a chariot...''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 41d–e{{Sfn|Archer-Hind|1888|pp=141, 143|loc=ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 41d-42b}}</blockquote>Plato's ''Timaeus'' 41d–e is the foundation for ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 207, where Proclus formalizes his claim that every astral body, like every soul, is generated from the principal monad in the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous, also known as the Demiurge of Plato, and is, like the soul which it embodies, perpetual.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=181, 183|loc=Of Souls}} That proposition is elaborated on in Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.282.2.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=306|loc=Commentary}} In ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 208, Proclus builds on previous propositions, especially the important proposition 196 where it is argued that every astral body is perpetual, by claiming that every astral body has a transcendent aspect that is immaterial, imperishable and incapable of suffering.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=183|loc=Of Souls}} Those properties of the astral body are elaborated on in ''Plato's Theology'' III.5 and ''Commentary on Timaeus'' II.60.2 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=306|loc=Commentary}}

In his penultimate proposition on the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 209, Proclus claims that like souls that progress into the material world thus acquiring irrational principles, so too the immaterial, or transcendent, aspect of the astral body becomes immanent and more materialized. That proposition also claims that an astral body experiences all manner of changes in empathy with the soul it embodies including being divested of its immanent and materialized aspect, like the soul is divested of its irrational principles, when it, together with the soul it embodies, returns to the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=183|loc=On Souls}}

The last proposition by Proclus of his ókhēma-pneûma doctrine is stated in his ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 210, where he uses the results of propositions 207 and 209 to argue that the immaterial transcendent aspect of an astral body is invisible perpetually, but the immanent aspect of the astral body changes shape as it acquires and sheds its materiality in its progress into and out of the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=308-309}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Of Souls|p=185}} Proposition 210 is elaborated on for the class of daemon souls, which includes the souls of angels, daemons proper and heroes, in ''Commentary on Cratylus'' 35.22 and ''Plato's Theology'' III.5.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=308-309}}

====== Ruled by a Divine Soul ======
Further, in the late Athenian ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, the personality of an astral body is ruled by a divine soul, specifically, the divine soul of a planet from which it inherits its characteristics.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=304|loc=Commentary}} That aspect of the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine is formalized by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 205{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=181|loc=Of Souls}} and elaborated on in ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.305.4 and ''Commentary on Parmenides'' 822.16 ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=304|loc=Commentary}} The roots of this feature of the ókhēma-pneûma doctrine are Plato's ''Timaeus'' 42d, where Plato writes about souls being sowed into the Earth and planets, and in Aristotle's [[Generation of Animals|''De Generatione Animalium'']] Book II.3 736b30–31. There Aristotle writes: "''Now it is true that the faculty of all kinds of soul seems to have a connexion with a matter different from and more divine than the so-called elements''".{{Sfn|Platt|1912|p=736b|loc=Book II. 3}} In his ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, Proclus extends Aristotle's meaning of matter to the astral body.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=304|loc=Commentary}}

===== Periodicity of Souls =====
In ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' 37d, Plato, indicating his claim that time is infinite, writes:<blockquote>"''time is an image of eternity''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 37d{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=301|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=117|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=6|loc=Introduction}}</blockquote>Plato also claimed that time is ''infinite'' in ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' Book 6 499c{{Sfn|Shorey|1980|p=65 (499b-499d)|loc=The Republic, Book VI}} and ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]'' 782a{{Sfn|Shorey|1980|p=64 (footnote d)|loc=The Republic, Book VI}} and 676b{{Sfn|Shorey|1980|p=64 (footnote d)|loc=The Republic, Book VI}} likewise, Aristotle also claimed that time is infinite in ''[[Physics (Aristotle)|Physica]]'' 3.7 207a33–208a4;{{Sfn|Guthrie|1918c|p=1003, 1015|loc=iii.7 Of Eternity and Time}} however the space which the material universe fills was claimed to be ''finite'' by both Plato{{Sfn|Cornford|1997|p=42|loc=One World not Many}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=276|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} and Aristotle{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=276|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}<ref>{{Cite book |title=Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: from Thales to Aristotle |publisher=Hackett Publishing Company, Inc |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-60384-597-7 |editor-last=Cohen |editor-first=S. Marc |edition=4th |location=Indianapolis; Cambridge |pages=687 |language=en |editor-last2=Curd |editor-first2=Patricia |editor-last3=Reeve |editor-first3=C.D.C.}}</ref> in ''[[On the Heavens|De Caelo]]'' 1.5 271b28{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=291|loc=Propositions: Part Two}}–272a19{{Sfn|Stocks|1930|p=272a|loc=De Caelo Book 1.5}} and ''Physica'' 3.7 207b19–20,{{Sfn|Hardie|Gaye|1930|p=207b|loc=Physica Book 3.6}} and orthodox science of [[Late antiquity|Late Antiquity]].{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=276|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}

Proclus adopted Aristotle's theorem (in ''Physica'' 8 (Θ) 8 and 9) that movement in a finite space must return to its starting point if the movement is continuous through an infinite time, and he also adopted Aristotle's theory that the continuous and perpetual movement was circular.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=301|loc=Commentary}} In ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 198 and 199, Proclus not only applied Aristotle's theorem to the material universe, but also to immaterial planetary souls and immaterial human souls, with his authorities being Plato's ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'' 246b and ''Timaeus'' 36b ff.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=301-302}} For Proclus, the periodicity of a human soul, or its cyclic period, is not one human life, but rather it encompasses the entire time from a soul's initial progression from the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul into a human body, to the time of the soul's return to its ''original purity'' upon the Neoplatonic hypostasis of Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=301-302}}

Further, in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 200, Proclus applies Aristotle's theorem to the immanent World Soul, or the soul of the material universe, and claims it too has a cyclic period, that is much greater than a human soul, and that there are an infinite number of those cycles.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=302}} The late Neoplatonic doctrine on World Soul Cycles may have its roots in Plato's [[myth of Er]] in his ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=302}} Proclus and [[Antiochus of Athens|Antiochus]] agree with the ''[[Mahabharata]]'' in associating one cycle of the immanent World Soul to a conjunction in the constellation [[Cancer (astrology)|Cancer]], leading some scholars to believe that the ''Mahabharata'' may incorporate astrological ideas from Plato's myth of Er, as the bulk of the ''Mahabharata'' was compiled after [[Alexander the Great|Alexander]]'s invasion of India.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=302 (footnote 3)}}

===== Human Souls =====
In late Athenian Neoplatonic theology, the cycle of a human soul progressing from the hypostasis of Soul into the material and temporal universe and returning, can occur an infinite number of times.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=181|loc=Of Souls}} That aspect of the late Neoplatonic doctrine on Soul is formalized by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' proposition 206.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=181|loc=Of Souls}} In the Orphic-Pythagorean and Indian doctrines on Soul, a human soul can attain an ultimate liberation from what is known by scholars as the 'circle of birth', i.e. embodiment of a soul; however the early Neoplatonist [[Plotinus]], in his ''[[Enneads]],'' was not definite on this aspect of a human soul, whereas the Neoplatonist [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], in his ''De Regressu Animae'' (fragment 11),<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bidez|first=J.|url=https://archive.org/details/viedeporphyrelep0000bide|title=Vie de Porphyre|publisher=Georg Olms Hildesheim|year=1964|location=Online|pages=38–42|language=fr|chapter=Textes II: De Regressu Animae|id=ark:/13960/t18m4vh86|orig-date=1913}}</ref> asserted a human soul will ultimately be liberated eternally from its material and astral bodies.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=304-305|loc=Commentary}}

The Neoplatonists [[Salutius|Sallustius]], [[Iamblichus]] and late Neoplatonists [[Syrianus]] and Proclus held a contrary view to Porphyry.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305|loc=Commentary}} This was due to their claims that (a) because the ''invariable'' essence of a soul is to be embodied, it would always animate a body, astral or material, and (b) because the number of souls is finite and time is infinite, Porphyry's claim would mean the hypostasis of Soul would eventually have no human souls.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305|loc=Commentary}} The last claim would be a contradiction to the Neoplatonic position that a human soul is eternal, meaning a soul is not created at a point in time nor is it extinguished at a point in time.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305|loc=Commentary}}

Both Syrianus and Proclus, in his ''Commentary on Timaeus'' III.278.10 ff., also claim that a human soul will progress into the material universe at least once in every cyclic period of the World Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305|loc=Commentary}} That claim by Syrianus and Proclus is a ''rejection'' of the Pythagorean, Gnostic and Plotinian views that the progression of a human soul into the material universe is sinful, rather, it is part of a soul's education.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305|loc=Commentary}} Further, in his ''Commentary on Cratylus'' 117, Proclus claims that human souls that are heroic, or souls of heroes like [[Heracles]], could spend many cyclic periods of the World Soul without progression into the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=305 (footnote 2)|loc=Commentary}}

In his final proposition of ''Elements of Theology'', proposition 211, Proclus claims that every human soul that progresses into the temporal and material universe progresses entirely and does not have an aspect of it that simultaneously participates in the hypostases of Nous or Soul.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=185|loc=Of Souls}} That proposition is a development of the early Neoplatonic theology of Plotinus in which an aspect of a human soul that has progressed into the material universe simultaneously participates in the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}}

Plotinus' position was supported by the 4th century Neoplatonist [[Theodorus of Asine|Theodore of Asine]] and the late 5th century Neoplatonist [[Damascius]], but rejected by the late 3rd century Neoplatonist Iamblichus and most of the other 4th and 5th century Neoplatonists including Proclus.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}} Proclus rejects Plotinus' position because it splits the unity of the soul, one aspect of the soul residing in the material universe and the other aspect in the hypostasis of Nous.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}} Proclus also rejects Plotinus' position because he thinks it is contrary to the experience of human sin and misery.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}} In his rejection of Plotinus' theory, Proclus refers to his authority Plato in ''Phaedrus'' 248a and ''Timaeus'' 43d:{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}}<blockquote>"''...shaking the circuits of the soul, they completely hampered the revolution of the Same by flowing counter to it and stopped it from going on its way and governing; and they dislocated the revolution of the Different.''"—Plato, ''Timaeus'' 43d{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=148-149|loc=The Soul in Infancy}}</blockquote>The late Neoplatonic interpretation of ''Timaeus'' 43d, is that ''both'' aspects of the soul, represented by the paradigms of Same and Different, were disrupted by the progression of the soul into the material universe.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=309|loc=Commentary}} A similar interpretation was made of ''Phaedrus'' 248a, where ''both'' aspects of the soul, symbolized by the charioteer and the horses, sank to the Earth.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|pp=309-310}}

Following Iamblichus, [[Plutarch of Athens]], and Syrianus, Proclus intricately elaborated the early Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=205|loc=Book IV Introduction}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=25|loc=Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius}} Whilst Proclus' elaborated doctrines of Neoplatonic theology sometimes agree with [[Plotinus]],{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2012|p=3|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=38|loc=2 Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by H. Tarrant}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=49|loc=3 Proclus' System by Martijn & Gerson}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=56|loc=3 Proclus' System by Martijn & Gerson}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=106|loc=5 Platonic Forms and Being, Life and Intellect by d'Hoine}} there is a very important difference in their respective doctrines on Evil.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=15|loc=Introduction}} Plotinus' Neoplatonic doctrine on Evil, in [[The Enneads|''Enneads'']] 1.8 and 3, briefly says that matter was the cause of evil.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=16|loc=Introduction}} Proclus' doctrine on Evil, elaborated in his treatise ''On the Existence of Evil'', briefly says that souls are corrupted ''before'' they are generated in the material world through matter and therefore matter is not the cause of evil.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=16|loc=Introduction}} In Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrine on Evil, there is no single principle that causes evil, as that would lead to a dualism of independent first principles,{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=16|loc=Introduction}} Good and Evil, and that would contradict fundamental Neoplatonic theological doctrines that claim the One,{{Sfn|Dodds|1923|p=12, 28, 29, 44, 45, 50–64, 73, 82, 109|loc=Introduction; Metaphysics; The Divine Intelligence; The One; Matter; The Human Soul; Beauty}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=xviii-xxii, lxv, 4, 16, 82, 84, 93, 111, 116, 122, 227}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|pp=13, 14, 17, 23, 32, 38, 58, 67, 68, 80, 82, 95, 104, 109-111, 120, 121, 128, 136}} or the One and the Good{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=105, 200}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|pp=7, 8, 73, 116}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|pp=341, 444, 593|1992}} is the First Principle{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=5, 43, 83, 91, 101, 103, 105, 109, 119, 121, 137, 234}} and the First Cause,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=155, 390, 427, 491}} or single cause,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=15|loc=Of Causes}}{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=44|loc=Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius}} or leading cause,{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=181|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 1 Atlantis}} of All that exists,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xvi|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1923|p=51|loc=The One}} or cause of all things{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=110, 112, 137, 162, 168, 249, 262, 275, 311, 348, 379, 381, 424, 428-429, 452-454}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=91|loc=Supplementary Theorems on Causality}} (i.e. every thing immaterial and material{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=37, 130, 177, 233, 241, 317, 333, 353}}).{{Sfn|Dodds|1923|p=51-64|loc=The One}}

=== Nature ===
In scholastic writings on Neoplatonism, Nature can be a series of causation from the unifying principle called Nature or it may be a series of causation from the unifying cause called Nature. When it is treated as a unifying principle it is regarded as a henad and when it is treated as a unifying cause it is regarded as a monad, and so may be described as effecting beings on Neoplatonic hypostases, depending on the context of the text.

In Neoplatonic scholarship, usually when Nature is treated as a unifying principle, it is the henad of the material universe, or the summit of the material universe, and effects all material beings and material bodies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 7 The Natural World by Opsomer|pp=152-153}}{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=18|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary}} However, when Nature is treated as a unifying cause, it is a monad that can also effect immaterial beings across all Neoplatonic hypostases, excluding the One, and can even be the monad from which the Demiurge modelled the material universe.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 7 The Natural World by Opsomer|pp=152-153}}{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=18|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary}} Also, 19th,{{Sfn|Taylor|1820|pp=30, 89, 144, 221, 222}} 20th,{{Sfn|Cornford|1937|p=83 (footnote 2)|loc=Circles in the World-soul}} and 21st century{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=153|loc=Chapter 7 The Natural World by Opsomer}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2009|p=209 (footnote 422)|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 3, Part II}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=61|loc=Chapter 3 Proclus' System by Martijn & Gerson}}{{Sfn|Runia|Share|2008|p=121|loc=On the Timaeus of Plato: Book 2}} Neoplatonic scholarship also uses the terms 'sublunary region', or 'sublunary realm', to refer to material beings and material bodies on Earth.

== Works ==
Proclus' surviving works suggest that his major activity was writing commentaries on Plato's dialogues but that he also spent some time writing on mathematics, astronomy, treatises of philosophical expositions and hymns to deities.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=161|loc=The Athenian School}} [[Hellenistic philosophy|Hellenistic]] [[Neoplatonism]] treated [[Homer]] and [[Plato]] like sacred scriptures, with [[Orphism (religion)|Orphic]] poems and [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean oracles]] for addenda and also incorporated the distinct theologies of [[Orphism (religion)|Orphicism]] and [[Neopythagoreanism]].{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=231|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} With Proclus, the treatment was more a philosophical method of discursive reasoning, going back to the method used by Socrates and Plato, as Proclus was more in contact with mathematical, astronomical and physical sciences.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=232|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} His commentaries on Plato's dialogues reveal his depth and originality, more so than his systematic works and treatises, as they elucidate and illuminate new thoughts from ancient philosophers.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=233|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}

There are more than sixty known works by Proclus which are either complete, partially complete, in fragments, inauthentic or spurious.<ref name=":18" /> Of these, more than half are lost and only known because they are mentioned in scholarly literature.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|date=3 November 2021|title=Proclus' Works (the main extant works)|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proclus/supplement2.html|url-status=live|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab Philosophy Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4115|publication-place=|issn=1095-5054}}</ref> For a near complete listing of all of Proclus' works; extant, partially complete, fragments, inauthentic, spurious or lost, see the [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proclus/supplement2.html Supplement to Proclus] by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scholars generally organize Proclus' works into the categories, systematic, commentaries, treatises, and theurgic,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xiii|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|pp=329-336|loc=Appendix II|2017}} but have difficulty determining the chronological order of the works.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Introduction|pp=xiv-xvii}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=234|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}

=== Systematic ===
Works by Proclus regarded as systematic are ''[[Elements of Theology]]'', ''Platonic Theology'', and ''Elements of Physics''.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=333-334|loc=Appendix II}} All of these works by Proclus have complete and extant manuscripts''.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=333-334|loc=Appendix II}} The most systematic of these works are ''Elements of Theology'' and ''Platonic Theology''. Proclus' 5th century work ''Elements of Theology'' is similar to the 17th century work ''[[Ethics (Spinoza book)|Ethics]]'' by [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], as Proclus presents the elements of Neoplatonic theology as a systematic series of propositions with proofs.{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xlii|loc=Introduction}} ''Platonic Theology'' is a massive six book systematic discourse on the dialogues of Plato paralleling their agreement with the theologies of [[Orphism (religion)|Orphism]] and the [[Chaldean Oracles]].{{Sfn|Ahbel-Rappe|2010|p=49|loc=Introduction to the life and Philosophy of Damascius}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles: A Study on Proclean Exegesis, with a Translation and Commentary of Proclus' Treatise On Chaldean Philosophy |url=https://www.routledge.com/Proclus-and-the-Chaldean-Oracles-A-Study-on-Proclean-Exegesis-with-a-Translation/Spanu/p/book/9780367473143 |access-date=2022-05-07 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref> ''Elements of Physics'' is a smaller work where Proclus systematizes Aristotle's arguments from [[Physics (Aristotle)|''Physics'']] Book VI, [[On the Heavens|''De caelo'']], and ''Physics'' Book VIII.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=142|loc=7 The Natural World by J. Opsomer}}

From the 12th century, scholars studied the Latin book ''[[Liber de Causis]]'' (''Book of Causes'') translated from Arabic to Latin by [[Gerard of Cremona]] and eventually found that it contained more than 30 propositions from Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=296|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} ''Liber de Causis'' was mistakenly attributed to [[Aristotle]], but it was first recognised by [[Thomas Aquinas|St Thomas Aquinas]] in the 13th century to contain Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines and was thus exposed as a reworking{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' to suit a different theology.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=296|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xliii|loc=Introduction}}

==== Elements of Theology ====
{{Main|Elements of Theology}}
[[File:Proclus Elements of Theology and Elements of Physics Latin translation by Patricius 1583.png|thumb|323x323px|Cover page of the 1583 Latin translation of ''Elements of Theology'' and ''Elements of Physics'' from&nbsp;''Procli Lycii Diadochi Elementa Theologica, et Physica'' by [[Franciscus Patricius]]]]
The ''[[Elements of Theology]]'' (Greek: ''Στοιχείωσις θεολογική''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=2|loc=Προκλου Διαδοχου}}) by Proclus is an elucidation of systematic Neoplatonic theology.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=ix|loc=Introduction}} Due to its intricacy and systematic qualities, its standing amongst scholars is similar to ''[[The Enneads]]'' by [[Plotinus]] but differs from Plotinus' work of essays that came from discussions and assumed knowledge of Neoplatonic doctrines.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=ix|loc=Introduction}} Even philosophical works by [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and [[Salutius]], following Plotinus' ''Enneads'', did not detail Neoplatonic doctrines with the theoretical logic and organization of ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=ix|loc=Introduction}} Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' is regarded as an attempt to supply an in-depth theory of reality wished for by [[Plato]] in his seventh book of his work [[Republic (Plato)|''Republic'']] and whilst ''Elements of Theology'' is not a complete summary of Neoplatonism, it is a complete system of Neoplatonic theology.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}}

The ''Elements of Theology'' consists of 211 propositions, each followed by a proof using Proclus' authorities, beginning from the existence of the One (divine Unity) and ending with the progression of individual souls into the material world. The first 112 propositions sequentially establish contrasting theological ideas that characterize Neoplatonic theology, such as unity and plurality, whole and part, eternity and time, unmoved and self-moved.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}} The remaining propositions are a theory of three primary Neoplatonic theological orders and their relation to orders of realities that proceed from them.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=x|loc=Introduction}} The modern standard edition of the Greek text is ''The Elements of Theology,'' edited by E. R. Dodds, 1933.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=333|loc=Appendix II}} Scholars today still, after nearly ninety years, describe Dodds' 1933 edition of ''The Elements of Theology'' as a masterpiece of scholarship.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=333|loc=Appendix II}}

==== Platonic Theology ====
''Platonic Theology'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Διαδοχου Πλατωνικου εις την Πλατωνος θεολογίαν''{{Sfn|Portus|1618|p=cover|loc=front matter}}) is a voluminous work by Proclus in six books. The work establishes a complete parallel between Platonic philosophy in the dialogues of Plato and the divinities of [[Orphism (religion)|Orphic]] theology and the theology in the doctrines of the [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean oracles]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=208|loc=10 Proclus' Theology by L. Brisson}} In the work, and generally, Proclus' treated the philosophy of Plato as a theology and so the work seeks to coordinate it to those ancient theologies.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=209|loc=10 Proclus' Theology by L Brisson}} [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]] praised the work as a more systematic and mature demonstration (an Intellektualsystem) of Platonic philosophy than given by [[Plotinus]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=47|loc=3 Proclus' System by M. Martijn and L. P. Gerson}}
[[File:Portus 1618 Procli Successoris Platonici in Platonis Theologiam Libri Sex.png|left|thumb|323x323px|Cover page of the 1618 Greek and Latin translation of ''Platonic Theology'' from P''rocli Successoris Platonici in Platonis Theologiam Libri Sex'' by [[:de:Aemilius Portus|Aemilius Portus]]. The edition remained the only complete standard edition of the Greek text for nearly 380 years.<ref>{{Cite web|date=22 February 2021|title=De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Philosophy|url=http://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclused.html|url-status=live|access-date=11 November 2021|website=KU Leuven|publisher=KU Leuven Oude Markt 13 – bus 5005 3000 Leuven Belgium}}</ref>]]
Thomas Taylor's English translation of Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' in ''The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato'', 1816 in 2 volumes,&nbsp;remains, more than 200 years later, the only complete English translation of the work.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=333|loc=Appendix II}} The edition of the Greek text published by A. Portus in 1618 in ''Procli Successoris Platonici in Platonis Theologiam Libri Sex'', remained the only complete standard edition of the Greek text for nearly 380 years, until the modern standard Greek text by Saffrey & Westerink was completely finished in 1997.<ref name=":19" /> The modern standard edition of the Greek text and French translation is ''Proclus: Théologie platonicienne,'' edited by H. D. Saffrey & L. G. Westerink, 1968–1997 in six volumes that took about 30 years to complete and is regarded by scholars as one of the most momentous editorial accomplishments in modern Proclean scholarship.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=333|loc=Appendix II}}<blockquote>"''The most beautiful and orderly development of this philosophy, which endeavours to explain all things by an analysis of consciousness, and builds up a world in the mind out of materials furnished by the mind itself, is to be found in the Platonic Theology by Proclus''."<ref>{{Cite book|title=Memorials of Coleorton Being Letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth, and his Sister Southey and Sir Walter Scott|publisher=David Douglas|year=1887|editor-last=Knight|editor-first=William|volume=II|location=Edinburgh|pages=107|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t62557m6j}}</ref>{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxiii|loc=Introduction}}—[[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]]</blockquote>

=== Commentaries ===
Of major importance are the five lengthy, but only partially complete, extant manuscripts of commentaries by Proclus on Plato's dialogues in, ''Commentary on [[First Alcibiades]]'', ''Commentary on [[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', ''Commentary on [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'', ''Commentary on [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' and ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements.''{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=329-332|loc=Appendix II}} The logical order for commentaries of Plato's dialogues suggested by Whittaker 1918 is, ''Commentary on First Alcibiades'', ''Commentary on Parmenides'', ''Commentary on Timaeus'', and ''Commentary on Republic''.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=234|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} That order begins with psychology, the centre of the system; then moves on to the theory of knowledge; then on to ontology and cosmology; and lastly through the aesthetic and practical aspects of philosophy.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=234|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}} The ''Commentary on Cratylus'' can be treated as an introduction or preliminary to the larger works, ''Commentary on Parmenides'' and ''Commentary on Timaeus'', as it unfolds the Neoplatonic interpretation of mythology.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=234|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}

Scholars also know of lost commentaries by Proclus on Plato's [[Theaetetus (dialogue)|''Theaetetus'']], ''[[Philebus]]'', ''[[Phaedo]]'', [[Gorgias (dialogue)|''Gorgias'']], and [[Phaedrus (dialogue)|''Phaedrus'']], and lost commentaries on the [[Chaldean Oracles|''Chaldaean Oracles'']]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles: A Study on Proclean Exegesis, with a Translation and Commentary of Proclus' Treatise On Chaldean Philosophy |url=https://www.routledge.com/Proclus-and-the-Chaldean-Oracles-A-Study-on-Proclean-Exegesis-with-a-Translation/Spanu/p/book/9780367473143 |access-date=2022-05-07 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref> and [[The Enneads|''Enneads'']]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=332|loc=Appendix II}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}} of [[Plotinus]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xiii|loc=Introduction}}

==== Commentary on Cratylus ====
Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Σχόλιών εις τον Κραττλον Πλατωνος''<ref>{{Cite book|title=Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylvm Commentaria|publisher=Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana|year=1908|editor-last=Pasqvali|editor-first=G.|location=Lipsaie|pages=1|language=la, el|id=ark:/13960/t5v77jp0k}}</ref>) is the only commentary of that dialogue by [[Plato]] that exists from the writings of [[ancient philosophy]].{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=vii|loc=Preface by H. Tarrant}} The large work is regarded as special by scholars because it is the work of both Proclus, who was based in [[Athens]], and another later Neoplatonist who is thought to have been based in [[Alexandria]], and so it has the knowledge of two major late ancient centres of Platonic philosophy.{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=vii|loc=Preface by H. Tarrant}} The commentary is separated into the subjects of language-theory and theological etymologies of names of Greek gods, with Proclus relating the names to the theologies of [[Orphism (religion)|Orphism]], [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldean oracles]] and [[Homer]].{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=vii|loc=Preface by H. Tarrant}}

What has survived of Proclus' ''Commentary on Cratylus'' is partially complete, being a commentary of Plato's ''Cratylus'' from the beginning (383a{{Sfn|Pasqvali|1908|p=3|loc=Procli Scholia}}) to 407e,{{Sfn|Pasqvali|1908|p=113|loc=Procli Scholia}} whilst the dialogue itself finishes at 440e.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Platonis Opera |publisher=Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis |year=1900 |editor-last=Burnet |editor-first=I. |volume=Tomvs I Tetralogia II |location=Oxonii |pages=440c |language=la, el |id=ark:/13960/t3qv3w26f}}</ref> The modern standard edition of the Greek text is ''Proclus Diadochus in Platonis Cratylum Commentaria'', edited by G. Pasquali, 1908.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=330|loc=Appendix II Proclus' Works}}

==== Commentary on First Alcibiades ====
Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[First Alcibiades]]'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Διαδοχου εις τον Πλατωνος Πρωτον Αλκιβιαδην{{Sfn|Cousin|1864|p=281|loc=Προκλου Διαδοχου εις τον Πλατωνος Πρωτον Αλκιβιαδην}}'') is a lengthy commentary that clearly distinguishes between what the dialogue is about, its theme, and the purpose of understanding it, or its goal.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=267|loc=13 The Human Life by D. Baltzly}} Throughout the commentary it is clear that Proclus was very interested in [[Aristotelian logic]] and that becomes evident in his use of ten [[syllogism]]s to structure the dialogue between [[Socrates]] and [[Alcibiades]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=188|loc=9 Proclus on Epistemology, Language, Logic by C. Helmig}} In the dialogue, Proclus makes it comprehensively clear that despite not being completely cognizant of our intuitive logic, we still use it unconsciously.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=197|loc=9 Proclus on Epistemology, Language, Logic by C. Helmig}}

What has survived of Proclus' ''Commentary on First Alcibiades'' is partially complete, being from the beginning 103a{{Sfn|O'Neil|1971|p=11|loc=Proclus the Successor on the first Alcibiades of Plato}} to 116b{{Sfn|O'Neil|1971|p=221|loc=Proclus the Successor on the first Alcibiades of Plato}} whilst the dialogue itself finishes at 135e8.{{Sfn|Burnet|1901|p=135c|loc=Tetralogia IV Αλκιβιαδην}} The modern standard edition of the Greek text is ''Proclus:'' ''Sur le premier Alcibiade de Platon'' edited by. A.-P. Segonds, 1985–1986, in two volumes.''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=329|loc=Appendix II Proclus' Works}}''

==== Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements ====
[[File:The cover page of Procli Diadochi In Primum Euclidis Elementorum Librum Commentariorum by Francesco Barozzi 1560.png|thumb|323x323px|Cover page of the 1560 Latin translation of Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of [[Euclid's Elements]]'' by [[Francesco Barozzi]]. ]]
Proclus' C''ommentary on the First book of Euclid's [[Euclid's Elements|Elements]]'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Διαδοχου εις το Πρωτον των Ευκλειδους Στοιχειων Βιβλιον Πρωτον''{{Sfn|Friedlein|1873|p=1}}) is one of the most valuable sources we have for the history of ancient mathematics,{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=lvi|loc=Introduction}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Heath |title=The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements Vol. 1 |year=1908 |page=29 |quote=It is well known that the commentary of Proclus on Eucl. Book I is one of the two main sources of information as to the history of Greek geometry which we possess, the other being the ''Collection'' of Pappus |author-link=T. L. Heath}}</ref> and its Platonic account of the status of mathematical objects was influential. In this work, Proclus also listed the first mathematicians associated with Plato: a mature set of mathematicians ([[Leodamas of Thasos]], [[Archytas]] of Taras, and [[Theaetetus (mathematician)|Theaetetus]]), a second set of younger mathematicians ([[Neoclides]], [[Eudoxus of Cnidus]]), and a third yet younger set (Amyntas, [[Menaechmus]] and his brother [[Dinostratus]], [[Theudius of Magnesia]], Hermotimus of Colophon and [[Philip of Opus]]). Some of these mathematicians were influential in arranging the Elements that Euclid later published. The modern standard Greek text for the commentary is ''Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis Elementorum Librum Commentarii'' edited by G. Friedlein, 1873.<ref name=":19" />

Proclus, the scholiast to Euclid, knew [[Eudemus of Rhodes]]' ''History of Geometry'' well, and gave a short sketch of the early history of geometry, which appeared to be founded on the older, lost book of Eudemus. The passage has been referred to as "the Eudemian summary," and determines some approximate dates, which otherwise might have remained unknown.<ref>James Gow, ''[[iarchive:bub gb 9d8DAAAAMAAJ|A Short History of Greek Mathematics]]'' (1884)</ref>

==== Commentary on Parmenides ====
Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Διαδοχου των εις τον Πλατωνος Παρμενιδην''{{Sfn|Cousin|1864|p=617|loc=Προκλου Διαδοχου των εις τον Πλατωνος Παρμενιδην}}) in seven books{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=330|loc=Appendix II Proclus' Works}} was written by Proclus when he was about forty years old.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxxvii|loc=General Introduction}} It is an expression of the peak of Proclus' accomplishment in commentary writing in a mature period of his philosophical development.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxxvii|loc=General Introduction}} In his ''Preface'' to the commentary, Proclus gives an illustrative description of the historical understanding of Plato's ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' from the [[Middle Platonism|Middle Platonists]] through [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and [[Iamblichus]] and finally to [[Syrianus]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xxiv-xxv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=3|loc=Book I Introduction}}<ref>{{Cite web |title="Clarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides |url=https://memo.imareal.sbg.ac.at/wsarticle/maq-sonderband/ciarifications-of-obscurity-conditions-for-procluss-allegorical-reading-of-platos-parmenides |access-date= |website=MEMO |language=de-DE}}</ref> After the ''Preface'', he starts the commentary with an explanation of the entire Neoplatonic theological order, acknowledges his debt to his teacher Syrianus, and dedicates the work to his pupil [[Asclepiodotus of Alexandria]].{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=5|pp=5|loc=Book I Introduction|1992}}<ref>{{Cite web |title="Clarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides |url=https://memo.imareal.sbg.ac.at/wsarticle/maq-sonderband/ciarifications-of-obscurity-conditions-for-procluss-allegorical-reading-of-platos-parmenides |access-date= |website=MEMO |language=de-DE}}</ref> In the remainder of work, he discusses the dramatic setting, explains allegories in the dialogue including the allegorical representations of the three main characters [[Parmenides]], [[Zeno of Citium|Zeno]], and [[Socrates]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=endymions_bower {{!}} Proclus on the Hypotheses of the Parmenides |url=https://endymions-bower.dreamwidth.org/58824.html |access-date= |website=endymions-bower.dreamwidth.org |language=en}}</ref> and then turns to the examination of the subject matter of the dialogue.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=6-7|loc=Book I Introduction}}

What has survived of Proclus' massive ''Commentary on Parmenides'' is partially complete, being a preface and a commentary of Plato's ''Parmenides'' from the beginning (126a{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=48|loc=Book I}}) to 142a10,{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=474|loc=Book VII Introduction}} whilst the dialogue itself finishes at 166c5.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Platonis Opera |publisher=Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis |year=1901 |editor-last=Burnet |editor-first=I. |volume=Tomvs II Tetralogia III |location=Oxonii |pages=165d |language=la, el |id=ark:/13960/t2n59223j}}</ref> The commentary is extant in the Greek up to 141e10, the remainder (to 142a10) is from [[William of Moerbeke]]'s Latin translation.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=474|loc=Book VII Introduction}} From 1864 until 2009, the standard edition of the Greek text was ''Procli Philosophi Platonici Opera Inedita'', edited by V. [[Victor Cousin|Cousin]], 1864. Since 2009, there are two standard editions of the Greek text: the first is ''Procli in Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria'', edited by C. Steel, with the collaboration of C. Macé, P. d'Hoine, A. Gribomont, and L. Van Campe, 2007–2009 in three volumes; and the second is ''Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon'', edited by A.-P. Segonds and C. Luna, 2007–2021, in five volumes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=330-331|loc=Appendix II Proclus' Works}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dillon |first=John |date=26 May 2012 |title=Review of: Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, Tome III |url=https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012.05.26/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2022 |website=Bryn Mawr Classical Review}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lautner |first=Peter |date=August 2018 |title=Review of: Proclus. Commentaire sur le "Parménide" de Platon. Tome VI, Livre VI. |url=https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.08.39/ |url-status=live |access-date=7 May 2022 |website=Bryn Mawr Classical Review}}</ref>

==== Commentary on Republic ====
Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' (Greek: ''Πλατωνικου Διαδοχυ εις τας Πολιτειας''{{Sfn|Kroll|1899|p=1}}) is a voluminous work that comprises 17 essays of varying length.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xv|loc=Introduction}} Essay 16 on the [[Myth of Er]] accounts for about 40 percent (263 pages) of the commentary,{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xv|loc=Introduction}} while essays 5 and 6 on poetics and [[Homer]] in the ''Republic'' account for about a quarter of the commentary.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xv|loc=Introduction}} Essays 6, 9, 15, 16 and 17 may be regarded as independent.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xvi (footnote 19)}} The modern standard Greek text for the commentary is ''Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Pvblicam Commentarii'', edited by Gvilelmvs (Wilhelm) Kroll, 2 volumes, 1899–1901.{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=311|loc=Bibliography}} Below is a summary of the seventeen essays and their page numbers in the Kroll 1899–1901 standard Greek text.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Summary of Essays in Proclus' ''Commentary on Republic{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|loc=Introduction|pp=xxxi-xxxiii}}''
!<small>Essay{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|loc=Introduction|pp=xxxi-xxxiii}}</small>
!<small>Description</small>{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|loc=Introduction|pp=xxxi-xxxiii}}
!<small>Kroll{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|loc=Introduction|pp=xxxi-xxxiii}}</small>
<small>vol:page</small>
|-
|<small>1</small>
|<small>Principle topics to understand before teaching ''Republic.''</small>
|<small>1:5</small>
|-
|<small>2</small>
|<small>[[Socrates]] arguments on Justice against [[Polemarchus]]. [missing]</small>
|
|-
|<small>3</small>
|<small>Arguments on Justice in ''Republic'' against [[Thrasymachus]] [missing beginning]</small>
|<small>1:20</small>
|-
|<small>4</small>
|<small>Neoplatonic theology in Book 2 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:27</small>
|-
|<small>5</small>
|<small>Poetics in ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:42</small>
|-
|<small>6</small>
|<small>Homer in ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:69</small>
|-
|<small>7</small>
|<small>Soul and Virtues in Book 4 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:206</small>
|-
|<small>8</small>
|<small>Virtues and Education in Book 5 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:236</small>
|-
|<small>9</small>
|<small>Arguments of Socrates and [[Theodorus of Asine]] on Virtue</small>
|<small>1:251</small>
|-
|<small>10</small>
|<small>Love of Knowledge in Book 5 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:258</small>
|-
|<small>11</small>
|<small>The Good in ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:269</small>
|-
|<small>12</small>
|<small>The [[Allegory of the cave|allegory of the Cave]] in Book 7 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>1:287</small>
|-
|<small>13</small>
|<small>[[Muses]] in ''Republic''</small>
|<small>2:1</small>
|-
|<small>14</small>
|<small>Arguments on the Just and Unjust</small>
|<small>2:81</small>
|-
|<small>15</small>
|<small>Main topics in Book 10 of ''Republic''</small>
|<small>2:85</small>
|-
|<small>16</small>
|<small>[[Myth of Er]]</small>
|<small>2:96</small>
|-
|<small>17</small>
|<small>[[Aristotle]]'s objections to ''Republic''</small>
|<small>2:360</small>
|}
In the commentary on Plato's ''Republic'', Proclus presents his own philosophical system as a faithful interpretation of Plato, and in this he did not differ from other Neoplatonists, as he considered that "nothing in Plato's corpus is unintended or there by chance", "that Plato's writings were divinely inspired" (ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ''ho theios Platon''—the divine Plato, inspired by the gods), that "the formal structure and the content of Platonic texts imitated those of the universe",<ref>{{Citation|last=Calian|first=Florin George|title="Clarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides|date=2013|url=https://memo.imareal.sbg.ac.at/wsarticle/maq-sonderband/ciarifications-of-obscurity-conditions-for-procluss-allegorical-reading-of-platos-parmenides/|work=Obscurity in medieval texts|pages=15–31}}</ref> and therefore that they spoke often of things under a veil, hiding the truth from the philosophically uninitiate. Proclus was however a close reader of Plato, and quite often makes very astute points about his Platonic sources.

==== Commentary on Timaeus ====
Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' (Greek: ''Προκλου Διαδοχου εις τον Τιμαιον Πλατωνος''{{Sfn|Diehl|1903|p=1}}) is a massive work in five books, and is regarded by scholars as possibly the greatest commentary on a dialogue by [[Plato]] and gives an exceptional understanding of eight centuries of Platonic exposition.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=i}} It supplies crucial information of preliminary examinations of Plato's ''Timaeus'' and demonstrates Proclus' perspective on the sense and importance of Platonic philosophy.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=i}} Plato's dialogue ''Timaeus'' has demonstrated its significance historically because it has endured as a central philosophical text from the end of Plato's life (347 BC) and across [[Hellenistic philosophy]], [[Philo of Alexandria]], [[Middle Platonism]], the [[Church Fathers|Christian fathers]], the [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonists]], and further.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=1|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} Plato's dialogues ''Timaeus'' and ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' were regarded by [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonists]] as the two most important texts for philosophical study.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=1|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}}

Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' is the pinnacle of centuries of explanatory studies and has earlier thoughts ingrained within it.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=1|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} The commentary reveals the type of interpretive debates that thrived in prior ages and the point of view held by Proclus and [[Syrianus]] when they each headed the School of Plato in Athens.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=1|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} Historically the commentary is the most prolific of Proclus' legacy and reveals meanings of the Platonic dialogues ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' and [[Critias (dialogue)|''Critias'']] that Proclus thought likely to belong to the same series.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=1|loc=General Introduction to the Commentary by D. Baltzly & Tarrant}} What has survived of Proclus' voluminous ''Commentary on Timaeus'' is only partially complete, being a commentary of Plato's ''Timaeus'' from the beginning (17a{{Sfn|Diehl|1903|p=14|loc=Προκλου εις τον Τιμαιον A [Tim.17 A]}}) to 44d,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaevm Commentaria|publisher=Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana|year=1906|editor-last=Diehl|editor-first=E.|volume=III|location=Lipsiae|pages=356|language=la, el|chapter=Προκλου εις τον Τιμαιον A [Tim. 44CD]|id=ark:/13960/t54f7484q}}</ref> whilst the dialogue itself finishes at 92c.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Platonis Opera |publisher=Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis |year=1905 |editor-last=Burnet |editor-first=I. |volume=Tomvs IV Tetralogia VIII |location=Oxonii |pages=92a |language=la, el |id=ark:/13960/t0qr55g3k}}</ref> It is thought that the sudden termination of the commentary is possibly due to an exhausted scribe.{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}} The modern standard edition of the Greek text is ''Procli Diadochi In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria'', edited by E. Diehl, 1903–1906 in three volumes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=330|loc=Appendix II Proclus' Works}} Modern scholarship uses Diehl's volume, page and line numbers for citations, so for example, the citation "''in Tim.'' I.260.20" means volume 1, page 260, line 20 in the 1903 standard edition of the Greek text of Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' (Latin: ''Procli Diadochi In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria'') by E. Diehl.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=ix|loc=Note on the translation}}{{Sfn|Runia|Share|2008|p=ix|loc=Note on the translation}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2007|p=x|loc=Note on the translation}}{{Sfn|Baltzly|2013|p=x|loc=Note on the translation}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+Extant ''Commentary on Timaeus'' in Five Books{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=16|loc=General introduction to the Commentary}}
!Book
!Notes
|-
|<small>I</small>
|<small>Summary of Plato's ''Republic'' and myth of Atlantis</small>
|-
|<small>II</small>
|<small>''Timaeus'' 27c–31b: gods and the material universe</small>
|-
|<small>III</small>
|<small>''Timaeus'' 31b–37c: body of the world and generation of the soul</small>
|-
|<small>IV</small>
|<small>''Timaeus'' 37c–40e: heavenly bodies and traditional gods</small>
|-
|<small>V</small>
|<small>''Timaeus'' 40e–44d: genealogy of gods, Demiurge, souls</small>
|}

=== Treatises ===
There are also three treatises, or monographs that are complete, ''Ten Doubts Concerning Providence'', ''On Providence and Fate'' and ''On the Existence of Evil''; together called ''Tria Opuscula'' (three treatises)''.''{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xiv|loc=Introduction}} The ''Tria Opuscula'' survives as 13 manuscripts dating from the early 14th century to the 17th century.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=7|loc=Introduction}} The manuscripts of these treatises were thought to only survive in the 14th–17th century Latin translations of [[William of Moerbeke]] until scholars in the 20th century rediscovered copies of them in Greek text, in the works of the 12th century Byzantine-Greek [[Isaac Komnenos (son of Alexios I)|Isaac Sebastocrator]].{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=7|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction}}

=== Theurgic ===
Of the theurgic, or religious works of Proclus, there a seven complete hymns{{Sfn|Berg|2001|p=5|loc=Introduction}} of the many he wrote, and other works on religious symbolism, and on the Greek myths of [[Hecate]] and [[Cybele]] that exist as fragments of extant Greek manuscripts or [[Middle Ages]] Latin translations or Middle Ages Arabic translations.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xiv|loc=Introduction}}<ref name=":18" /> [[Marinus of Neapolis|Marinus of Neopolis]] thought very highly of Proclus' theurgical knowledge and says it was taught to him by [[Asclepigenia|Asclepigeneia]], the daughter of [[Plutarch of Athens]], who had learned the wisdom from [[Nestorius]], the [[hierophant]] of the [[Eleusinian Mysteries|Eleusinian mysteries]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=234|loc=11 Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg}}

=== Other Works ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+<big>Other Works by Proclus from ''KU Leuven''</big>''<small><ref name=":19" /></small>'' <big>and ''All From One'' 2017</big><small>{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=329-333|loc=Appendix II}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=334-337|loc=Appendix II}}</small>
!Work<small><ref name=":19" />{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=329-337|loc=Appendix II}}</small>
!Modern Standard edition of the Greek Text and Comments<small><ref name=":19" />{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=329-337|loc=Appendix II}}</small>
|-
|''<small>Elements of Physics</small>''
|<small>''Procli Diadochi Lycii institutio physica'', edited by A. Ritzenfeld, 1912.</small> <small>Proclus' summary of Aristotle's ''[[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]]'' Books VI and VIII.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=334|loc=Appendix II|2017}}</small>
|-
|''<small>Epigrams</small>''
|''<small>Procli hymni accedunt hymnorum fragmenta</small>''<small>,</small> <small>edited by E. Vogt, 1957</small>
|-
|''<small>Hymns</small>''
|<small>''Procli hymni accedunt hymnorum fragmenta'', edited by E. Vogt, 1957</small>
|-
|<small>''Tria Opuscula'' (three treatises):</small>
* ''<small>Ten Doubts Concerning Providence</small>''
* ''<small>On Providence and Fate</small>''
* ''<small>On the Existence of Evil</small>''
|
* <small>''Procli philosophi Platonici opera inedita'', edited by V. Cousin, 1864</small>
* <small>''S. Thomae Aquinatis in librum beati Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio'', edited by C. Pera, 1950</small>
* <small>''Procli Diadochi tria opuscula (De providentia, libertate, malo) Latine Guilelmo de Moerbeka vertente et Graece ex Isaacii Sebastocratoris aliorumque scriptis collecta'', edited by H. Boese, 1960</small>
* <small>''Proclus: Trois études sur la providence'', I. ''Dix problèmes concernant la providence'', edited by D. Isaac, 1977</small>
* <small>''Proclus: Trois études sur la providence'', II. ''Providence, fatalité, liberté'', edited by D. Isaac, 1979</small>
* <small>''Proclus: Trois études sur la providence'', III. ''De l'existence du mal'', edited by D. Isaac, 1982</small>
|-
|<small>Treatises:</small>
* ''<small>On the Eternity of the world</small>''
* ''<small>On Sacrifice and Magic</small>''
|
* <small>''Ioannes Philoponus: De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum'', edited by H. Rabe, 1899</small>
* <small>''Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs, VI. Michel Psellus, Épître sur la Chrysopée''. En appendice Proclus'', Sur l'art hiératique; Psellus, Choix de dissertations inédites'', edited by J. Bidez, 1928, volume 6, pp.&nbsp;148–151</small>
|-
|''<small>Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses</small>''
|<small>''Procli Diadochi hypotyposis astronomicarum positionum'', edited by C. Manitius, 1909.</small> <small>There is no translation of ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' in any modern language{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=334|loc=Appendix II}}</small>
|-
|''<small>Commentaries on Aristotle</small>''
|<small>''Proclus de Lycie'', by Luna & Segonds, 2012, pp.&nbsp;1556–1562. There is growing evidence for existence of commentaries of Proclus on Aristotle's ''On Interpretation'' and ''Prior'' and ''Posterior Analytics{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=332|loc=Appendix II}}''</small>
|-
|<small>''Commentary on the Chaldean Oracles'' (fragments)</small>
|<small>''Eclogae e Proclo de philosophia chaldaica sive de doctrina oraculorum chaldaicorum'', edited by A. Jahn, 1891. Extent works remain the major source for Proclus' elucidation of the [[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldean oracles]].</small>{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=332|loc=Appendix II}}
|-
|<small>''Commentary on Hesiod's Works and Days'' (fragments)</small>
|
* <small>''Poetae minores Graeci'', edited by T. Gainsford, 1823</small>
* <small>''Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies'', edited by A. Pertusi, 1955</small>
* <small>''Der Kommentar des Proklos zu Hesiods 'Werken und Tagen'' in ''Übersetzung und Erläuterung der Fragmente'' (Classica Monacensia 33) by P. Marzillo, 2010</small>
|-
|<small>''Commentary on Enneads'' (fragments)</small>
|<small>''Exzerpte aus Proklos' Enneadenkommentar bei Psellos'' in ''Byzantinische Zeitschrift'', 52, pp.&nbsp;1–10, by Westerink, 1959.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=332|loc=Appendix II}}</small>
|-
|''<small>On Plato's Three Proofs for the</small>'' <small>''Immortality of the Soul'' (fragments)</small>
|
* <small>''Proclus on Plato's Three Proofs of Immortality'' in ''Zetesis: Album Amicorum door vrienden en collega's aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker'', by Westerink, 1973, pp.&nbsp;296–306</small>
* <small>''Deux textes en arabe sur les preuves platoniciennes de l'immortalité da l'âme'' by Hasnaoui, 1997</small>
* <small>''Il Monobiblon di Proclo sull'immortalità dell'anima: Atene, Ctesifonte, Corbie, Bagdad: secoli V–X'' by Chemi 2014</small>
|-
|<small>''Chrestomathia'' (dubious)</small>
|<small>''Libanii Opera'', edited by R. Foerster, 1927, volume IX, pp.&nbsp;1–47</small>
|-
|<small>''Commentary on Pythagoras' Golden Verses'' (dubious)</small>
|<small>''Proclus' Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses'', edited by N. Linley ( ibn at-tayyib), 1984</small>
|-
|<small>''On Epistolary Style'' (dubious)</small>
|<small>''Libanii Opera'', edited by R. Foerster, 1927, volume IX, pp.&nbsp;1–47</small>
|-
|<small>''Commentary on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblion'' and ''Paraphrasis of the Tetrabiblion of Ptolemy'' (dubious)</small>
|<small>''Procli diadochi Paraphrasis in Ptolemaei libros IV sive De siderum affectionibus'', edited by Allatius, 1635</small>
|-
|<small>''On the Sphere'' (spurious)</small>
|<small>''Procli sphaera. Ptolemaei de hypothesibus planetarum liber singularis'', edited by J. Brainbridge, 1621</small>
|}

== Influence ==
Proclus was greatly received in the centuries after his death.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson and Karfik}} He was a very influential 5th century [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonic]] philosopher and left a vast philosophical legacy to [[Western philosophy]], [[Christianity]], [[Byzantine philosophy]] and [[Islamic philosophy]] and theology.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson and Karfik}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} In the Middle Ages, for about 900 years from the 6th to the 15th centuries, Proclus's Neoplatonic doctrines, through the various Arabic and Latin translations of his ''[[Elements of Theology]]'', treaties and commentaries on Plato's ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' and ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', were very influential{{Sfn|Dillon|Gerson|2004|p=xiii|loc=Introduction}} and disseminated and studied more than the Platonic doctrines of [[Plato]] and the Neoplatonism of [[Plotinus]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson and Karfik}}

=== Greek reception ===

==== 5th century ====
Proclus' immediate reception in the late 5th century was by way of the Greek Neoplatonist [[Ammonius Hermiae]]'s commentary on Aristotle's ''De Interpretatione''. That Greek commentary included a lot of Proclus' doctrines taken from notes Ammonius Hermiae (a student of Proclus) made when he was reading the text with Proclus.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=15 (footnote 51)|loc=Formal features of Proclus' commentary}} It was shown, in a 1987 work by English Professor [[Anne Sheppard]], how closely Ammonius' work followed Proclus' commentary on Plato's ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]''.{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=|loc=Introduction|pp=22, 32}} Ammonius recognizes his debt to Proclus in the beginning of his commentary.{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=15 (footnote 51)|loc=Formal features of Proclus' commentary}}

==== 6th century ====
There was a notably quick reaction to Proclus' work in the 6th century by a mostly favourable response from the Neoplatonist [[Damascius]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} The structure of Damascius' philosophy was so close to Proclus',{{Sfn|Runia|Share|2008|p=235 (footnote 132)}}{{Sfn|Runia|Share|p=261 (with the scholiast)|2008}}{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=187 (footnote 218)}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xxxviii|loc=General Introduction|1992}} that it would have been inconceivable without Proclus' influence; however, he held fundamental differences{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=25|loc=Introduction}} to Proclus on key doctrines,{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|loc=3(e) Plotinus' undescended soul|p=97}} criticized Proclus' doctrines frequently,{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=125|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}} and developed his own innovative doctrines{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=10|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=148|loc=4. Self-Awareness}} of Neoplatonism.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=292|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} The transmission of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines by Damascius' works is mainly relevant after the Renaissance, since Damascius' works were largely forgotten throughout the Middle Ages.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=125|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}}

A very important 6th century and later centuries transmission of Proclus' great cosmic system of divinity'<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|date=14 May 2008|title=Benedict XVI General Audience St Peter's Square Wednesday, 14 May 2008|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080514.html|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2021|website=Benedictus XVI|publisher=Libreria Editrice Vaticana}}</ref> was through [[Pseudo-Dionysius]] the Areopagite.<ref name=":15" /> Early in the 6th century Pseudo-Dionysius was weaving Proclus' Neoplatonic theology into Christian theology,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|p=418|loc=Main Thinkers Represented in the Sourcebook}} and was probably the first Christian theologian to attempt merging Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines into Christian doctrines.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=300|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Pseudo-Dionysius was a Christian writer in whose works can be found a great number of Proclus' important Neoplatonic doctrines.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Introduction|pp=xxvii-xxviii}} The extent that Pseudo-Dionysius' Christian doctrines in his ''Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum'' depended on Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines were independently revealed in the late 19th century by the German church historian and Jesuit J. Stiglmayr, in his work ''Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel'',{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=124|loc=Dionysius the Areopagite by Dillon}} and especially{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxvii|loc=Introduction|pp=}} by the German Catholic theologian and church historian Hugo Koch in is detailed work ''Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=293|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík|2017}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=48|loc=Introduction (Note 12)}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=199|loc=The Transfiguration of Proclus' Legacy by Mainoldi}}{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|p=223 with footnote 9|loc=Influence of Proclus}} It is through commentaries on Pseudo-Dionysius' works that Proclus was received in later centuries by: the 7th century Christian theologian [[Maximus the Confessor|Saint Maximus]] the Confessor, the 8th century Byzantine-Christian monk [[John of Damascus|Saint John of Damascus]], the 9th century Irish Catholic theologian [[John Scotus Eriugena]], the 12th century [[Duchy of Saxony|Saxon]] theologian [[Hugh of Saint Victor|Hugh of St. Victor]], the 13th century English theologian [[Robert Grosseteste]], the 13th century German bishop [[Albertus Magnus|Saint Albert]] the Great', the 13th century Italian philosopher and theologian [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]], and others.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxvii|loc=Introduction}}

Important doctrines of Proclus' Neoplatonism were also transmitted through the 6th century by the Neoplatonist [[Simplicius of Cilicia]], in a refutation of [[John Philoponus]]' criticisms of Proclus;{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=292|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} by the Neoplatonist [[Olympiodorus the Younger|Olympiodorus]], who used a triad developed by Proclus derived from Plato's ''[[Philebus]]'' 20d;{{Sfn|Runia|Share|p=235 (footnote 132)|2008}} and by the Neoplatonist [[Priscian of Lydia|Priscian]]{{Sfn|Sorabji|2005|pp=34, 36|loc=1. Perception}} of Lydia.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}}

=== Middle Ages Byzantine reception ===

==== 6th century ====
Early in the 6th century, in 529 AD,{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=12|loc=Introduction}} the Byzantine-Greek Christian theologian [[John Philoponus]] published a refutation of Proclus' treatise ''On the Eternity of the World'', in his lengthy Greek work, now known by its Latin title, ''De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum''.{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=2|loc=Introduction}} That work is not only important philosophically, but it also preserves 17 of 18{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=vii|loc=Contents}} arguments verbatim by Proclus from ''On the Eternity of the World,'' arguments that are not preserved as a group by any other extant manuscripts of Proclus.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=3|loc=Introduction: One thousand years of Proclus by Gersh}} Philoponus' work'','' originally published in Greek, was translated into Latin at least three times.{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=27|loc=Introduction}} It is through the collections of Philoponus' work by: the 15th century Catholic cardinal [[Bessarion]], the 15th century Catholic priest and scholar [[Marsilio Ficino]], and the 15th century Italian Christian philosopher [[Giovanni Pico della Mirandola|Pico della Mirandola]], that Proclus' arguments from ''On the Eternity of the World'' became known.{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=27|loc=Introduction}} Philoponus' work ''De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum'' was first translated into Latin in 1551 by Gaspare Marcello Montagnese.{{Sfn|Lang|Macro|2001|p=34|loc=Introduction}} Further, the 6th century [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] administrator and writer on [[antiquarian]] subjects [[John the Lydian|John of Lydia]], in his work ''De Mensibus'', quoted a lengthy passage from an important treatise by Proclus.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=4|loc=Introduction}}

==== 7th to 11th century ====
In the 7th century, the Byzantine-Christian monk and theologian [[Maximus the Confessor|Saint Maximus]] the Confessor in his works ''Ambigua'' 7.3 and ''Ambiguum ad Thomam'' 5 echoes language and employs theological principles used by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 14, 98 and 143.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes |publisher=Brill |others=D. Calma, F. Lauritzen, S. Gersh, J. M. Robinson, A. Gioffreda, M. Trizio, T. Iremadze, M. Chase, P. Adamson, E. Wakelnig, R. C. Taylor, J. Rachak, D. N. Hasse, J. Janssens, P. Bermon, A. Beccarisi, V. Arroche, S. Kiosoglou, J. Rothschild, S. Campanini |year=2020 |isbn=9789004440685 |editor-last=Calma |editor-first=Dragos |series=Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition vol. 26 |volume=2 |location=Leiden; Boston |pages=23–24, 27–28 |ref={{sfnref|Calma|2020}}}}</ref> Early in the eighth century, Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines, merged into Christian doctrines through the writings of [[Pseudo-Dionysius]] the Areopagite, were quoted extensively by the Byzantine-Christian monk [[John of Damascus|Saint John of Damascus]].{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=239|loc=The Renaissance of Proclus in the Eleventh Century by Lauritzen|2017}}

There are references to Proclus in the 9th century work ''[[Bibliotheca (Photius)|Bibliotheca]]'' by the Byzantine [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|Patriarch of Constantinople]] [[Patriarch Photius I of Constantinople|Photius]].{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=44|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes}} In 10th century Byzantium, Proclus' philosophy was well known to non-specialists as is evidenced by a reference to him in the extant 10th century encyclopedia called the [[Suda]].{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=20|loc=An Orthodox and Byzantine Reception of the Elements of Theology by Lauritzen}}

11th century Byzantine philosophy received Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', treatises, and commentaries on the ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' and ''[[Chaldean Oracles|Chaldaean Oracles]]'' through extensive references made by the [[Byzantine Greeks|Byzantine-Greek]] philosopher, imperial courtier and historian [[Michael Psellos]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}} in his works ''Philosophica Minora''{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=2|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} and ''De Omnifaria Doctrina'';{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=24|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} and also by his student [[John Italus]] in his work ''Problems and Solutions''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=294|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=24|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} Psellos is regarded by some as the major transmitter of Proclus' philosophy in the 11th century,{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=233|loc=The Renaissance of Proclus in the Eleventh Century by Lauritzen}} and though he read many Neoplatonic works, he preferred Proclus over other Neoplatonists and used Proclus' philosophy to build a legal case, in speeches at the imperial court of [[Constantine IX Monomachos|Constatine IX]] and to solve theological questions.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|loc=The Renaissance of Proclus in the Eleventh Century by Lauritzen|pp=236-237}}

==== 12th century ====
[[File:John Petritsi (17).jpg|thumb|Statue of [[Ioane Petritsi]] in [[Tbilisi]], [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]. The 12th century Georgian Neoplatonist philosopher Ioane Petritsi made an important extant translation of ''Elements of Theology'' by Proclus.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}|330x330px]]12th century Byzantine philosophy received Proclus' doctrines by way of his treatises and specifically his axiomatic work ''Elements of Theology'', whose wide circulation in the century is demonstrated by an important extant{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=229|loc=Ioane Petritsi by Alexidze}} [[Georgian language|Georgian]] translation, from a Greek manuscript,{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=238|loc=Ioane Petritsi by Alexidze}} by the 12th<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Alexidze |first=Lela |date=Autumn 2021 |title=The Demiurge in Ioane Petritsi's Commentary on Proclus' Elements of Theology |url=https://rlfcif.org.ar/index.php/RLF/article/download/224/155 |journal=Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=149–165 |doi=10.36446/rlf2021224 |s2cid=235193844 |ref={{sfnref|Alexidze|2021}} |via=RLF}}</ref> century Georgian Neoplatonist philosopher [[Ioane Petritsi]],{{Sfn|Günther|2007|pp=1-15}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} working in the [[Gelati Monastery|Gelati monastery]].{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} Petritsi's translation allows scholars to reconstruct the transmission of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' from the 13th century,{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=238|loc=Ioane Petritsi by Alexidze}} as that is the oldest version of his manuscript that is extant.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=25|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} Petritsi might have been a student of [[Michael Psellos]] or [[John Italus]],{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=16|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} and he also wrote an extant{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=25|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} commentary{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=109|loc=Nicholas Of Methone, Procopius of Gaza and Proclus of Lycia by Gioffreda and Trizio}} on Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' called ''Kommentar zur Elementatio theologica des Proklos'',{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=91|loc=A Mixing Cup of Piety and Learnedness by Robinson}} in which he attempts to show points of agreement between Proclus' doctrines on the One and Christian doctrines of the [[Trinity]].{{Sfn|Alexidze|2021|p=149-165}}

Also in the 12th century, Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' was received into Byzantine philosophy and theology by way of the criticisms of Byzantine-Greek Christian theologian [[Nicholas of Methone]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=295|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Further, conspicuous similarities in key theological concepts have been found by 21st century scholars between Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' and the works of the 12th century Byzantine-Greek Christian bishop [[Eustratius of Nicaea]].{{Sfn|Calma|2020|pp=33-41|loc=Eustratios of Nicaea's Response to Proclus by Gersh}}

==== 13th to 14th century ====
In the 13th century, 1248, Ioane Petritsi's 12th century Georgian translation of ''Elements of Theology'' by Proclus was translated into [[Armenian language|Armenian]] by the monk Simeon of Garni{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}} (Svimeon Petrizis{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=146|loc=Die Elementatio Theologica des Proklos by Iremadze}}). The Arabic work ''Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr'', which contained Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines from his ''Elements of Theology'', was also translated into an extant Armenian version by Simeon of Garni{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xlii}} and also translated by anonymous translators into at least four [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] versions that are extant,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}} and three commentaries on one of those Hebrew versions.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=317|loc=Notes Proclus' Legacy}} Traces of Proclus' ''Commentary on Parmenides'' are also found in works of the 13th century Byzantine-Greek historian and philosopher [[George Pachymeres]].{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|pp=27-28|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}} Also in the 13th century there was a Greek manuscript discovered by [[William of Moerbeke]], when he was the Latin archbishop of Corinth, that was later used in his 1280 Latin translation of Proclus' treatise ''On the Existence of Evil''.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=7|loc=Introduction}}

Early in 14th century [[Byzantium]], Greek manuscripts of Proclus' treatise ''On the Existence of Evil'' were in circulation, which is evidenced by fragments from an extant 1311 [[florilegium]] into which parts of that treatise were copied.{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=7|loc=Introduction}} In the middle of the 14th century, references to Proclus' commentary on the ''Chaldean Oracles'' were in the writings of the Byzantine-Greek astronomer, historian and theologian [[Nicephorus Gregoras]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}} Also in the 14th century, the Byzantine-Greek theologian [[Gregory Palamas|Saint Gregory Palamas]] employed theological principles used by Proclus in ''Elements of Theology'' propositions 20 and 143 in his works ''Triads'' 1.3.8.10 and ''Contra Acyndinum'' 7.9.26.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|pp=27-28|loc=An Orthodox and Byzantine Reception of the Elements of Theology by Lauritzen}} And in the same century, the Bishop of [[Gerace]], [[Barlaam of Seminara|Barlaam of Calabria]], used Proclus at length in his dispute with Saint Gregory Palamas.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=208|loc=Eleventh to twelfth century Byzantium by Trizio}}

=== Middle Ages Islamic reception ===
An important 9th century Arabic translation of parts of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' is called ''Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr'' (''Discourse on the Pure Good''),{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|pp=291, 295-297}} and there is also a 10th-century Arabic translation of parts of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' called ''Kitāb al-Fuṣūl fī l-Maʿālim al-Ilāhīya'' (''The Book of Chapters on Divine Subjects'').{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} Two of the three of those Arabic translations name the author as 'Buruqlus', i.e. Proclus.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=317|loc=Notes Proclus' Legacy}}

==== 8th to 9th century ====
In the 8th century, Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' was known to the Islamic historian [[Ibn Ishaq|Muhammed ibn Ishaq]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix (footnote 3)|loc=Introduction}} The transmission of an Arabic translation of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' into 9th century Islamic theology is demonstrated by an extant 9th century manuscript.<ref name=":16">{{Cite book |last=Günther |first=Hans-Christian |title=Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition |publisher=Brill |year=2007 |isbn=9789004160620 |volume=6 Die Übersetzungen der Elementatio Theologica des Proklos und Ihre Bedeutung für den Proklostext |location=Leiden |pages=1–15 |language=de}}</ref> Importantly, in the 9th century, some of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' were translated from Greek to Arabic by Arabic translators (possibly by Ibn al-Bitṛīq<ref name=":17">{{Cite book|last=Endress|first=Gerhard|url=https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:5-90211|title=Beiruter Texte und Studien|publisher=Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft|year=1973|volume=10 Proclus Arabus|location=Beirut, Libanon|pages=325|language=de}}</ref>) and Christian translators convened by the Islamic philosopher [[Al-Kindi|al-Kindī]] so as to be acceptable to Islamic philosophy and theology.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=295|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}

One of the most important Arabic translations of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' by al-Kindī's circle''{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=264|loc=The University of Paris in the thirteenth century by Porro}}'' is called ''Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr''{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=211|loc=Contextualizing the Kalām fī maḥḍ al-khair / Liber de causis by Taylor}} (''Discourse on the Pure Good''), that was subsequently translated into the very important Latin work ''Liber de Causis'' (''Book of Causes'') by the 12th century Italian translator [[Gerard of Cremona]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} The Latin work ''Liber de Causis'' is frequently misattributed to [[Aristotle]], but was found to be essentially derived from Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' in a commentary by [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} The Arabic work ''Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr'' (''Discourse on the Pure Good''), also known as the Arabic ''Liber de Causis'', comprises 31 propositions that paraphrase and modify{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=8|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} 30 or more{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=296|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} propositions in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=291|loc=On the Absence of the Henads in the Liber de Causis by Riggs}} Further, it is known that in the 9th century, Arabic physician and translator [[Ishaq ibn Hunayn|Isḥāq ibn Ḥunain]] translated into Arabic nine of the eighteen arguments in Proclus' treatise ''On the Eternity of the World.''{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=323|loc=Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus by Chase}}

==== 10th century ====
In the 10th century, a second-generation student of Islamic philosopher al-Kindī named al-ʿĀmirī (d. c. 922) revised and incorporated Islamic doctrines of theology into an Arabic translation of part of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' titled ''Kitāb al-Fuṣūl fī l-Maʿālim al-Ilāhīya'' (''The Book of Chapters on Divine Subjects''). Also in the 10th century, Proclus' works ''Commentary on [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' Book 10, ''Commentary on [[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]], Commentary on [[Phaedo]]'' and ''Commentary on [[Golden Verses]]'' are known to have been translated into [[Syriac language|Syriac]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=xxviii-xxix|loc=Introduction}}<ref name=":25">{{Cite book|last=Baumstark|first=Anton|title=Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur|publisher=A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag Dr. jur. Albert Ahn|year=1922|location=Bonn|pages=231|language=de|id=ark:/13960/t0wq07z11}}</ref> Further, in the 10th century, Persian physician [[Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi|al-Razi]] wrote the work ''Concerning Doubt, in connexion with (or against) Proclus'',{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}}<ref name=":26">{{Cite book|last=Steinschneider|first=Moritz|title=Die Arabischen Uebersetzungen aus dem Greiechischen|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz|year=1889|location=Leipzig|pages=93|language=de|id=ark:/13960/t07x1dc0j}}</ref> and there are references to Proclus in the 10th century Arabic encyclopedia ''[[Al-Fihrist|Kitab al-Fihrist]]'' compiled by the Muslim bibliographer [[Ibn al-Nadim]].{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|loc=Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes|pp=45-45}}

==== 12th to 13th century ====
In the 12th century, Proclus' treatise ''On the Eternity of the World'' was paraphrased by the Persian scholar [[Al-Shahrastani|Aḥmad Al-Šahrastānī]] in his work ''The Book of Religions and Sects'' (''Kitāb al-milal wa l-niḥal'') II.6.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=323|loc=Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus by Chase}} Further, 21st century scholars have found growing evidence that arguments from Proclus' treatise ''On the Eternity of the World'' can also be found in the 12th century [[Sephardi Jews|Hispanic Jewish]] philosopher [[Maimonides]] in his work ''[[The Guide for the Perplexed]]'' II.14, II.18 and II.21.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=333|loc=Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus by Chase}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|loc=Proclus' Arguments on the Eternity of the World in al-Shahrastānī's Works by Giannakis|pp=349}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|loc=Proclus Revenant by Langermann|pp=377, 383, 385, 389}} In the 13th century, a summary of an Arabic translation of part or all of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' was incorporated in a work on metaphysics by the Islamic philosopher [[Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi|ʿAbd al-Latị̄f al-Baghdādī]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}

=== Middle Ages Latin reception ===

==== 6th century ====
[[File:Boethius.consolation.philosophy.jpg|thumb|Illustration from a 15th century manuscript of ''[[Consolation of Philosophy]]'' by [[Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius|Boethius]]. ''Consolation of Philosophy'' is an important source for the diffusion of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines.|323x323px]]Another important transmission of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines in the 6th century and throughout the Middle Ages was through the Roman Christian senator and philosopher [[Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius|Boethius]] in his 524–525 Latin work ''[[Consolation of Philosophy]]'', which contains a number of Proclus' doctrines and motifs.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=125|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=228}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}} In that work of Boethius'','' the poem in III.9 is an extraordinary{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=129|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}} 50 hexameter line summary of Plato's ''Timaeus'' and Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=129|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}} ''Consolation of Philosophy'' IV.6{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=129 (footnote 21)|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}} and V.6 contain important aspects of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines on Providence, Fate and Eternity.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|loc=Commentary|p=228}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}}

In particular, Boethius' doctrines of Providence and details of his cosmology in ''Consolation of Philosophy'' uses and sometimes takes directly from Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus'' and Proclus' treatises ''Tria Opuscula'', and hence ''Consolation of Philosophy'' is an important transmission of Proclus' doctrines in later centuries.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=3, 125|loc=}} Boethius' ''Consolation of Philosophy'' was also translated from Latin to Greek and so becomes an important example of the mixing between Byzantine and Latin traditions that diffused Proclus' doctrines.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=4|loc=Introduction: One Thousand Years of Proclus by Gersh}} Proclus' axiomatic treatment of theology in ''Elements of Theology'' also influenced Boethius' theological treatise ''Quomodo Substantiae''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=|loc=|pp=14, 126}} The close relationship between Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines and Boethius' ''Consolation of Philosophy'' is demonstrated by the works of 20th and 21 century scholars, notably: by the German [[Classical Philology|Classical Philologist]] [[Friedrich Klingner]] in 1921, by the German Professor [[Werner Beierwaltes]] in 1983, by the French Professor Jean-Luc Solère in 2003 and by the American Professor Stephan Gersh in 2012.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=129 (footnote 21), 132, 133|loc=Damascius and Boethius by Gersh|pp=}}

==== 9th century ====
In the 9th century, through the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, important Proclean Neoplatonic doctrines can be seen in the Latin translation of [[Hilduin]] who was the [[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris|Bishop of Paris]] and chaplain to [[Louis the Pious|Louis I]] and one of the leading scholars and administrators of the [[Carolingian Empire|Carolingian empire]].{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}} Again, through Pseudo-Dionysius, important Neoplatonic doctrines originally written by Proclus can be seen in the 9th century work ''De Divisione Naturae''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxvii|loc=Introduction}} by the Irish Catholic theologian and Neoplatonist philosopher [[John Scotus Eriugena]].{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}} The work ''De Divisione Naturae'' by Eriugena described a detailed Neoplatonic world-system that also appears in the works of the 12th century French professor [[Simon of Tournai]] and the 12th century English translator [[Alfred of Sareshel]] and influenced the 13th century Italian philosopher and theologian [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]] and the 17th century French philosopher and mathematician [[René Descartes|Descartes]].{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxvii with footnote 2 and 3|loc=Introduction}}

==== 12th century ====
By way of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Neoplatonic doctrines originally written by Proclus are in the Latin translations of the 12th century scholar [[John Sarrazin]],{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}} who is known only from his translation of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius from Greek into Latin. In the 12th century and later centuries, Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' was transmitted into Christian Europe by the Latin work ''[[Liber de Causis]]'' (''Book of Causes'', frequently misattributed to [[Aristotle]]) translated from Arabic by [[Gerard of Cremona]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} between 1167 and 1187.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}} 20th and 21st century scholars{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|pp=296, 317 (Note 23)}} have shown that more than 30 propositions of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines in his ''Elements of Theology'' are in the Arabic version of ''Liber de Causis'' translated by Gerard of Cremona.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=296|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}

The first clear reference to ''Liber de Causis'' is in the work ''De Fide Catholica'' by the French Christian theologian and poet [[Alain de Lille|Alan of Lille]], most likely written before April 1187.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes |publisher=Koninklijke Brill NV |others=D. Calma, D. Poirel, I. Caiazzo, F. Retucci, L. Miolo, O. Weijers, K. Krause, H. Anzulewicz, M. E. Malgieri, J. Counet, I. Székely, I. Zavattero, G. Guldentops, R. Imbach, E. King, Z. Kaluza, B. Bartocci |year=2019 |isbn=9789004395114 |editor-last=Calma |editor-first=Dragos |series=Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition vol. 22 |volume=1 |location=Leiden; Boston |pages=4 |chapter=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma |ref={{sfnref|Calma|2019}}}}</ref>{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=La première réception du Liber de causis en Occident by Caiazzo|pp=46-69}} Between the late 12th century and early 13th century, manuscripts of ''Liber de Causis'' arrived in England where it was cited in the work ''De Motu Cordis'' by the 12th century English translator [[Alfred of Sareshel|Alfred of Shareshill]]; cited in the work ''Speculum Speculationum'' by the 12th century English Christian theologian [[Alexander Neckam|Alexander of Neckam]]; and was also included in the late 12th century to early 13th century{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=Le Liber de Causis et l'Elementatio Theologica by Miolo|pp=|p=120}} manuscript ''[https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_8897 Selden Supra 24],'' the oldest known manuscript containing the Aristotelian ''Corpus Vetustius'' and ''Liber de Causis.''{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=4|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}}{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=La première réception du Liber de causis en Occident by Caiazzo|pp=46-69}} Further, 21st century scholarship has identified text from ''Liber de Causis'' in 18 manuscripts of the work ''De Articulis Fidei'' by the 12th century French Christian theologian [[Nicholas of Amiens]].{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=Liber de Causis in Thomas of York by Retucci|pp=|p=78}}

==== 13th century ====
The 12th century translation of the Arabic ''Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr'' (''Discourse on the Pure Good'') to the Latin ''Liber de Causis'' by Gerard of Cremona was frequently copied (about 237 times{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=317 (Note 37)|loc=Proclus' Legacy}}). The work ''Sapientiale'' composed by the 13th century English [[Franciscan]] theologian and philosopher [[Thomas of York (Franciscan)|Thomas of York]] between 1250 and 1260, contains more than 100 clear references to ''Liber de Causis'' that use more than 20 of the more than 30 propositions in the ''Liber de Causis'' derived from Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines in his ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=4|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}}{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=Liber de Causis in Thomas of York by Retucci|pp=70-119}} Thomas of York did not attribute ''Liber de Causis'' to Aristotle, as he believed it belonged to a Platonic tradition due to the hierarchy of intermediary causes between the divine mind and the material universe, a hierarchy rejected by Aristotle.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=4|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}}{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=Liber de Causis in Thomas of York by Retucci|pp=74-78}} Further, in 1255, a statute of the Faculty of Arts from the [[University of Paris]] prescribed the teaching of ''Liber de Causis''{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=5|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}} and at the end of the 12th century and throughout the 13th century, ''Liber de Causis'' and Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' were read and cited at [[University of Oxford|Oxford]] and [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]] Universities.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=10|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}}
[[File:Palazzo dei Papi (Viterbo) 2022.jpg|thumb|375x375px|Modern day [[Viterbo]], showing the 13th century [[Palace of the Popes in Viterbo|Palazzo dei Papi]] that was completed around the same time [[William of Moerbeke]] and [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]] were working in the city in c. 1268 AD.]]
A very important dissemination of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines in the latter parts of the 13th century, and later centuries, was through the Flemish Catholic bishop (also Latin archbishop of Corinth and translator) [[William of Moerbeke]], who finished his precise literal translation{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=24}} from Greek manuscripts to Latin{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=348|loc=Addenda et Corrigenda}} of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' (''Elemntatio Theologica''{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=7}}) in [[Viterbo]] on June 15, 1268.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xlii|loc=Introduction}} He also translated into Latin, Proclus' ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]''{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=6}}''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}'' (1280s{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=319|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}})'','' Proclus' C''ommentary on [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=319|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} (1280s{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=319|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}) and some of Proclus' treaties{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=xlii}} (February 1280{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=7|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=319|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Klibansky |first=Raymond |title=Plato's Parmenides in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance |publisher=The Warburg Institute |year=1943 |location=London |pages=4, 6 |language=en |id=ark:/13960/t9d50hz4d}}</ref>

It was through William of Moerbeke's precise Latin translation of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' that indirect and direct traditions of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' merged,{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=7}} as William's Latin translation from Greek manuscripts (a direct tradition) was used by [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]] to make his observations about Proclus' doctrines in ''Liber de Causis'' (an indirect tradition).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|pp=288-299}} Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on ''Liber de Causis,'' was the first{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=5 (footnote 1)|loc=Plato's Parmenides In the Middle Ages}} to find that much of the content of ''Liber de Causis'' was from Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', thus leading to an important transmission of Proclus' doctrines into the 13th century and later centuries.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Both William of Moerbeke and Saint Thomas Aquinas were working in Viterbo in 1268.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}

Proclus' doctrines in the ''Liber de Causis'' were also diffused in the 13th century through commentaries by the 13th century Belgian philosopher [[Siger of Brabant]] and the 13th century German [[Dominican Order|Dominican]] friar [[Albertus Magnus|Saint Albert the Great]], who, in his commentaries, used at least six{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=5|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}} of the more than 30 Neoplatonic doctrines of Proclus in ''Liber de Causis''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} 21st century scholarship has discovered a presence of ''Liber de Causis'' and Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' in Saint Albert the Great's commentary on the ''[[Sentences]]'', his treatises ''De Incarnatione'' and ''De Resurrectione'' and sacramental Christian theological discussions about the order of sacraments.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma|pp=11-12}}{{Sfn|Calma|2019|loc=The Liber de Causis in Albert the Great by Krause & Anzulewicz|pp=180-208}}

Further, in the 13th century, German theologians and philosophers [[Henry Bate of Mechelen|Heinrich Bate]] (friend of William of Moerbeke{{Sfn|Klibansky|1943|p=9}}), [[Theodoric of Freiberg]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|loc=Introduction, Commentary|pp=xxxii, 221, 230}} and [[Meister Eckhart]],{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxii|loc=Introduction}} in his ''Work of Propositions'',{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=14|loc=Introduction: One Thousand Years of Proclus by Gersh}} continued the dissemination of Proclus' Neoplatonic theology through the Latin translations of the ''Liber de Causis'', ''Elements of Theology'' and ''Commentary on Parmenides'' by Proclus''.''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Parts of Bate's encyclopedic work ''Speculum Divinorum et Quorundam Naturalium{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=25|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}}'' harmonized Plato and Aristotle through Proclus and provided a simplified version of Proclus' late Athenian Neoplatonic theology and contains many references''{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=25|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}}'' to Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=7|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}}

==== 14th century ====
Early in the 14th century, the Italian poet, writer and philosopher [[Dante Alighieri]] also integrated Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines found in the ''Liber de Causis'' in several of his works, notably in the ''[[Convivio]]'' (III.6.11), written between 1304–1307, when describing Beatrice's physical beauty as caused by her soul,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} and in his works ''[[De Monarchia]]'', ''[[Divine Comedy]]'',{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}} and ''Epistle to Cangrande''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=138 (footnote 6)|loc=The Liber de Causis by Cristina D’Ancona}} In his work ''De Monarchia'' (I.11 and III), written between 1312–1313, Dante uses Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines of Causes and Effects found in ''Liber de Causis'' proposition 1,{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=385|loc=The Liber de Causis in Dante's Political Philosophy by Arroche}} to provide a metaphysical basis of a political order between princes and the people{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=383|loc=The Liber de Causis in Dante's Political Philosophy by Arroche}} and as a basis for his defence of papal supremacy over government.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=386|loc=The Liber de Causis in Dante's Political Philosophy by Arroche}}

In 14th century Germany there was an enthusiastic engagement and integration of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|loc=Introduction|pp=xlii, xxxii}} and his treaties into [[Friends of God|German mysticism]] in the Bavarian city of [[Regensburg]] (1327–1335) and then in the German city of [[Cologne]] (1335–1361) led by the German Dominican theologian and Neoplatonist [[Berthold of Moosburg]] in his enormous''{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=26|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh}}'' commentary{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=8|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}} on Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Berthold's commentary ''Expositio Super Elementationem Theologicam Procli'', written between 1327 and 1361, is a defence of Proclus in which he assumes Platonism is superior to Aristotelianism and that the rigorous dialectical form of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' is superior to the figurative language used by all other Platonists to explain Platonic doctrines.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=20|loc=Introduction: One thousand years of Proclus by Gersh}} The sources Berthold used in his commentary are [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], ''[[Corpus Hermeticum]]'', [[Cicero]], [[Seneca the Younger|Seneca]], [[Apuleius]], [[Macrobius]], Proclus, [[Avicenna]], [[Al-Farabi]], [[Al-Ghazali]], [[Averroes]], [[Maimonides]] and the ''[[Liber de Causis|Liber De Causis]]''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=20|loc=Introduction: One thousand years of Proclus by Gersh}} Berthold's commentary was the first Middles Ages document to clearly cite Proclus' ''Elements of Physics'' and ''Tria Opuscula'' (three treatises).{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=20|loc=Introduction: One thousand years of Proclus by Gersh}}

=== Renaissance reception ===

==== 15th century ====
[[File:Liber_de_causis,_Venice,_Lat._288,_fol._2r.jpg|thumb|First page of a 15th century Latin translation of ''Liber de Causis'' from a manuscript in the library of the Catholic cardinal [[Bessarion]]. ''Liber de Causis'' is and important source of transmission of Proclus' work ''Elements of Theology''.]]During the 15th century, the Catholic cardinal [[Bessarion]] (student of [[Gemistus Pletho|Georgius Gemistus Pletho]]) had in his possession numerous manuscripts in Greek{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxiii|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxviii|loc=Introduction}} brought back from his time in Greece, and after becoming a cardinal in 1439, Bessarion made annotations{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=342|loc=Addenda et Corrigenda}} and revisions to Greek manuscripts of Proclus' ''[[Elements of Theology]]'' and ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Also in 1439, the Roman Catholic cardinal [[Nicholas of Cusa|Nicolas of Cusa]] had in his possession Greek manuscripts of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxii|loc=Introduction}} that he had brought back from Constantinople, and asked the Italian monk and theologian [[Ambrose Traversari|Ambrogio Traversari]] to translate them into Latin, a task completed by the Italian translator [[Pietro Balbi]] in 1462.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} During the middle of the 15th century, in 1450 and 1455, Nicolas of Cusa also authorized two copies of Proclus' ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]],''{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=ix|loc=Preface}} of which he held three of the six Greek manuscripts,{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=9|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}} and used the one he heavily annotated while writing his treatises.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Also near the middle of the 15th century, the Dutch theologian [[Heymeric de Campo]] was influenced in his work ''Theoremata Totius Universi'' by Proclus' axiomatic treatment of theology in ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=14|loc=Introduction: One Thousand Years of Proclus}}
During the late 15th century, the Italian Catholic priest and scholar [[Marsilio Ficino]] was reading Greek manuscripts of Proclus' works and displays a detailed understanding of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines in his Latin translations of Proclus' ''[[Platonic Theology (Ficino)|Platonic Theology]]'' and ''On the Immortality of the Souls'', written between 1469 and 1471.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} By the 1490s, Ficino had the following Greek manuscripts of Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines available to him: ''Commentary on [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'', ''Commentary on [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'' (a more than 400 leaf codex dated from the 9th or 10th century{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=359|loc=Marsilio Ficino by Allen}}), ''Commentary on [[First Alcibiades]]'', a commentary by [[Nicholas of Methone]] on Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'', Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'', and ''Elements of Physics'', the last of which contain his notes.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Ficino also translated Proclus' ''Hymns'', ''Elements of Theology'',{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxxii|loc=Introduction}} selections from ''Commentary on Republic''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} and ''Elements of Physics'', the last is lost, however the other two were printed in [[Venice]] by [[Aldus Manutius]] in 1497.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Ficino's Latin excerpts from Proclus' ''Commentary on [[First Alcibiades]]'' and treatise ''On Sacrifice and Magic'' were all that were available of these Proclean texts until the original Greek manuscripts were rediscovered in the 20th century.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} In 1492, Ficino also translated into Latin excerpts from ''Commentary on Republic'' by Proclus which were included in a collection of his letters in 1495.

Further, commentaries on the ''Liber de Causis'' and Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' were composed by many Central European Universities from the 14th century to the 16th century.{{Sfn|Calma|2019|p=10|loc=Western Scholarly Networks and Debates by Calma}} In the last year of the 15th century, [[Thomas Linacre]]'s Latin translation of a spurious work by Proclus called ''The Sphere'' was printed, which became very popular and was frequently reprinted.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}

==== 16th century ====
At the turn of the 16th century, around 1501,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=316|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Italian academic, mathematician, philologist and translator [[Giorgio Valla]] translated Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' and Proclus' ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' into Latin and incorporated much of that text into his colossal encyclopedia ''Seek and Shun.''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} During the late 15th to early 16th century, the [[Venice|Venetian]] professor of philosophy [[Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus]] translated parts of Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jonkers |first=Gijsbert |title=The Textual Tradition of Plato's Timaeus and Critias |publisher=Brill |year=2016 |isbn=9789004335202 |location=Leiden; Boston |pages=220 |language=en,grc,la}}</ref> Early in the 16th century in northern Italy, Proclus' ''Commentary on [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' was translated into Latin by an anonymous translator.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Between 1520 and 1526, Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'', ''Commentary on [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'', ''Commentary on [[First Alcibiades]]'' and ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' were translated by the Italian Augustinian friar and Platonist Nicholas Scutelli.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}
[[File:Toruń Nicolaus Copernicus Monument.jpg|thumb|A monument to the 16th century Prussian-Polish mathematician and astronomer [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] in [[Toruń]], Poland. Copernicus used parts of Proclus' work ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' in his work ''[[De revolutionibus orbium coelestium|On the Revolution of Celestial Spheres]]''.]]
During the early 16th century, there is evidence that the Prussian-Polish mathematician and astronomer [[Nicolaus Copernicus|Nicholas Copernicus]] had read Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' and that parts of Proclus' ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'', from Valla's encyclopedia ''Seek and Shun'', were used by Copernicus in his 1543{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=315|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} work ''On the Revolution of Celestial Spheres''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=310|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Also, early 20th century scholars thought that the cosmology discussed in Proclus' writings were the source of fundamental doctrines in the works of 16th century Italian Dominican friar, philosopher and cosmological theorist [[Giordano Bruno]].{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=277|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}{{Sfn|Johnson|1909|p=x|loc=Introduction}}

Although written in 1505, it wasn't until 1539 that the first Latin translation of Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' was published by the Italian humanist and translator [[:de:Bartolomeo_Zamberti|Bartolomeo Zamberti]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=310|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} From 1531 to 1540 the German [[Protestant Reformation|Protestant]] theologian and scholar [[Simon Grynaeus]] edited a Greek manuscript of Proclus' ''Elements of Physics'', and executed the first printed editions (''editio princeps'') in Greek of Proclus' ''Elements of Physics'', ''Commentary on [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]'', ''Commentary on [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'', ''Commentary on the First Book of [[Euclid's Elements]]'',{{Sfn|Morrow|1992|p=lxviii|loc=Translator's Notes}} ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} In 1541, Giorgio Valla's Latin translation of Proclus' ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' was published in ''Ptolemy's Opera''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}} In the middle of the 16th century, 1551,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=316|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Copernicus' student, the [[Raetia|Rhaetian]] mathematician, astronomer and teacher [[Georg Joachim Rheticus]] in his work ''Canon of the Science of Triangles'', concludes that Proclus' ''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' be introduced into schools because of its sound theory of celestial motions.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=310|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}}

In 1560, the Italian mathematician, astronomer and humanist [[Francesco Barozzi]] published a Latin translation of Proclus' ''Commentary on First Book of [[Euclid's Elements]]''.<ref name=":23">{{Cite book|last=Sasaki|first=C.|title=Descartes's Mathematical Thought|publisher=Springer Netherlands|year=2013|isbn=9789401712255|location=Netherlands|pages=333|language=en}}</ref> Important parts of the prologue of Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' were translated by the Swiss professor of mathematics [[Conrad Dasypodius|Konrad Dasypodius]] and printed in his work ''Mathematicum Volumen II.'' from 1570.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=310|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} In 1583, Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' and ''Elements of Physics'' was translated into Latin by the Italian Platonist philosopher and scientist [[Franciscus Patricius]] (Italian: Francesco Patrizi).{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Patricius' work ''Nova de Universis Philosophia'' is based on Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=27|loc=Proclus in the History of Philosophy by Gersh|2017}} From 1548 to the early 17th century, the prologue of Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' stimulated a large debate amongst scholars on the classification of mathematical sciences.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=311|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Those that contributed to the debate were: the Italian philosopher [[Alessandro Piccolomini]], the French logician [[Petrus Ramus|Pierre de la Ramée]], the Swiss professor of mathematics Konrad Dasypodius, the Spanish philosopher [[Benedict Pereira|Benito Pereira]], the Belgian mathematician [[Adriaan van Roomen|Adrian van Roomen]] and the German [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] minister [[Johann Heinrich Alsted]], all of whom relied on Proclus' ''Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements''.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=311|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}}

=== Modern reception ===

==== 17th century ====
At the turn of the 17th century, 1596–1609,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=315|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Proclus' influence is seen in the Latin work ''[[Harmonice Mundi]]'' of the German astronomer and mathematician [[Johannes Kepler]], who quotes at length, in ''Harmonice Mundi'' 218.33–221.39, from Proclus' ''Commentary on First Book of Euclid's Elements'' 12.2–18.4.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík|pp=311-312}} Early in the 17th century, in 1618, the first printed Latin editions of Proclus' ''Platonic Theology'' and ''[[Elements of Theology]]'' were published, they were prepared earlier in the century by the Italian philologist and university professor [[:de:Aemilius Portus|Aemilius Portus]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} After Portus' first printed editions of Proclus, there were no first editions of Proclus' works published until the early 19th century, some 200 years later.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} Also, in 1651, a commentary in Armenian of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' was written by the Armenian bishop Simeon of Djulfa{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}} (Svimeon Dshughaezi).{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}

Late in the 17th century, the Georgian writer and diplomat [[Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani|Sulchan-Saba Orbeliani]] added propositions and references from Proclus into his ''Georgian Dictionary'' that was both an encyclopaedia and dictionary.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} Further, 20th and 21st century scholars think there is a close{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=413|loc=Understanding the Geometric Method by Zovko}} relationship or similarities{{Sfn|Siorvanes|1996|p=37|loc=Proclus' Life, Times and Influence}} between Proclus and 17th century Dutch philosopher [[Baruch Spinoza]], through the mediating role of 17th century religious philosopher [[Abraham Cohen de Herrera|Abraham Cohen Herrera]] and other indirect sources,{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|4=2017|loc=Understanding the Geometric Method by Zovko|pp=395, 404}} specifically with regards to Spinoza's idea of geometric method and Proclus' understanding of Platonic dialectic.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xi|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=244|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Taylor |first=A. E. |title=Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society |publisher=The Aristotelian Society; Johnson Reprint Corporation |year=1964 |volume=XVIII |location=London; United States of America |pages=609 |language=en |chapter=The Philosophy of Proclus |id=ark:/13960/t3133 |orig-date=1917-1918}}</ref>

==== 18th century ====
In the 18th century, a commentary of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' by the Armenian bishop Svimeon Dshughaezi was translated from Armenian into Georgian at least twice, one of these translations was in 1757.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}} Also in the 18th century, the [[List of head bishops of the Georgian Orthodox Church|Catholicos–Patriarch]] of the [[Georgian Orthodox Church]] [[Anton I of Georgia]], in his work ''Spekali'', cited and commentated on the 12th century Georgian translation of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' by [[Ioane Petritsi]].{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}

In his ''Elements of Theology'', propositions 28 and 29, Proclus introduces a metaphysical law of Continuity that seems very probable to scholars to historically descend into the doctrine on Continuity of [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]] in his early 18th century essay ''[[Natura non facit saltus|la nature ne fait jamais des sauts]]''.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=288|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}} It was thought by at least one leading Neoplatonic scholar of the early 20th century that Neoplatonism contains an early representation of Leibnizian monadism.{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=252|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}

==== 19th century ====

===== Georgia =====
Early in the 19th century, [[Prince Ioane of Georgia]] (Joane Bagrationi) in his Georgian work ''Kalmasoba'', explained 86 of the 211 propositions of Proclus' ''Elements of Theology,'' basing his work on Armenian commentaries of Proclus' works.{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}

===== France =====
In 1820 the first published version of Proclus' ''Commentary on Cratylus'' was published in Latin by the French classical scholar [[Jean François Boissonade de Fontarabie]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} From 1820–1827,{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=315|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} the French philosopher [[Victor Cousin]] published his Latin translation ''Procli Philosophi Platonici Opera'' in six volumes, revised and re-edited in 1864, that included three treaties by Proclus, Proclus' ''Commentary on First [[First Alcibiades|Alcibiades]]'' and Proclus' ''Commentary on [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', all dedicated to [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|F. J. W. Schelling]] and [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|G. W. F. Hegel]].{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} In 1839, the French statesman and philosopher [[Jules Simon]], in his work ''Du Commentarie de Proclus sur le Timée de Platon'', provided a comprehensive summary of Proclus' ''Commentary on Timaeus''.{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|pp=5-6|loc=Books about Proclus}} In 1840, influenced by Cousin's ''Procli Philosophi Platonici Opera'', the French philologist [[:fr:Adolphe Berger|Adolphe Berger]] wrote a thorough description of Proclus' [[cosmology]] in his doctoral thesis ''Proclus: Exposition de sa doctrine''.{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|pp=3-4|loc=Books about Proclus}} And in 1846, the French philosophical writer [[Étienne Vacherot]] wrote a historical account of Proclus' philosophy.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=314|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}}

===== Germany =====
[[File:Joseph Stiglmayr (1851–1934).png|thumb|19th century German church historian and Jesuit [[:ru:Штигльмайр, Йозеф|Josef Stiglmayr]] who, in 1895, was the first{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=122 with footnote 23|loc=Dionysius the Areopagite by Dillon}} to reveal the extent that [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite|Pseudo-Dionysius]]' Christian doctrines depended on Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrines.|250x250px]]In 1820, Proclus' ''Commentary on First Alcibiades'' was published in Latin by German philologist and archaeologist [[Georg Friedrich Creuzer]]. Proclus was a particular favourite of the German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]], who regarded Neoplatonic philosophy as the peak of Greek philosophy as a whole, and praised Proclus as 'the peak of Neoplatonic philosophy' in his ''[[Lectures on the History of Philosophy]]'', which details lectures given by him from 1802–1830''.''{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=313, 321|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} Hegel drew on Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' and ''Platonic Theology'' and integrated Proclean concepts into his philosophy.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=314|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík}} However, the German philosopher and [[Protestant]] theologian [[Eduard Zeller]] was less praiseworthy in his 1844–1852 work ''Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung'', but nonetheless Zeller recognized Proclus' importance in the history of philosophy.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=3|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne}} During the mid 1860s, the German philosopher and historian [[Friedrich Ueberweg]] lauded Proclus in his 1863–1886 work ''Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie'' and, with Hegel, called Proclus' works the peak of Neoplatonic philosophy.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne|pp=2-3}}

Late in the 19th century, in 1895,{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=199 (footnote 1)|loc=The Transfiguration of Proclus' Legacy by Mainoldi|2017}} the German church historian and Jesuit Josef Stiglmayr, in his work ''Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel'',{{Sfn|Gersh|2014|p=124|loc=Dionysius the Areopagite by Dillon}} and later in 1900, the German Catholic theologian and church historian Hugo Koch, in is detailed work ''Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita'',{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|p=223 with footnote 9|loc=Influence of Proclus}} independently revealed the extent that [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite|Pseudo-Dionysius]] the Areopagite slavishly{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxviii|loc=Introduction|pp=}} followed Proclus' doctrines. They revealed that the works of Pseudo-Dionysius reproduced the whole structure of late Athenian Neoplatonism, and took over technical Neoplatonic theological terminology,{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxviii|loc=Introduction|pp=}} with a thinly veiled disguise of Christianity.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=|loc=Introduction|pp=xxvii-xxviii}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=199|loc=The Transfiguration of Proclus' Legacy by Mainoldi}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík|pp=293, 314}}{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=48|loc=Introduction (Note 12)}} Since the late 19th century, there have been many other proofs that demonstrate the close link between works of Pseudo-Dionysius and the late Athenian Neoplatonic works of Proclus and Damascius, notably, a study by the 20th–21st century Italian academic and philologist [[:it:Eugenio Corsini|Eugenio Corsini]], three studies by the 20th–21st century French philosopher [[:fr:Henri-Dominique Saffrey|Henri-Dominique Saffrey]], and a study by the 20th–21st century Italian Hellenist Salvatore Lilla<!--Q55772890-->.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|p=199|loc=The Transfiguration of Proclus' Legacy by Mainoldi}}

===== England =====
[[File:The book cover of Proclus on the First Book of Euclid's Elements by Thomas Taylor 1792 volume 1.png|thumb|290x290px|Cover page of ''Proclus on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' translated into English by [[Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist)|Thomas Taylor]] 1792 Volume I.]]

In the late 18th century and early 19th century, between 1792–1833, the English translator and Neoplatonist [[Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist)|Thomas Taylor]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}} was overwhelmed{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne|pp=|p=3}} by Proclus and published the following English translations on and by Proclus:<ref>{{Cite book|last=Axon|first=William|title=Thomas Taylor the Platonist|publisher=Reprinted from "The Library" for Private Circulation|year=1890|location=London|pages=10–14|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t6k07131m}}</ref>
* ''Marinus's Life of Proclus, or Concerning Felicity'' in 1792;
* ''The Philosophical and Mathematical Commentaries of Proclus on the First Book of Euclid's Elements'' and ''Proclus's Theological Elements'' in 1792 in 2 volumes;
* ''Five Hymns by Proclus'' in 1793;
* ''Commentary on The First Alcibiades'' from his English translation of ''The Works of Plato'' (which included English translations of certain dialogues by Floyer Sydenham) in 1804;
* ''The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato'' in 1816 in 2 volumes;
* ''Proclus' The Elements of Theology'' in 1816;
* ''Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato'' in 2 volumes and 2 editions, 1810 and 1820;
* ''The Fragments that remain of the Lost Writings of Proclus'' in 1825;
* ''Select Theorems on the Perpetuity of Time by Proclus'' in 1831;
* ''Two Treatises of Proclus'' (''Ten Doubts Concerning Providence'' and ''On the Subsistence of Evil'') in 1833.

Taylor also published four articles on Proclus in the ''[[The Classical Journal|Classical Journal]]'' in 1821, 1822, 1824 and 1825, that were a response to Jean François Boissonade de Fontarabie's first published Greek text edition of Proclus' ''Commentary on [[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'' and Victor Cousin's Greek text editions of Proclus' commentary on ''First Alcibiades'' and ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' (three articles).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Balch|first=Ruth|title=Thomas Taylor the Platonist|publisher=The Newberry Library|year=1917|location=Chicago|pages=1–23|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t9c53sz70}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=29 October 2021|title=Universal Theosophy|url=https://universaltheosophy.com/tt/the-first-alcibiades/#notes|url-status=live|access-date=2 November 2021|website=Universal Theosophy}}</ref>

''United States of America''

Taylor's translations of Proclus inspired<ref>{{Cite book |last=Taylor |first=Thomas |title=Vindication of the Rights of Brutes |last2=Boas |first2=Louise Schutz |publisher=Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints |year=1966 |location=Gainesville, Florida |pages=viii |language=en |chapter=Introduction by Louise Schutz Boas |id=ark:/13960/t5db9859n |orig-date=1792}}</ref> [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], who declared in 1847:<blockquote>"''When I read Proclus, I am astonished at the vigor and breadth of his performance. Here is no...modern muse with short breath and short flight, but Atlantic strength, every where equal to itself, and dares great attempts because of the life with which it is filled.''"—Ralph Waldo Emerson, ''Journals<ref>{{Cite book|last=Emerson|first=Ralph Waldo|title=Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson 1820–1872|publisher=Constable and Co. Limited, Haughton Mifflin Company|year=1913|editor-last=Emerson|editor-first=Ralph Waldo|volume=VII|location=London, Boston and New York|pages=262|language=en|id=ark:/13960/t54f1mz7n|editor-last2=Forbes|editor-first2=Waldo Emerson}}</ref>''</blockquote>

=== Contemporary reception ===
Between 1900 and 2021 there have been more than 30 modern versions published of Proclus' works in Greek text and two new editions of Moerbeke's Latin translation.<ref name=":19" /> There have also been over 100 published translations of Proclus' works that are considered by scholars as a standard, or important for Proclean studies.<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|date=22 February 2021|title=De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Philosophy|url=http://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclused.html|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2021|website=KU Leuven|publisher=KU Leuven Oude Markt 13 – bus 5005 3000 Leuven Belgium}}</ref> Those translations include 32 in English (including 8 reprints of Thomas Taylor's translations) 23 in Italian, 20 in French, 18 in German, six in Spanish, two in Hungarian, one in Russian and one in Polish.<ref name=":19" />

A nearly complete list of Proclus' works in Greek text and translations published after 1900 may be found at [http://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclused.html De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Philosophy]. Below is a chronological listing of modern editions of Proclus' works in Greek text and first edition translations that are in the bibliographies of ''All From One'', edited by d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, and ''Proclus On Plato's Cratylus'', translated by Duvick 2014. Where there is more than one volume published for a work, the year is taken from the last published volume.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Modern Editions in Greek Text and Translations from Bibliographies of ''All From One'' 2017{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|pp=339-368|loc=Bibliography}} and ''Proclus On Plato's Cratylus'' 2014{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|pp=185-191|loc=Bibliography}}
|Year Finished
|Language, Editor and/or Translator
|Title
|Work by Proclus
|-
|<small>1873</small>
|<small>Greek text edited by G. Friedlein{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Procli Diadochi In Primum Euclides Elementorum Librum Commentaria''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on First Book of [[Euclid's Elements]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1901</small>
|<small>Greek text</small> <small>edited by W. Kroll{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Procli Diadochi In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentaria,'' 2 volumes</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1906</small>
|<small>Greek text</small> <small>edited by</small> <small>E. Diehl{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Procli Diadochi In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria,'' 3 volumes</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1908</small>
|<small>Greek text edited by G. Pasquali{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Procli Diadochi In Platonis Cratylum Commentaria''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1909</small>
|<small>Greek text edited by C. Manutius{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=356|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Procli Hypotyposis astronomicarum positionum''</small>
|<small>''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses''</small>
|-
|<small>1933</small>
|<small>Greek text and English translation</small> <small>by E. R. Dodds{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=347|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus. Elements of Theology''</small>
|<small>''Elements of Theology''</small>
|-
|<small>1965</small>
|<small>English translation by W. O'Neill{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xlii (footnote 13)}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=358|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus: Alcibiades I''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[First Alcibiades]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1968</small>
|<small>French translation by A. J. Festugière{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xlii (footnote 13)}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus. Commentaire sur le Timée'', 5 volumes</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1970</small>
|<small>English translation by G. R. Morrow{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=357|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus: Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on the First Book of [[Euclid's Elements]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1986</small>
|<small>French translation by A.-P. Segonds{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=361|loc=Bibliography|2017}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus: Sur le Premier Alcibiade de Platon''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[First Alcibiades]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1987</small>
|<small>English translation by G. R. Morrow and J. M. Dillon{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=357|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's Parmenides''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]''</small>
|-
|<small>1997</small>
|<small>Greek text and French translation</small> <small>by</small> <small>H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Théologie Platonicienne'', 6 volumes</small>
|<small>''Platonic Theology''</small>
|-
|<small>2001</small>
|<small>English translation by H. S Lang and A. D.Macro{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=354|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''On the Eternity of the World. De Aeternitate Mundi''</small>
|<small>''On the Eternity of the World'' (from Arabic)</small>
|-
|<small>2003</small>
|<small>English translation by J. Opsomer & C. Steel{{Sfn|Baltzly|2007|p=168|loc=References}}</small>
|<small>''On the Existence of Evils''</small>
|<small>''On the Existence of Evil''</small>
|-
|<small>2007</small>
|<small>English translation by C. Steel{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=364|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|''<small>Proclus: On Providence</small>''
|<small>''On Providence and Fate''</small>
|-
|<small>2007</small>
|<small>English translation by B. Duvick, Edited by H. Tarrant{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=347|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Proclus On Plato's Cratylus''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]''</small>
|-
|<small>2009</small>
|<small>Modern Greek translation by Oi Ymno iand P. Kalligas{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=352|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Proklou, H Ieratikê Technê''</small>
|<small>''Hymns''</small>
|-
|<small>2012</small>
|<small>English translation by R. Lamberton{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=331|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Essays 5 and 6 of his Commentary on the Republic of Plato''</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''</small>
|-
|<small>2013</small>
|<small>English translation by H. Tarrant, D. T. Runia, M. Share and D. Baltzly {{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=340|loc=Bibliography}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=365|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's Timaeus'', 6 volumes</small>
|<small>''Commentary on Plato's [[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''</small>
|}
Further, in the early 20th century, Proclus' philosophy can be seen in the process philosophy of the English mathematician and philosopher [[Alfred North Whitehead]].{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=3|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne}} Also in the early 20th century, in 1909, the American editor of ''The Platonist'' Thos. M. Johnson published Proclus' ''Elements of Theology'' in a work titled ''Proclus' Metaphysical Elements''.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=430|loc=Bibliography}} And in 1918 the English [[Metaphysics|metaphysician]] [[Thomas Whittaker (metaphysician)|Thomas Whittaker]] published his work ''The Neoplatonists'', which provides complete summaries of Proclus' commentaries and describes many propositions in Proclus' ''Elements of Theology''.{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|p=9|loc=Books about Proclus}} In c. 1932, the German scholar Ansgar Josef Friedl, in his work ''Die Homer-Interpretation des Neuplatonikers Proklos'', wrote an analysis of Proclus' ''Commentary on Republic'' that discussed Proclus' theology and his literary criticism of Homer's myths.{{Sfn|Rosan|1949|p=6|loc=Books about Proclus}}

In 1949 the American philosophical instructor Laurence Jay Rosán published ''The Philosophy of Proclus'', a work that provided a significant reassessment of Proclus in 20th century scholarship.{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=v|loc=Preface}}{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=441|loc=Bibliography}} In the late 20th century, the writer Richard A. Smyth's 1997 book ''Reading Peirce Reading'' explores the Neoplatonic link from Ralph Waldo Emerson, a very passionate reader of Proclus,{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=1|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne}} to the 19th century American philosopher [[Charles Sanders Peirce]].{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xxvi (footnote48)}} And in 2012, a conference was held in Turkey, at [[Fatih University]], celebrating the 1600th anniversary of Proclus' birth.{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=6|loc=Introduction by Dillon, Butorac & Layne}}

=== List of Influence ===
This topic provides a chronological listing of Proclus' influence on philosophy and theology. The century ascribed to people in the list is based on the year they flourished, traditionally that is when they were 40 years old.
{| class="wikitable"
|+<big>'''Proclus' Influence'''</big>
|-
|<small>'''5th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Ammonius Hermiae]]{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=15 (footnote 51)|loc=Formal features of Proclus' commentary}}</small>
|<small>Greek Neoplatonist philosopher and Proclus' student</small>
|-
|<small>'''6th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Damascius]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Greek Neoplatonist philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[Priscian]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}}</small>
|<small>Roman Latin grammarian</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[John Philoponus]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek Christian commentator</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[Simplicius of Cilicia]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=292|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}</small>
|<small>Greek Neoplatonist philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[Olympiodorus the Younger]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}}</small>
|<small>Greek Neoplatonist philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[John the Lydian|John of Lydia]]{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|p=4|loc=Introduction|2014}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek administrator and writer on antiquarian subjects</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[Boethius]]{{Sfn|Tarrant|2007|p=15 (footnote 51)|loc=Formal features of Proclus' commentary}}</small>
|<small>Roman philosopher, senator and consul</small>
|-
|<small>6th century</small>
|<small>[[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=ix|loc=Preface}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=290|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Greek Christian theologian and Neoplatonic philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>'''7th century'''</small>
|[[Maximus the Confessor|<small>Saint Maximus the Confessor</small>]]<small>{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=24|loc=An Orthodox and Byzantine Reception of the Elements of Theology by Lauritzen}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Christian monk, theologian and scholar</small>
|-
|<small>'''8th century'''</small>
|[[Ibn Ishaq|<small>Muhammed ibn Ishaq</small>]] <small>{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix (footnote 2)|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>Islamic historian</small>
|-
|<small>8th-9th century</small>
|[[Yahya Ibn al-Batriq|<small>Ibn al-Bitriq</small>]]<small>{{Sfn|Endress|1973|p=325|loc=English Summary}}</small>
|<small>Syrian scholar</small>
|-
|<small>'''9th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Hilduin]]</small><small>{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>Catholic bishop of Paris</small>
|-
|<small>9th century</small>
| <small>[[John Scotus Eriugena]]{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>Irish Catholic Neoplatonist philosopher, theologian and poet</small>
|-
|<small>9th century</small>
|<small>[[Al-Kindi|al-Kindī]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=295|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|Endress|1973|p=325|loc=English Summary}}</small>
|<small>Islamic philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>9th century</small>
|[[Ishaq ibn Hunayn|<small>Isḥāq ibn Ḥunain</small>]]<small>{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=323|loc=Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus by Chase}}</small>
|<small>Islamic physician and translator</small>
|-
|<small>'''10th century'''</small>
|<small>al-ʿĀmirī{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Islamic philosopher. Second-generation student of al-Kindī:</small>
|-
|<small>10th century</small>
|<small>anonymous Syriac translators{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|pp=xxviii-xxix|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Baumstark|1922|p=231}}</small>
|<small>Syriac translations</small>
|-
|<small>10th century</small>
|<small>[[Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi|al-Razi''s'']]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Steinschneider|1889|p=93}}</small>
|<small>Persian physician, philosopher and alchemist</small>
|-
|<small>'''11th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Michael Psellos]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=294|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>11th century</small>
|<small>[[John Italus]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=294|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>'''12th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Eustratius of Nicaea]]{{Sfn|Calma|2020|pp=33-41|loc=Eustratios of Nicaea's Response to Proclus by Gersh}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek Christian bishop of Nicaea</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>[[John Sarrazin]]{{Sfn|Opsomer|Steel|2014|p=5|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>French scholar</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>[[Isaac Komnenos (son of Alexios I)|Isaac Sebastocrator]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=xiv|loc=General Introduction|1992}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek scholar and patron of learning and the arts</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>[[Nicholas of Methone]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=294|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek Christian theologian, philosopher and commentator</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>[[Ioane Petritsi]]{{Sfn|Günther|2007|pp=1-15}}</small>
|<small>Georgian Neoplatonist philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>anonymous Arabic translators{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Arabic translations of Ioane Petritsi's translation</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|[[Al-Shahrastani|<small>Aḥmad Al-Šahrastānī</small>]]<small>{{Sfn|Butorac|Layne|2017|p=323|loc=Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus by Chase}}</small>
|<small>Islamic scholar, philosopher and theologian</small>
|-
|<small>12th century</small>
|<small>[[Gerard of Cremona]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=295|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>Italian Catholic translator</small>
|-
|<small>'''13th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi|ʿAbd al-Latị̄f al-Baghdādī]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=297|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Islamic philosopher.</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[Albertus Magnus|St Albert the Great]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>German Catholic Dominican friar, philosopher, scientist and bishop</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[William of Moerbeke]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=ix|loc=Preface|1992}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Flemish Catholic bishop and translator</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[Thomas Aquinas|St Thomas Aquinas{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=ix|loc=Preface}}]]</small>
|<small>Italian Christian theologian, philosopher and jurist</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[Siger of Brabant]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=298|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>French Averroist philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[Henry Bate of Mechelen|Heinrich Bate]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Flemish Christian philosopher, theologian,</small> <small>pupil of St Thomas Aquinas</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>[[Theodoric of Freiberg]] {{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>German Christian Dominican friar, theologian and physicist</small>
|-
|<small>13th century</small>
|<small>Simeon of Garni.{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}}</small> <small>(Svimeon Petrizis{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=146|loc=Die Elementatio Theologica des Proklos by Iremadze}})</small>
|<small>Armenian Christian monk</small>
|-
|<small>'''14th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Nicephorus Gregoras]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxx|loc=Introduction}}{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=321|loc=Commentary}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek astronomer, historian and theologian</small>
|-
|<small>14th century</small>
|[[Gregory Palamas|<small>Saint Gregory Palamas</small>]] <small>{{Sfn|Calma|2020|pp=27-28|loc=An Orthodox and Byzantine Reception of the Elements of Theology by Lauritzen}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek theologian</small>
|-
|<small>14th century</small>
|<small>[[Meister Eckhart]]{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}</small>
|<small>German Christian theologian</small>
|-
|<small>14th century</small>
|<small>[[Dante Alighieri]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian poet, writer and philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>14th century</small>
|<small>[[Berthold of Moosburg]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=299|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>German Christian Dominican theologian and Neoplatonist</small>
|-
|<small>'''15th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Nicholas of Cusa|Nicolas of Cusa]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=ix|loc=Preface|1992}}{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}</small>
|<small>German Catholic cardinal and theologian</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Ambrose Traversari|Ambrogio Traversari]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian monk and theologian</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Pietro Balbi]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=301|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian translator</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Bessarion]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=302|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Byzantine-Greek Catholic cardinal and theologian</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Marsilio Ficino]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|p=ix|loc=Preface|1992}}</small>
|<small>Italian Catholic priest and scholar</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Giovanni Pico della Mirandola]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|p=ix|loc=Preface}}</small>
|<small>Italian Christian philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>15th century</small>
|<small>[[Giorgio Valla]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian academic, mathematician, philologist and translator</small>
|-
|<small>'''16th century'''</small>
|<small>Anonymous Italian translator{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
| <small>Translation of ''Commentary on Timaeus''</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>Nicholas Scutelli{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian Augustinian friar and Platonist</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[Simon Grynaeus]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>German Protestant theologian and scholar</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>Publication{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>''Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses'' in ''Ptolemy's Opera'' 1541</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[Francesco Barozzi]]{{Sfn|Sasaki|2013|p=333}}</small>
| <small>Italian mathematician, astronomer and humanist</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[Franciscus Patricius]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian Platonist philosopher and scientist</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[:de:Aemilius Portus|Aemilius Portus]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>Italian philologist and university professor</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[Nicolaus Copernicus|Nicholas Copernicus]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=310|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík|pp=310, 315}}</small>
|<small>Prussian-Polish mathematician and astronomer</small>
|-
|<small>16th century</small>
|<small>[[Giordano Bruno]]{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=277|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus|pp=277}}</small>
|<small>Italian Dominican friar, philosopher and cosmological theorist</small>
|-
|<small>'''17th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Johannes Kepler]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy Adamson & Karfík|pp=311-312}}</small>
|<small>German astronomer, mathematician, astrologer, natural philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>17th century</small>
|<small>Simeon of Djulfa{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=xxix|loc=Introduction}}</small> <small>(Svimeon Dshughaezi{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}})</small>
|<small>Armenian Christian bishop</small>
|-
|<small>17th century</small>
|<small>[[Jakob Böhme|Jacob Boehme]]{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}</small>
|<small>German philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>17th century</small>
|<small>[[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]]{{Sfn|Dodds|1971|p=216|loc=Commentary}}{{Sfn|Whittaker|1918|p=288|loc=The Commentaries of Proclus}}</small>
|<small>German polymath, mathematician, philosopher, scientist, and diplomat</small>
|-
|<small>17th century</small>
|<small>[[Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani|Sulchan-Saba Orbeliani]]{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}</small>
|<small>Georgian writer and diplomat</small>
|-
|<small>'''18th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist)|Thomas Taylor]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=291|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík|2017}}{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=303|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>English Neoplatonist and translator</small>
|-
|<small>18th century</small>
|<small>[[Anton I of Georgia]]{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}}</small>
|<small>Catholicos–Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church</small>
|-
|<small>'''19th century'''</small>
|<small>[[Prince Ioane of Georgia]] (Joane Bagrationi{{Sfn|Calma|2020|p=5|loc=Notes on the Translations and Acculturations by Calma}})</small>
|<small>Georgian prince, writer and encyclopaedist</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Georg Friedrich Creuzer]] {{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>German philologist and archaeologist</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Jean François Boissonade de Fontarabie]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>French classical scholar</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Victor Cousin]]{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|2017|p=304|loc=Chapter 15 Proclus' Legacy by Adamson & Karfík}}</small>
|<small>French philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]{{Sfn|Morrow|Dillon|1992|pp=ix (footnote 1), 326}}{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}</small>
|<small>German Christian philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]]{{Sfn|Kaufmann|1963|p=536|loc=Thales to St. Thomas}}<ref name=":14">{{cite book|last=Rosan|first=Laurence|title=Neoplatonism and Indian Thought|date=1981|publisher=State University of New York Press|isbn=978-0-87395-546-1|editor-last=Harris|editor-first=R. Baine|pages=45–49}}</ref></small>
|<small>German philosopher</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xxvi (footnote 48)|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>American essayist, lecturer, philosopher, abolitionist and poet</small>
|-
|<small>19th century</small>
|<small>[[Charles Sanders Peirce]]{{Sfn|Lamberton|2012|p=xxv|loc=Introduction}}</small>
|<small>American philosopher, logician, mathematician and scientist</small>
|-
|<small>'''20th century'''</small>
|<small>20th century scholars{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=339-368|2017|loc=Bibliography}}{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185-186|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>Scholars and translators</small>
|-
|<small>20th century</small>
|<small>[[International Astronomical Union]]</small>
|<small>Named the [[Proclus (crater)|crater Proclus]] on the Moon after him.</small>
|-
|<small>'''21st century'''</small>
|<small>21st century scholars{{Sfn|d'Hoine|Martijn|p=339-368|2017|loc=Bibliography}}{{Sfn|Duvick|2014|p=185-186|loc=Bibliography}}</small>
|<small>Scholars and translators</small>
|}

== References and Citations ==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


==Further reading==
=== Bibliography of Translations ===
Citations to '''translated''' works in ''References and Citations'' '''link''' to works listed below.

<small>'''Aquinas, Saint Thomas'''</small>

''<small>Summa contra Gentiles</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas |publisher=Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd. |year=1923 |location=London; Manchester; Birmingham and Glasgow |language=en,la |translator-last=Dominican Fathers |id=ark:/13960/t24c1qt5m |ref={{sfnref|Dominican Fathers|1923}} |volume=The First Book |edition=Leonine}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas |publisher=Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd. |year=1924 |location=London; Manchester; Birmingham and Glasgow |language=en,la |translator-last=Dominican Fathers |id=ark:/13960/t2k733r46 |ref={{sfnref|Dominican Fathers|1924}} |volume=The Second Book |edition=Leonine}}</small>
<small>'''Aristotle'''</small>

''<small>On the Generation of Animals</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=De Generatione Animalium |publisher=Oxford at The Clarendon Press by Henry Frowde |year=1912 |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 5 |location=London, Edinburgh, New York, Toronto, Melbourne and Bombay |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Platt |translator-first=Arthur |id=ark:/13960/t5t727s8v |ref={{sfnref|Platt|1912}} |editor-last=Smith|editor-first=J. A.|editor-last2=Ross|editor-first2=W. D.}}</small>
''<small>On the Heavens</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=De Caelo |publisher=Clarendon Press Amen House, E.C. 4 by Humphrey Milford |year=1930 |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2 |location=London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Leipzig; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Cape Town; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras; Shanghai |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Stocks |translator-first=J. L. |id=ark:/13960/t88g8nb0p |ref={{sfnref|Stocks|1930}} |editor-last=Ross |editor-first=W. D.}}</small>
''<small>Metaphysics</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Metaphysica |publisher=Oxford at The Clarendon Press by Humphrey Milford |year=1928 |edition=2nd |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 8 |location=London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Leipzig; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Cape Town; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras; Shanghai |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Ross |translator-first=W. D. |id=ark:/13960/t2k649z2f |ref={{sfnref|Ross|1928}} |editor-last=Ross |editor-first=W. D.}}</small>

''<small>Nicomachean Ethics</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Ethica Nicomachea |publisher=Oxford University Press London by Humphrey Milford |year=1925 |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 9 |location=London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Leipzig; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Cape Town; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras; Shanghai |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Ross |translator-first=W. D. |id=ark:/13960/t5fb4wz8b |ref={{sfnref|Ross|1925}} |editor-last=Ross |editor-first=W. D.}}</small>
''<small>Physics</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Physica |publisher=Clarendon Press Amen House, E.C. 4 by Humphrey Milford |year=1930 |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2 |location=London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Leipzig; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Cape Town; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras; Shanghai |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Hardie |translator-first=R. P. |id=ark:/13960/t88g8nb0p |ref={{sfnref|Hardie|Gaye|1930}} |editor-last=Ross |editor-first=W. D. |translator-last2=Gaye |translator-first2=R. K.}}</small>
''<small>On the Soul</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=De Anima |publisher=Oxford at The Clarendon Press |year=1931 |series=The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 3 |location=London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Leipzig; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Cape Town; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras; Shanghai |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Smith |translator-first=J. A. |id=ark:/13960/t86h4d96f |ref={{sfnref|Smith|1931}} |editor-last=Ross|editor-first=W. D.}}</small>
<small>'''Boethius'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Boethius |publisher=The Loeb Classical Library |year=1953 |location=Great Britain |language=en,la |translator-last=Rand |translator-first=Edward Kennard |ref={{sfnref|Rand|Stewart|1958}} |translator-last2=Stewart |translator-first2=Hugh Fraser|orig-date=1918|id=ark:/13960/t3bz61f2v}}</small>
<small>'''Damascius'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Damascius' Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles |publisher=Oxford University Press, Inc. |year=2010 |isbn=9780195150292 |location=New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Ahbel-Rappe |translator-first=Sara |ref={{sfnref|Ahbel-Rappe|2010}}}}</small>
<small>'''Essays'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Select Passages Illustrating Neoplatonism |publisher=Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The MacMillan Co. |year=1923 |location=London; New York; Toronto |language=en,grc |translator-last=Dodds |translator-first=E. R. |ref={{sfnref|Dodds|1923}}|id=ark:/13960/t5t77jp65}}</small>
<small>'''Hermetica'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Hermetica |publisher=The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge; Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |isbn=0521361443 |location=United Kingdom; United States of America; Australia; Spain; South Africa |language=en,grc |translator-last=Copenhaver |translator-first=Brian P. |ref={{sfnref|Copenhaver|2002}}}}</small>
<small>'''Hippolytus'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Philosophumena or the Refutation of all Heresies |publisher=Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The MacMillan Co. |year=1921 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Legge |translator-first=F. |ref={{sfnref|Legge|1921}}|id=ark:/13960/t1vd7f10f|volume=2}}</small>
<small>'''Homer'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Homer The Iliad |publisher=William Heinemann Ltd; G. P. Putnam's Sons |year=1928 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Murray |translator-first=A.T. |ref={{sfnref|Murray|1928}}|id=ark:/13960/t2r49vg31|volume=1}}</small>
<small>'''Lydus, John'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=On the Months (De Mensibus) |publisher=Internet Archive |year=2017 |location=San Francisco, CA |language=en,la |translator-last=Hooker |translator-first=Mischa |ref={{sfnref|Hooker|2017}} |id=ark:/13960/t4cp3h94h |pages=vi |edition=2nd}}</small>
<small>'''Pausanias'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Pausanias's Description of Greece |publisher=Macmillan and Co., Limited; The Macmillan Company |year=1898 |location=London; New York |language=en |translator-last=Frazer |translator-first=J. G. |ref={{sfnref|Frazer|1898}}|id=ark:/13960/t5t72bt15|volume=1}}</small>
<small>'''Plato'''</small>

''<small>Cratylus</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DCrat.%3Asection%3D397e |title=Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman |publisher=Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd |year=1921 |series=Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 12 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England |language=en,grc |translator-last=Fowler |translator-first=Harold North |ref={{sfnref|Fowler|1921}} }}</small>

''<small>Laws</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Laws |publisher=Oxford University Press; Humphrey Milford |year=1931 |location=Oxford; London |language=en |translator-last=Jowett |translator-first=B |ref={{sfnref|Jowett|1931}} |orig-date=1871 |id=ark:/13960/t4sj1b06z |edition=3rd |series=The Dialogues of Plato |volume=5}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Laws Books VII-XII |publisher=Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd |year=1968 |isbn=9780674992115 |series=Plato In Twelve Volumes, Vol. 11 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England |language=en,grc |translator-last=Bury |translator-first=R. G. |id=ark:/13960/t7jq6dc22 |ref={{sfnref|Bury|1968}} |orig-date=1926 |volume=2}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Laws |publisher=William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam's Sons |year=1926 |series=Plato with an English Translation, Vol. 10 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Bury |translator-first=R. G. |id=ark:/13960/t0gv4782q. |ref={{sfnref|Bury|1926}} |volume=2}}</small>

''<small>Parmenides</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plato and Parmenides |publisher=Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd. |year=1939 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Cornford |translator-first=Francis MacDonald |ref={{sfnref|Cornford|1939}}|id=ark:/13960/t3b04kd90}}</small>
''<small>Phaedrus</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/plato01plat/page/n5/mode/2up |title=Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2005 |isbn=0674990404 |series=Loeb Classical Library |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England |language=en,grc |translator-last=Fowler |translator-first=Harold North |id=ark:/13960/t59c6vr07 (no visible notice of copyright) |ref={{sfnref|Fowler|2005}} |orig-date=1914 |others=Introduction by W. R. M. Lamb}}</small>
''<small>Philebus</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Philebus |publisher=Macmillan and Co. |year=1892d |location=New York; London |language=en |translator-last=Jowett |translator-first=B |ref={{sfnref|Jowett|1892d}} |id=ark:/13960/t6j10xx7d |series=The Dialogues of Plato |volume=4}}</small>
''<small>Republic</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Republic |publisher=Macmillan and Co. |year=1892c |location=New York; London |language=en |translator-last=Jowett |translator-first=B |ref={{sfnref|Jowett|1892c}} |id=ark:/13960/t93787x0n |series=The Dialogues of Plato |volume=3}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Republic |publisher=Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd |year=1980 |isbn=0674993047 |series=Plato In Twelve Volumes, Vol. 6. |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England |language=en,grc |translator-last=Shorey |translator-first=Paul |id=ark:/13960/t7gr2bn02 |ref={{sfnref|Shorey|1980}} |orig-date=1930 |volume=2}}</small>
''<small>Symposium</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Symposium |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780521682985 |location=Cambridge |language=en,grc |translator-last=Howatson |translator-first=M. C. |ref={{sfnref|Howatson|2008}}|editor-last=Howatson|editor-first=M. C.|editor-first2=C. C.|editor-last2=Frisbee|doi=10.1017/CBO9780511813030}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Banquet |publisher=R. Wilks, Chancery-Lane |year=1804 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1804}} |id=ark:/13960/t3c045s5b |series=The Works of Plato |volume=3}}</small>

''<small>Timaeus</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Timaeus and Critias |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780192807359 |location=Oxford; New York |language=en |translator-last=Waterfield |translator-first=Robin |ref={{sfnref|Waterfield|2008}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plato's Cosmology The Timaeus of Plato |publisher=Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd. |year=1937 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Cornford |translator-first=Francis MacDonald |ref={{sfnref|Cornford|1937}} |id=ark:/13960/t0fv92k5q |orig-date=1935}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plato's Cosmology The Timaeus of Plato |publisher=Hackett Publishing Company |year=1997 |isbn=0872203867 |location=Indianapolis; Cambridge |language=en,grc |translator-last=Cornford |translator-first=Francis MacDonald |id=ark:/13960/t8tc0151c |ref={{sfnref|Cornford|1997}} |orig-date=1935}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Timaeus Critias Cleitophon Menexenus Epistles |publisher=Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd |year=1981 |isbn=0674992571 |series=Plato In Twelve Volumes |volume=9 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts; London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Bury |translator-first=The Rev. R. G. |id=ark:/13960/t74v21n46 |ref={{sfnref|Bury|1981}} |orig-date=1929}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ The Timaeus of Plato |publisher=Macmillan and Co |year=1888 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Archer-Hind |translator-first=R. D. |id=ark:/13960/t2v40n58f |ref={{sfnref|Archer-Hind|1888}}}}</small>
<small>'''Pliny'''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Natural History of Pliny |publisher=Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden |year=1857 |volume=6 |location=London |language=en |translator-last=Bostock |translator-first=John |id=ark:/13960/t9668nq8c |ref={{sfnref|Bostock|Riley|1857}} |translator-last2=Riley |translator-first2=H. T.}}</small>
<small>'''Plotinus'''</small>

<small>''Enneads''</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plotinos Complete Works |publisher=Comparative Literature Press |year=1918a |volume=1 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Guthrie |translator-first=Kenneth Sylvan |id=ark:/13960/t4xg9fh13 |ref={{sfnref|Guthrie|1918a}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plotinos Complete Works |publisher=Comparative Literature Press |year=1918b |volume=2 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Guthrie |translator-first=Kenneth Sylvan |id=ark:/13960/t93776g01 |ref={{sfnref|Guthrie|1918b}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plotinos Complete Works |publisher=Comparative Literature Press |year=1918c |volume=3 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Guthrie |translator-first=Kenneth Sylvan |id=ark:/13960/t20c4sp7h |ref={{sfnref|Guthrie|1918c}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Plotinos Complete Works |publisher=Comparative Literature Press |year=1918d |volume=4 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Guthrie |translator-first=Kenneth Sylvan |id=ark:/13960/t7sn01h8d |ref={{sfnref|Guthrie|1918d}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Select Works of Plotinus |publisher=George Bell & Sons |year=1895 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |id=ark:/13960/t2d799x92 |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1895}}|others=Preface and Bibliography by G. R. S. Mead|orig-date=1817}}</small>
<small>'''Proclus'''</small>

''<small>Commentary on Plato's Alcibiades I</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus: Alcibiades I |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht |year=1971 |isbn=9789401763271 |location=The Hague, Netherlands |language=en,grc |translator-last=O'Neil |translator-first=William |ref={{sfnref|O'Neil|1971}} }}</small>
''<small>Commentary on Plato's Cratylus</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus on Plato Cratylus |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |others=Preface by Tarrant |year=2014 |isbn=9781472558190 |editor-last=Tarrant |editor-first=Harold |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Duvick |translator-first=Brian |ref={{sfnref|Duvick|2014}}}}</small>
''<small>Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus: A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements |publisher=Princeton University Press |others=Foreword to the 1992 edition by lan Mueller |year=1992 |isbn=9780691020907 |location=New Jersey (USA) |language=en,grc |translator-last=Morrow |translator-first=Glenn R. |ref={{sfnref|Morrow|1992}} |orig-date=1970}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Philosophical and Mathematical Commentaries of Proclus on the First Book of Euclid's Elements |publisher=T. Payne and Son; B. White and Son; J. Robson; T. Cadell; Leigh and Co. G. Nicol; R. Faulder; and T. and J. Egerton |year=1792 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |id=ark:/13960/t5gc3g07m |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1792}} |volume=1}}</small>
''<small>Commentary on Plato's Parmenides</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides |publisher=Princeton University Press |others=Preface, Introduction and Notes by Dillion |year=1992 |isbn=0691020892 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Morrow |translator-first=Glenn R. |ref={{sfnref|Morrow|Dillon|1992}} |orig-date=1987 |translator-last2=Dillon |translator-first2=John M.}}</small>
''<small>Commentary on Plato's Timaeus</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2007 |isbn=9780511482656 |editor-last=Tarrant |editor-first=Harold |location=Cambridge |language=en,grc |translator-last=Tarrant |translator-first=Harold |ref={{sfnref|Tarrant|2007}} |series=Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 1|doi=10.1017/CBO9780511482656}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Book 2: Proclus on the Causes of the Cosmos and its Creation |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780521848718 |series=Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 2 |location=United States of America |language=en,grc |translator-last=Runia |translator-first=David T. |ref={{sfnref|Runia|Share|2008}}|translator-last2=Share|translator-first2=Michael}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Book 3, Part 1: Proclus on the World's Body |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2007 |isbn=9780521845953 |series=Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 3 |location=Cambridge |language=en,grc |translator-last=Baltzly |translator-first=Dirk |ref={{sfnref|Baltzly|2007}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Book 3, Part 2: Proclus on the World's Body |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2009 |isbn=9780521845960 |series=Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 4 |location=United Kingdom; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Baltzly |translator-first=Dirk |ref={{sfnref|Baltzly|2009}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Book 4: Proclus on Time and the Stars |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2013 |isbn=9780521846585 |series=Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 5 |location=Cambridge |language=en,grc |translator-last=Baltzly |translator-first=Dirk |ref={{sfnref|Baltzly|2013}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato |publisher=A. J. Valpy, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street |year=1820a |volume=1 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1820a}} |id=ark:/13960/t7tm72d5n}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato |publisher=A. J. Valpy, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street |year=1820b |volume=2 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1820b}} |id=ark:/13960/t00z70w6n}}</small>

''<small>Elements of Theology</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus The Elements of Theology |publisher=Reprinted Lithographically in Great Britain at the University Press, Oxford by Vivian Ridler printer to the University |year=1971 |isbn=9780198140979 |location=Oxford |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Dodds |translator-first=E. R. |ref={{sfnref|Dodds|1971}} |orig-date=1963}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus' Metaphysical Elements |publisher=Osceola |year=1909 |location=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |language=en |translator-last=Johnson |translator-first=Thos |ref={{sfnref|Johnson|1909}} |id=ark:/13960/t2m61bt9m}}</small>
''<small>Essays and Fragments</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Essays and Fragments of Proclus the Platonic Successor |publisher=The Prometheus Trust |year=1999 |isbn=1898910170 |series=The Thomas Taylor Series |volume=18 |location=United Kingdom |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1999}}}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus The Successor on Poetics and the Homeric Poems |publisher=Society of Biblical Literature |year=2012 |isbn=9781589837119 |location=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |language=en,grc |translator-last=Lamberton |translator-first=Robert |ref={{sfnref|Lamberton|2012}} }}</small>
<small>''Hymns''</small>

* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus' Hymns |publisher=Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands |year=2001 |isbn=9004122362 |location=Leiden, Boston, Köln |language=en,grc |translator-last=Berg |translator-first=R.M. van den |ref={{sfnref|Berg|2001}} |editor-first2=D.T|series=Philosophia Antiqua, A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy|editor-first3=J. C. M.|editor-last3=Van Winden|last=Berg|editor-last2=Runia|editor-first=J.|editor-last=Mansfeld|editor1-link=Jaap Mansfeld|first=R.M. van den|volume=90}}</small>
''<small>Theology of Plato</small>''

* <small>{{Cite book |title=The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato |publisher=A. J. Valpy Tooke's Court, Chancery Lane |year=1816a |volume=1 |location=London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Taylor |translator-first=Thomas |ref={{sfnref|Taylor|1816a}} |id=ark:/13960/t8dg83t31}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Procli Successoris Platonici in Platonis Theologiam Libri Sex |publisher=Apud Michaelem Heringium |year=1618 |location=Hamburgi |language=la,grc |ref={{sfnref|Portus|1618}} |editor-last=Portus |editor-first=Aemilius |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZE1LMQAACAAJ}}</small>

''<small>Tria Opuscula</small>''
* <small>{{Cite book |title=On the Eternity of the World, De Aeternitate Mundi, Proclus |publisher=University of California Press |year=2001 |isbn=0520225546 |location=Berkeley; Los Angeles; London |language=en,grc |translator-last=Lang |translator-first=Helen S. |ref={{sfnref|Lang|Macro|2001}} |translator-last2=Macro |translator-first2=A. D. |translator-last3=McGinnis |translator-first3=Jon}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus On Providence |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |year=2007 |isbn=9781472501479 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc |translator-last=Steel |translator-first=Carlos |ref={{sfnref|Steel|2007}} }}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus Ten Problems Concerning Providence |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2012 |isbn=9781472501783 |location=London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney |language=en,grc |translator-last=Opsomer |translator-first=Jan |ref={{sfnref|Opsomer|Steel|2012}} |translator-last2=Steel |translator-first2=Carlos}}</small>
* <small>{{Cite book |title=Proclus On the Existence of Evils |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2014 |isbn=9781472501035 |location=London; New York |language=en,grc,la |translator-last=Opsomer |translator-first=Jan |ref={{sfnref|Opsomer|Steel|2014}} |orig-date=2003 |translator-last2=Steel |translator-first2=Carlos}}</small>

== Further reading ==
'''Monographs'''
'''Monographs'''
*''Proklos: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik'', by [[Werner Beierwaltes]]
*''Proklos: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik'', by [[Werner Beierwaltes]]
Line 1,440: Line 152:


'''Studies on particular aspects of Proclus' philosophy'''
'''Studies on particular aspects of Proclus' philosophy'''
* Gertz, S.R.P., "[https://search.proquest.com/openview/20148d4aad4fe7d4a7d7e3e9d848b4e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40538 A Testimonium on Proclus' Views about the Rationality of Animals"], ''Classical Quarterly'' 68.1, 352–357.
* Gertz, S.R.P., "[https://search.proquest.com/openview/20148d4aad4fe7d4a7d7e3e9d848b4e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40538 A Testimonium on Proclus' Views about the Rationality of Animals"], ''Classical Quarterly'' 68.1, 352-357.


'''Bibliographic resources'''
'''Bibliographic resources'''
*''Proclo, negli ultimi quarant' anni. Bibliografia ragionata delle letteratura primaria e secondaria riguardante il pensiero procliano e i suoi influssi storici (anni 1949–1992)'', by Nicoletta Scotti Muth
*''Proclo, negli ultimi quarant' anni. Bibliografia ragionata delle letteratura primaria e secondaria riguardante il pensiero procliano e i suoi influssi storici (anni 1949–1992)'', by Nicoletta Scotti Muth
*{{Cite web| title = Proclus Bibliography (covering the years 1990–2016)| url = https://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclusbiblio.html}}
*{{Cite web| title = Proclus Bibliography (covering the years 1990–2016)| url = https://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclusbiblio.html}}
'''See Also'''

* [[Allegorical interpretations of Plato]]


== External links ==
==External links==
{{wikisource author}}
{{wikisource author}}
{{Wikiquote}}
{{wikiquote}}
{{Library resources box |by=yes |onlinebooks=yes |others=yes |about=yes |label=Proclus
|viaf= |lccn= |lcheading= |wikititle= }}
*{{cite SEP |url-id=proclus |title=Proclus |last=Helmig |first=Christoph|last2=Steel |first2=Carlos}}
*{{cite SEP |url-id=proclus |title=Proclus |last=Helmig |first=Christoph|last2=Steel |first2=Carlos}}
*{{cite SEP |url-id=proclus/#ProExtWorEdiTra |title=Bibliography: Proclus' Complete Works (extant, lost, and spurious) |last=Helmig |first=Christoph|last2=Steel |first2=Carlos}}
*{{cite SEP |url-id=proclus/#ProExtWorEdiTra |title=Bibliography: Proclus' Complete Works (extant, lost, and spurious) |last=Helmig |first=Christoph|last2=Steel |first2=Carlos}}
Line 1,462: Line 173:
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/flwp/index.htm ''Fragments that Remain of the Lost Writings of Proclus''] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/flwp/index.htm ''Fragments that Remain of the Lost Writings of Proclus''] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130702025748/http://www.masseiana.org/proclus_timaeus.htm ''Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, in Five Books''] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130702025748/http://www.masseiana.org/proclus_timaeus.htm ''Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, in Five Books''] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[[iarchive:ProclusTenDoubtsConcerningProvidenceAndTheNatureOfEvil|''Ten Doubts Concerning Providence and On the Existence of Evils'']] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[https://archive.org/details/ProclusTenDoubtsConcerningProvidenceAndTheNatureOfEvil ''Ten Doubts Concerning Providence and On the Existence of Evils''] Thomas Taylor translation.
*[http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-lifeof.html Proclus's Life and Teachings]
*[http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-lifeof.html Proclus's Life and Teachings]
*[https://archive.today/20031227180234/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/dwmc/plato/proclus/index.htm Index page] of the Proclus section for the "[https://archive.today/20031222020526/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/dwmc/plato/about/theproject.htm Plato Transformed]" project at the University Leuven, Belgium.
*[https://archive.is/20031227180234/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/dwmc/plato/proclus/index.htm Index page] of the Proclus section for the "[https://archive.is/20031222020526/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/dwmc/plato/about/theproject.htm Plato Transformed]" project at the University Leuven, Belgium.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071006090353/http://www.lotophages.org/proclus/in_parm/ ''Commentary on Plato's Parmenides''] – (Greek text, scans of Cousin's edition)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071006090353/http://www.lotophages.org/proclus/in_parm/ ''Commentary on Plato's Parmenides''] – (Greek text, scans of Cousin's edition)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20090330162425/http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/TTS_Catalogue/tts_catalogue.html Catalogue] of the Prometheus Trust "Thomas Taylor Series" which includes translations of many of the works of Proclus. The site has lengthy extracts of these.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20090330162425/http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/TTS_Catalogue/tts_catalogue.html Catalogue] of the Prometheus Trust "Thomas Taylor Series" which includes translations of many of the works of Proclus. The site has lengthy extracts of these.
*[http://www.wilbourhall.org/ ''Proclus's Commentary on Euclid, Book I. PDF scans of Friedlein's Greek edition, now in the public domain''] (Classical Greek)
*[http://www.wilbourhall.org ''Proclus's Commentary on Euclid, Book I. PDF scans of Friedlein's Greek edition, now in the public domain''] (Classical Greek)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20001210155000/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/chthonios/proclus-signs.htm ''On the Signs of Divine Possession''] – (partial translation of Proclus's work)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20001210155000/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/chthonios/proclus-signs.htm ''On the Signs of Divine Possession''] – (partial translation of Proclus's work)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20001210145900/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/chthonios/proclus-sacred.htm ''On the Sacred Art''] – (translation and discussion of this surviving extract from a larger work by Proclus)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20001210145900/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/chthonios/proclus-sacred.htm ''On the Sacred Art''] – (translation and discussion of this surviving extract from a larger work by Proclus)
*[https://archive.today/20081123045909/http://www.lotophages.org/proclus/ ''On the Sacred Art (French introduction and Greek text) '']
*[https://archive.is/20081123045909/http://www.lotophages.org/proclus/ ''On the Sacred Art (French introduction and Greek text) '']
*[https://www.astrologicon.org/proclus/proclus-peri-tis-kath-ellinas-ieratikis-tehnis.html ''On the Sacred Art''] Greek text and English translation
*[https://www.astrologicon.org/proclus/proclus-peri-tis-kath-ellinas-ieratikis-tehnis.html ''On the Sacred Art''] - Greek text and English translation
*[https://www.astrologicon.org/proclus/proclus-ypotyposis-astronomikon-ypotheseon.html Hypotyposis Astronomicon Hypotheseon] Greek text
*[https://www.astrologicon.org/proclus/proclus-ypotyposis-astronomikon-ypotheseon.html Hypotyposis Astronomicon Hypotheseon] - Greek text
*[http://www.ellopos.com/blog/?p=56 Proclus in English and Greek, Select Online Resources]
*[http://www.ellopos.com/blog/?p=56 Proclus in English and Greek, Select Online Resources]
* {{Librivox author |id=6730}}
* {{Librivox author |id=6730}}
Line 1,488: Line 199:
[[Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians]]
[[Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians]]
[[Category:Pagan anti-Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Pagan anti-Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Neoplatonist mystics]]
[[Category:Classical mystics]]
[[Category:Commentators on Plato]]
[[Category:Commentators on Plato]]
[[Category:Neoplatonists]]
[[Category:Neoplatonists in Athens]]
[[Category:Neoplatonists in Athens]]
[[Category:Ontologists]]
[[Category:Ontologists]]

Revision as of 16:16, 29 September 2022

Proclus Lycius
The beginning of Proclus' Fundamentals of Physics in the manuscript London, British Library, Harley 5685, fol. 133r (12th century)
Born8 February 412
Died17 April 485(485-04-17) (aged 73)
Athens, Achaea, Eastern Roman Empire
Other names"The Successor"
EraAncient philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
SchoolNeoplatonism
Main interests
Metaphysics
Notable ideas
Platonic theology

Proclus Lycius (/ˈprɒkləs lˈsiəs/; 8 February 412 – 17 April 485), called Proclus the Successor (Template:Lang-grc-gre, Próklos ho Diádokhos), was a Greek Neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major classical philosophers. He set forth one of the most elaborate and fully developed systems of Neoplatonism. He stands near the end of the classical development of philosophy and influenced Western medieval philosophy (Greek and Latin).[1]

Biography

Proclus was born on February 8, 412 AD (his birth date is deduced from a horoscope cast by a disciple, Marinus) in Constantinople to a family of high social status in Lycia (his father Patricius was a high legal official, very important in the Eastern Roman Empire's court system) and raised in Xanthus. He studied rhetoric, philosophy and mathematics in Alexandria, with the intent of pursuing a judicial position like his father. Before completing his studies, he returned to Constantinople when his rector, his principal instructor (one Leonas), had business there.

Proclus became a successful practicing lawyer. However, the experience of the practice of law made Proclus realize that he truly preferred philosophy. He returned to Alexandria, and began determinedly studying the works of Aristotle under Olympiodorus the Elder. He also began studying mathematics during this period as well with a teacher named Heron (no relation to Hero of Alexandria, who was also known as Heron). As a gifted student, he eventually became dissatisfied with the level of philosophical instruction available in Alexandria, and went to Athens, the pre-eminent philosophical center of the day, in 431 to study at the Neoplatonic successor of the famous Academy founded 800 years earlier (in 387 BC) by Plato; there he was taught by Plutarch of Athens (not to be confused with Plutarch of Chaeronea), Syrianus, and Asclepigenia; he succeeded Syrianus as head of the Academy, and would in turn be succeeded on his death by Marinus of Neapolis.

He lived in Athens as a vegetarian bachelor, prosperous and generous to his friends, until the end of his life, except for a voluntary one-year exile, which was designed to lessen the pressure put on him by his political-philosophical activity, little appreciated by the Christian rulers; he spent the exile traveling and being initiated into various mystery cults. He was also instructed in the "theurgic" Neoplatonism, as derived from the Orphic and Chaldean Oracles. His house has been discovered recently in Athens, under the pavement of Dionysiou Areopagitou Street, south of Acropolis, opposite the theater of Dionysus. He had a great devotion to the goddess Athena, who he believed guided him at key moments in his life. Marinus reports that when Christians removed the statue of the goddess from the Parthenon, a beautiful woman appeared to Proclus in a dream and announced that the "Athenian Lady" wished to stay at his home.[2] Proclus died aged 73, and was buried near Mount Lycabettus in a tomb. It is reported that he was writing 700 lines each day.

Works

The majority of Proclus's works are commentaries on dialogues of Plato (Alcibiades, Cratylus, Parmenides, Republic, Timaeus). In these commentaries, he presents his own philosophical system as a faithful interpretation of Plato, and in this he did not differ from other Neoplatonists, as he considered that "nothing in Plato’s corpus is unintended or there by chance", that "that Plato’s writings were divinely inspired" (ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ho theios Platon—the divine Plato, inspired by the gods), that "the formal structure and the content of Platonic texts imitated those of the universe",[3] and therefore that they spoke often of things under a veil, hiding the truth from the philosophically uninitiate. Proclus was however a close reader of Plato, and quite often makes very astute points about his Platonic sources. A number of his Platonic commentaries are lost.

Proclus, the scholiast to Euclid, knew Eudemus of Rhodes' History of Geometry well, and gave a short sketch of the early history of geometry, which appeared to be founded on the older, lost book of Eudemus. The passage has been referred to as "the Eudemian summary," and determines some approximate dates, which otherwise might have remained unknown.[4] The influential commentary on the first book of Euclid's Elements of Geometry is one of the most valuable sources we have for the history of ancient mathematics,[5] and its Platonic account of the status of mathematical objects was influential. In this work, Proclus also listed the first mathematicians associated with Plato: a mature set of mathematicians (Leodamas of Thasos, Archytas of Taras, and Theaetetus), a second set of younger mathematicians (Neoclides, Eudoxus of Cnidus), and a third yet younger set (Amyntas, Menaechmus and his brother Dinostratus, Theudius of Magnesia, Hermotimus of Colophon and Philip of Opus). Some of these mathematicians were influential in arranging the Elements that Euclid later published.

In addition to his commentaries, Proclus wrote two major systematic works. The Elements of Theology (Στοιχείωσις θεολογική) consists of 211 propositions, each followed by a proof, beginning from the existence of the One (divine Unity) and ending with the descent of individual souls into the material world. The Platonic Theology (Περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα θεολογίας) is a systematization of material from Platonic dialogues, showing from them the characteristics of the divine orders, the part of the universe which is closest to the One.

We also have three essays, extant only in Latin translation: Ten doubts concerning providence (De decem dubitationibus circa providentiam); On providence and fate (De providentia et fato); On the existence of evils (De malorum subsistentia).

He also wrote a number of minor works, which are listed in the bibliography below.

System

Proclus's system, like that of the other Neoplatonists, is a combination of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements. In its broad outlines, Proclus's system agrees with that of Plotinus with a notable difference: unlike Plotinus, Proclus did not hold that matter was evil, an idea that caused contradictions in the system of Plotinus. However, following Iamblichus, Plutarch of Athens, and his master Syrianus, Proclus presents a much more elaborate universe than Plotinus, subdividing the elements of Plotinus's system into their logically distinct parts, and positing these parts as individual things. This multiplication of entities is balanced by the monism which is common to all Neoplatonists. What this means is that, on the one hand the universe is composed of hierarchically distinct things, but on the other all things are part of a single continuous emanation of power from the One. From this latter perspective, the many distinctions to be found in the universe are a result of the divided perspective of the human soul, which needs to make distinctions in its own thought in order to understand unified realities. The idealist tendency is taken further in John Scotus Eriugena.

There is a double motivation found in Neoplatonic systems. The first is a need to account for the origin and character of all things in the universe. The second is a need to account for how we can know this origin and character of things. These two aims are related: they begin from the assumption that we can know reality, and then ask the question of what reality must be like, in its origin and unfolding, so that we can know it. An important element in the Neoplatonic answer to these questions is its reaction to Scepticism. In response to the sceptical position that we only know the appearances presented by our senses, and not the world as it is, Plotinus placed the object of knowledge inside the soul itself, and accounted for this interior truth through the soul's kinship with its own productive principles.

The One

The first principle in Neoplatonism is the One (Greek: to Hen). Being proceeds from the One. The One cannot itself be a being. If it were a being, it would have a particular nature, and so could not be universally productive. Because it is beyond being (epekeina tes ousias, a phrase from Plato's Republic 509b), it is also beyond thought, because thinking requires the determinations which belong to being: the division between subject and object, and the distinction of one thing from another. For this reason, even the name The One is not a positive name, but rather the most non-multiple name possible, a name derived from our own inadequate conception of the simplicity of the first principle. The One causes all things by conferring unity, in the form of individuality, on them, and in Neoplatonism existence, unity, and form tend to become equivalent. The One causes things to exist by donating unity, and the particular manner in which a thing is one is its form (a dog and a house are individual in different manners, for example). Because the One makes things exist by giving them the individuality which makes them what they are as distinct and separate beings, the Neoplatonists thought of it also as the source of the good of everything. So the other name for the One is the Good. Despite appearances, the first principle is not double; all things have a double relation to it, as coming from them (One) and then being oriented back towards them to receive their perfection or completion (Good).

The particular characteristic of Proclus's system is his elaboration of a level of individual ones, called henads, between the One which is before being and intelligible divinity. The henads exist "superabundantly", also beyond being, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. He identifies them with the Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things. Each henad participates in every other henad, according to its character. What appears to be multiplicity is not multiplicity at all, because any henad may rightly be considered the center of the polycentric system.

Intellect

The principle which is produced below the level of the One and the Henads is the divine Intellect (Nous). The One cannot have a determinate nature if it is to be the source of all determinate natures, so what it produces is the totality of all determinate natures, or Being. By determination is meant existence within boundaries, a being this and not that. The most important determinate natures are the Greatest Kinds from Plato's Sophist (Being, Same, Other, Rest, Motion) and Aristotle's ten categories (Quantity, Quality, etc.). In other words, the One produces what Plato called the Forms, and the Forms are understood to be the first determinations into which all things fall. The One produces the Forms through the activity of thinking. The One itself does not think, but instead produces a divine mind, Intellect, whose thoughts are themselves the Forms. Intellect is both Thinking and Being. It is a mind which has its own contents as its object. All things relate to the first principle as both One and Good. As Being, Intellect is the product of the One. But it also seeks to return to its cause, and so in Thinking it attempts to grasp the One as its Good. But because the simplicity of the One/Good does not allow Intellect to grasp it, what Intellect does is generate a succession of perspectives around its simple source. Each of these perspectives is itself a Form, and is how Intellect generates for itself its own content.

Plotinus speaks about the generation of Intellect from the One, and Intellect's attempt to return to the One in a thinking which is also a desiring. Proclus systematises this production through a threefold movement of remaining, procession, and return (mone, proodos, epistrophe). Intellect remains in the One, which means that it has the One as its origin. It proceeds from the One, which means that it comes to be as a separate entity. But it returns to the One, which means that it does not cut itself off from its source, but receives the good which is its identity from the One. This threefold motion is used by Proclus to structure all levels of his system below the One and above material reality, so that all things except those mentioned remain, proceed, and return.

Proclus also gives a much more elaborate account of Intellect than does Plotinus. In Plotinus we find the distinction between Being and Thinking in Intellect. Proclus, in keeping with his triadic structure of remaining, procession, and return, distinguishes three moments in Intellect: Intelligible, Intelligible-Intellectual, and Intellectual. They correspond to the object of thought, the power of the object to be grasped by the subject, and the thinking subject. These three divisions are elaborated further, so that the intelligible moment consists of three triads (Being, Eternity, and the Living Being or Paradigm from Plato's Timaeus). The intelligible-intellectual moment also consists of three triads, and the intellectual moment is a hebdomad (seven elements), among which is numbered the Demiurge from Plato's Timaeus and also the monad of Time (which is before temporal things). In this elaboration of Intellect as a whole, Proclus is attempting to give a hierarchical ordering to the various metaphysical elements and principles that other philosophers have discussed, by containing them within a single triadic logic of unfolding.

Proclus's universe unfolds according to the smallest steps possible, from unity to multiplicity. With Intellect emerges the multiplicity which allows one being to be different from another being. But as a divine mind, Intellect has a complete grasp of all its moments in one act of thought. For this reason, Intellect is outside of Time.

Intellect as the second principle also gives rise to individual intellects, which hold various places within Proclus's cosmos.

In terms of his sources, Intellect is like taking the Platonic Forms and placing them in the self-thinking thought which is Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

Soul

Soul (Psyche) is produced by Intellect, and so is the third principle in the Neoplatonic system. It is a mind, like Intellect, but it does not grasp all of its own content as one. Therefore, with Soul, Time comes to be, as a measure of Soul's movement from one object of thought to another. Intellect tries to grasp the One, and ends up producing its own ideas as its content. Soul attempts to grasp Intellect in its return, and ends up producing its own secondary unfoldings of the Forms in Intellect. Soul, in turn, produces Body, the material world.

In his commentary on Plato's Timaeus Proclus explains the role the Soul as a principle has in mediating the Forms in Intellect to the body of the material world as a whole. The Soul is constructed through certain proportions, described mathematically in the Timaeus, which allow it to make Body as a divided image of its own arithmetical and geometrical ideas.

Individual souls have the same overall structure as the principle of Soul, but they are weaker. They have a tendency to be fascinated with the material world, and be overpowered by it. It is at this point that individual souls are united with a material body (i.e. when they are born). Once in the body, our passions have a tendency to overwhelm our reason. According to Proclus, philosophy is the activity which can liberate the soul from a subjection to bodily passions, remind it of its origin in Soul, Intellect, and the One, and prepare it not only to ascend to the higher levels while still in this life, but to avoid falling immediately back into a new body after death.

Because the soul's attention, while inhabiting a body, is turned so far away from its origin in the intelligible world, Proclus thinks that we need to make use of bodily reminders of our spiritual origin. In this he agrees with the doctrines of theurgy put forward by Iamblichus. Theurgy is possible because the powers of the gods (the henads) extend through their series of causation even down to the material world. And by certain power-laden words, acts, and objects, the soul can be drawn back up the series, so to speak. Proclus himself was a devotee of many of the religions in Athens, considering that the power of the gods could be present in these various approaches.

For Proclus, philosophy is important because it is one of the primary ways to rescue the soul from a fascination with the body and restore it to its station. However, beyond its own station, the soul has Intellect as its goal, and ultimately has unification with the One as its goal. So higher than philosophy is the non-discursive reason of Intellect, and the pre-intellectual unity of the One. Philosophy is therefore a means of its own overcoming, in that it points the soul beyond itself.

Influence

Proclus can be considered as the spokesman of mature Neoplatonism. His works had a great influence on the history of western philosophy. The extent of this influence, however, is obscured by the channels through which it was exercised. An important source of Procline ideas was through the Pseudo-Dionysius.[6] This late-5th- or early-6th-century Christian Greek author wrote under the pseudonym Dionysius the Areopagite, the figure converted by St. Paul in Athens. Because of this fiction, his writings were taken to have almost apostolic authority. He is an original Christian writer, and in his works can be found a great number of Proclus's metaphysical principles.[7]

Another important source for the influence of Proclus on the Middle Ages is Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, which has a number of Proclus principles and motifs. The central poem of Book III is a summary of Proclus's Commentary on the Timaeus, and Book V contains the important principle of Proclus that things are known not according to their own nature, but according to the character of the knowing subject.

A summary of Proclus's Elements of Theology circulated under the name Liber de Causis (the Book of Causes). This book is of uncertain origin, but circulated in the Arabic world as a work of Aristotle, and was translated into Latin as such. It had great authority because of its supposed Aristotelian origin, and it was only when Proclus's Elements were translated into Latin that Thomas Aquinas realised its true origin.

Proclus's works also exercised an influence during the Renaissance through figures such as Georgius Gemistus Pletho and Marsilio Ficino. Before the contemporary period, the most significant scholar of Proclus in the English-speaking world was Thomas Taylor, who produced English translations of most of his works, with commentaries.

His work inspired the New England Transcendentalists, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, who declared in 1843 that, in reading Proclus, "I am filled with hilarity & spring, my heart dances, my sight is quickened, I behold shining relations between all beings, and am impelled to write and almost to sing."

Modern scholarship on Proclus essentially begins with E. R. Dodds edition of the Elements of Theology in 1933. Since then he has attracted considerable attention, especially in the French-speaking world. Procline scholarship, however, still (2006) falls far short of the attention paid to Plotinus.

The following epigram is engraved on the tomb which houses Proclus and his master Syrianus:

"I am Proclus,
Lycian whom Syrianus brought up to teach his doctrine after him.
This tomb reunites both our bodies.
May an identical sojourn be reserved to our both souls!"

The crater Proclus on the Moon is named after him.

Bibliography

Proclus's works

  • Platonic Theology: A long (six volumes in the Budé edition) systematic work, using evidence from Plato's dialogues to describe the character of the various divine orders
  • Elements of Theology: A systematic work, with 211 propositions and proofs, describing the universe from the first principle, the One, to the descent of souls into bodies
  • Elements of Physics
  • Commentary on Plato's "Alcibiades I" (it is disputed whether or not this dialogue was written by Plato, but the Neoplatonists thought it was)
  • Commentary on Plato's "Cratylus"
  • Commentary on Plato's "Parmenides"
  • Commentary on Plato's "Republic"
  • Commentary on Plato's "Timaeus"
  • A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's "Elements"
  • Three small works: Ten doubts concerning providence; On providence and fate; On the existence of evils
  • Various Hymns (fragments)
  • Commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles (fragments)
  • The Life of Proclus, or On Happiness: written by his pupil, Marinus of Samaria

A number of other minor works or fragments of works survive. A number of major commentaries have been lost.

The Liber de Causis (Book of Causes) is not a work by Proclus, but a summary of his work the Elements of Theology, likely written by an Arabic interpreter. It was mistakenly thought in the Middle Ages to be a work of Aristotle, but was recognised by Aquinas not to be so.

A list of modern editions and translations of his surviving works is available at:

"Editions and Translations: Proclus (after 1900)". De Wulf–Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy.

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ Rosan, Laurence (1981). Harris, R. Baine (ed.). Neoplatonism and Indian Thought. State University of New York Press. pp. 45–49. ISBN 978-0873955461.
  2. ^ Marinus of Samaria, "The Life of Proclus or Concerning Happiness", Translated by Kenneth S. GUTHRIE (1925), pp.15–55:30, retrieved 21 May 2007.
  3. ^ Calian, Florin George (2013), ""Clarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides", Obscurity in medieval texts, pp. 15–31
  4. ^ James Gow, A Short History of Greek Mathematics (1884)
  5. ^ Heath (1908). "Proclus and His Sources". The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements Vol. 1. p. 29. It is well known that the commentary of Proclus on Eucl. Book I is one of the two main sources of information as to the history of Greek geometry which we possess, the other being the Collection of Pappus
  6. ^ Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, by Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience Address for May 14, 2008
  7. ^ Dodds, E. R. (1992). The Elements of Theology: A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. Oxford University Press UK.

Further reading

Monographs

  • Proklos: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik, by Werner Beierwaltes
  • L'Un et L'Âme selon Proclos, by Jean Trouillard
  • La mystagogie de Proclos, by Jean Trouillard
  • KINESIS AKINETOS: A study of spiritual motion in the philosophy of Proclus, by Stephen Gersh
  • From Iamblichus to Eriugena. An investigation of the prehistory and evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysius tradition, by Stephen Gersh
  • L'architecture du divin. Mathématique et Philosophie chez Plotin et Proclus, by Annick Charles-Saget
  • Proclus: Neoplatonic philosophy and science, by Lucas Siorvanes
  • The Philosophy of Proclus – the Final Phase of Ancient Thought, by L J Rosan
  • The Logical Principles of Proclus' Stoicheiôsis Theologikê as Systematic Ground of the Cosmos, by James Lowry

Collections of essays

  • Proclus et son influence, actes du Colloque de Neuchâtel, Juin, 1985. Zürich: Éditions du Grand Midi, 1987.
  • Proclus lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du Colloque internationale du C.N.R.S., Paris 2–4 October 1985. J. Pépin et H.-D. Saffrey. Paris: C.N.R.S., 1987.
  • On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy, ed. by E.P. Bos and P.A. Meijer (Philosophia antiqua 53), Leiden-Köln-New York: Brill, 1992.
  • The perennial tradition of neoplatonism, ed. by J. Cleary (Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series I, 24), Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
  • Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne: actes du colloque international de Louvain (13–16 mai 1998) en l'honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink, éd. par A.-Ph. Segonds et C. Steel (Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series I 26), Leuven-Paris: Leuven University Press / Les Belles Lettres, 2000.
  • Stephen Gersh (ed.), Interpreting Proclus from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Studies on particular aspects of Proclus' philosophy

Bibliographic resources