LOUIS-ANDRE DORION

260

solitude divine, pcut incarner ala perfection l'autosuffisance radicale

et sans compromis que semble exiger, en vertu d'une necessite
presque logique, la notion meme d'autarkeia.

13ibliograpbie :
BiussoN, L. (l992),Plalon :Timee/Critias, [introduction, traduction
et notesl, Paris, GF Flammarion, 438p. [5e edition revue et corrigee, To FIND THE MAKER AND FATHER.
2001] PROCLUS' EXEGESIS OF PLATO TiM. 28C3-5*
Doons, E.R. (1933), Proclus. The Elements of Theology, A revised
text, with translation, introduction and commentary, Oxford, ]AN 0PSOMER
Clarendon Press, XLVIIJ-348p
DoRION, L.-A. (2000) '' Metaphysique et autarcie chez les Grecs >>,
in L.Langlois &J.-M. Narbonne (eels.), La metaphysique :son histoire,
sa critique. ses enje!L"C, Actes du XX:Vlle Congres de l'ASPLF (Quebec,
18-22 aoiH 1998),Quebec :Presses de l'Universite Lava!, Paris :Vrin,
p.194-201. The maker and father of this universe it is a hard task to find, and
-, (2004), Pia ton: Charmide/L_)lsis, [introduction. traduction et
having found him, it would be impossible to declare him to everyone.
notes], Paris, Gl' Flammarion, 316p.
SAHREY, H.D. & WEsTERINK, L.G. (1974), Proclus : Tl:uiologie
n)v f.LEV ouv rrm T]T~l' 1cul mn<' pa TOUOf Tou rravn\<; cUpftv TE
i!pyov Kal Eup6vTa El<; CirravTa<; (;ovvaTov A-f-yttv (Tim. 28C3·5)
fJlatonicienne. tome II : Livre !I, [introduction, texte, traduction et
notes], Paris. Les Belles Lettres, xcm-I44p.
TAYLOR,A.E. (l928),A commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Oxford, The above quotation from Plato's Timaeus is tor Proclus the occasion
to insert into his Commentary on tbe Tinweus (1.299.13-319.21) an
Clarendon Press, XVI-700p.
TROUII.I.AHD,J. ( 1965), Proclos. Elements de theologie. [introduction, elaborate discussion of the ontological status of the demiurge and of
his predecessors' views concerning this matter. It is this section of
traduction et notes], Paris,Aubier Montaigne, 193p.
WHI1TAKER, J. (1975), '' The historical background of Proclus' the Commental)' that I shall examine more closely, focusing on
doctrine of the cn)0vn6onna >>,in H. Dorrie (eel.), De Jambliqu.e a Proclus' construal of the history of Platonic exegesis. In his classic
Proclus, (Entretiens sur J'Antiquite Classique, 2]), Vandoeuvres- commentary on the Timaeus, Luc Brisson has shown in a masterly
fashion that even today Proclus' exegesis can still be fruitful. More
Gcneve, Fondation Harclt, p.195-237.
than anyone else, Luc Brisson has put the Neoplatonic commentaries
on Plato to good use. He agrees with Proclus' arguments that the
demiurge is a voi.Js-, more particularly a l'CHJS' that is different from
the Good, the intelligible forms, 1 the voi.Jc; of the world-soul, and
the world-soul itself. Moreover, this demiurgic vof1<; is situated lower
than the intelligible forms and above the world-soul. As one of the
main differences between Prod us' and his own interpretation Brisson

'An earlier version of this text was
published in Ancient \f!i)rld, :12.1, 200t
p. 52·70.1 wish to thank the editors for
the permission to publish a revised ver-
sion.
1. Compare E.D. Perl, T!Je De111lurge
and tbe Forms:A Return to the Ancient
Interpretation of Plato's Timaeus, in:
Ancient P!Jifosopl>p, 18, !998, p. 81-92,
Etudes ptatoniciermes 11 ltudes platonfctennes ll, p. 2GI-2R:.. Les Belles Lettrcs. Paris, 200h
who claims that according to tbe ancient
interpretation of the Timaeus, the Forms
and the demiurge are identicaL \Vhile
this is true for some ancient commenta-
tors, it certainly does not hold for Pro·
clus and the other post-Piotinian Neo-
platonists, all of whose interpretations
exhibit a far greater degree of corn·
plexity.
 262 JAN OPSOMER TO FIND TilE MAKER AND FATIIER 26:)

sees the Neoplatonic emanationist metaphysics, which makes the gods in the succession of attributes7 affirmed of the One [sec
clemiurgc a merely contemplating intc!Ject, instead of a contemplating Appendix 1]. H
an cl producing intellect. 2 Indeed, in Proclus' view the demiurge is a Late Athenian Neoplatonism is characterised by a proliferation of
motionless~ transmitter of the higher realities, creating by procession. hypostases. This is a logical development of lamblichus' law of the
And although Proclus would probably contest this and maintain that mean terms or the principle of ontological continuity: any two
his demiurge possesses a true eft1cient causality, the nature of the successive ontological orders must always share an essential quality
clemiurge's causation in an emanationist1 metaphysical context is so that there are no gaps in the divine emanation. 9 Therefore, in
simply not the same as that in Plato 5 order to avoid ontological gaps, intermediate levels need to be
For Proclus, given the context of his hierarchic ontology, to inserted. The application of this principle, together with the necessity
explain who the demiurge<• is amounts to determining his position to find an ontological level corresponding to each of the attributes
in the hierarchy of beings. In order for us to understand Proclus' affirmed of the One in the second hypothesis of the Pannenides,
argument it is mandatory to be familiar not only with the general and the need to accommodate all the divinities and principles found
outline, but even with some of the details of his system. Reality throughout Plato's works as well as in the Orphic and Chaldean
according to Proclus is graded according to the degree of unity religious traditions, explains the complexity of Neoplatonic ontology.
in beings.The supreme principle is the One itself, which transcends The main division of the Intelligible in the broad sense [Ill is that
Being.The beings themselves proceed from and revert to the One between Being (or the Intelligibles stricto sensu 12]), Life (or the
in a continuous hierarchy, starting from the intelligibles, i.e. the Intelligible-Intellective level [3 ]), and Intellect f4]. Proclus argues
transcendent gods, via the gods of the world, down to the levels that the demiurge is an Intellect [4], more precisely the lowest
of soul, nature, body, and matter (the lowest manifestation of the term of the first Intellective triad [4. I..'>,].
One).This complex metaphysical structure is developed by Proclus After having quoted Tim. 28C3-'i, Proclus announces that he
through his interpretation of the second part of the Parmenides. will first examine the key words Cll AE'6c;-) and then discuss the issue
The first hypothesis, which is entirely negative, he believes refers as a whole Ol OAT] Gnup[a). His main argument is to be found in the
to the supreme principle; the second displays the hierarchy of tbeoria-section, where he tackles the controversial issue of the
clemiurge 's ontological status. An account of his own position is
preceded by a survey of the major interpretations of his predecessors
2. Cf. L. Brisson, /,e 11/CIIIe et /'autre, universal demiurge transmits the powers (see Appendix 2 for a survey of the lemma]
Sankt Augustin, 1994 2 • p. 70. of the higher realities in order to create
). On the demiurge's pr\vqws- El'Ep- the world of becoming, ancl remains After an examination of the lexeis, Proclus distinguishes two
YE"l see H.D. Saffrey [& L.<i.Westerink] firmlv established in the immobile realm questions:"Who is the demiurge?" and "To which class of beings does
Proclus. Theologie fJiatollicicnne, V1 of the intelligible (largo sensu). On how he belong"?lO It is not immediately clear why an answer to the first
(CUF), Paris. 1997, p. 29 n. 2 (p. 139). See the notion of an efficient cause has chan-
also S.E. Gcrsh, l<JNI!:>;D~ AKINHT02:. A ged since Aristotle, see R. Sorabji, Time,
question would not automatically constitute an answer to the second
Study of Spiritual Motio11 in the Philo- Cmation and the Continuum. Theories as well. In dealing with the second, Proclus endeavours to determine
sopb)i of Pmclt1s (Philosophia antiqua. in Antiquil)' and tbe Earlp Middle Ages, the precise correspondences with the divine names as found in
26), Leidcn. 19T\ London, 1983, p. 308-311. Proclus even the tradition of the Chaldean Oracles, more precisely the relation
·i I do not take "emanation" in the attributes efficient causalitv to the Forms.
restricted sense in which it is used by Cf. C. Steel, La tbeorie de,~ Formes et la between the demiurge and the so-called triad ofclpyuco[ (which will
L.l' Gerson in his discussion of Plotinus Prol'idence. Proc/us critique c/'A1·istote be situated at level 5.1 of the scheme). His main argument, however,
(as a jJf!r accidens causal series): Ploti- et des stoiciens, in:Aristote/ica Secunda. is to be found in the first part of the tbeoria, where he tackles the
llltS (The Arguments of the Philoso- MC!anges o[ferts cl CfJristicm Rutten. controversial issue of the demiurge 's ontological status. For the sake
phers), London and New York, 1994. eh. Publics sous la direction cl' A11clre Motte
2.Actually, for the present purpose. the et de.foseph Denooz. Liege, 1996. p. 241- of clarity, let us first take a look at Proclus' own view, which is
notion of"motionless production" will 254.That is why Produs can claim that essentially that of his master Syrianus. Proclus sees a clear break
do (a notion that can also be used in the tlrst origin of all demiurgic activity is between Syrianus and the "ancient interpreters". He adds that his
creationist accounts). to be situated in the paradigm (cf. infra).
5. For Neoplatonists, the clemiurge is 6.\Vhcn Proclus speaks of tlemiurgic
an eftkient cause, because he produces activity or causation, he means an acti- 7. The attributes revealed in the 60XCH >:TOI:\EIIl/:1:>: f)l:Oi\Ofll\11
in virtue of his activity (energeia), vity that is related to the generation of second hypothesis correspond to the Proc!us. The Hlemellts <!l Theology. A
motionless as it may be. Cf. In 1'im. the world of becoming .This excludes the negations in the tlrst hypothesis. Revised Text with Translation, Introduc-
3.228.26-28: TTUIEt ycip. ciA:\rl GlCl nJu production through procession of the 8.!n the following pages, numbers in tion and Commentary, Oxt(ml, 196:), p
Vf~~lV 8Etinr 11pl V yO_p o(!F)i TTOLTlGOUfTl V, higher orders of reaiity. Cf In Tim. square brackets are those of Appendix 1 xxii
E,q:-'iYos- rrEnnlflKf Tt~l l 10i10(JL lt<·wov. The 1.260.19-26. 9. Cf E.R. Doclcls, DPOI\.i\OY I'll A- 10. Cf !11 Tim. 1.505.24-26.
Ewdcs jJlatonicicnnes 11
l~tudes fJ{atoniciemzes If
264 ]AN OPSOMER TO FIND THE MAKER AND FATHER 265

master is closest to Plato. 11 It is of course Proclus' view that Plato Theology are not extant - if they were ever written at all; the
had a divine insight into the truth about the gods and that there is general rule, however, is that the scheme becomes more complex
essential agreement between his teachings and those of the Chaldean as one moves downwards and unity decreases). In addition to these
Oracles and the Orphic poems. Yet Plato surpasses these other sources four levels, there is also demiurgy at an even lower level, namely
of wisdom, because in addition to their modes of exposition, he uses, that carried out by the assistants of the partial demiurges. the angels
most notably in the Parmenides, the dialectical mode, which is direct and heroes, to which Proclus alludes at 1.3l0.24-26.The difference
and uses abstract, 'scientif1c' terms. 12 between the universal (6f..LK0'lc;) ancl the partial (!IEpLKL~Jc;) demiurgy
What then does Syrianus, according to Proclus, teach about the corresponds to that between the first and the second demiurgy of
demiurge? The demiurge is the god that "marks the border of the the Timaeus (that of the young gods, \Vhose responsibility is
Intellective gods." 13 He is filled with the power of the intelligible explained at Tim. 42D5 sqq.). 1" In other words, the first two levels
monads and the sources of life (the hypostases above Intellect, [2] of Proelus' scheme ([4.1.3] and [5.1]) correspond to the first, and
and [3 ]); from him proceeds all demiurgic activity; be himself remains Proclus' third a ne! fourth level (both at the en cosmic hypostasis [7 j)
undisturbed at the top of the Olympos/1 while presiding over the to the second demiurgy of the Timaeus. The universal clemiurgy
lower demiurgic gods (1.310.9-15). He is the "maker and father of ([ 4.1.31 an cl [5.1 ]), i.e. the first dcmiurgy of the '1/maeus, completely
the universe". However, different forms of demiurgy need to be transcends the world, while that of the young gods (a monad and
distinguished. Whereas ''the one demiurge" creates and exercises a triad in the en cosmic realm [7]) is immanent to the world. 20 In
providence 15 over universal beings in a universal way and is called the present paper I shall confine myself to the demiurgic monad
"the cause that produces universal beings in a universal way" (TClV responsible for the universal demiurgy, the "maker and father of the
OALl!V oALKCllc;' OllfllOUpyLKCJV a'i TLOV), Prod us in addition acknowledges universe". As lower limit of the Intellective gocls 2 1 he is the third
the demiurgy that is the cause for partial beings in a universal way term of the "triad of the parents", Kronos, Rh ea, Zeus. 22 Let us
(TLDV 11Epwv oALKL0c;-), the demiurgy for universal beings in a partial now examine the exegetical reasons put forward in the
way (Tr.DV o:\c,w f1EpLKCD<;') and the demiurgy for partial beings in a Commentary 23 for assigning the clemiurge to this particular place
partial way (Twv llEpwv f1EPLKWS', 1.310.15-18).The first demiurgy in the ontological hierarchy.
is situated at [4.1.3] in the scheme; the second demiurgy is the work Proclus clain1s (1.311.5-14) that Plato's description of the demiurge
of the demiurgic triad at [5.1], 16 which is dependent on the and his actions allow us to determine his rank infallibly. When
demiurgic monad (i.e. the first demiurgy [4.1.3])YThe third and creating, the demiurge contemplates (Ti111. 29A3) the intelligible
fourth demiurgy, which proceed in a partial way, analogously consist modeL Now, that which looks at the intelligible is itself intellective
of a monad (Dionysus) and a triad operating at the encosmic level
[7] 18 (our knowledge of the lower part of Proclus' scheme is 19. Cf. In Ti111. 3.3!6.21-3!9.i.The the last two levels of Proclus' fourfold
tirst demiurgy is "invisible", as opposed division. As an intermediate realm it par·
incomplete, mainly because the corresponding parts of the Platonic to the second. Cf. In Tim. 3,311.21-26. ticipates both in the hypercosmic and
20. Cf.]. Opsomer, La demiurgie des the encosmic worlds. It indeed cor-
11. Cf. In Tim. 1.310 2-7. rence between the universal demiurge jeunes dieux seton Proclus, in: Le's h'tu- responds to the attribute "in contacr and
12.Cf.TIJeoi.Piat. I4,esp.p.20 1-25. ami the demiurgic triad. des Classiques, 71, 2003, p. 5-49. The separated" U'arm. l4HD'i·14l)D7), which
l).Cf.ln Tim. 1.310.7-9:/'cJTL TOLVW 17. It is related to the division of the tlemiurg1c triad at [5. 1] operates at a means that it is both in contact and not
6 Ol]fllOUfY)'bS' (l ELS' KCF' Cll!TCliJ (J Til world into three regions. Cf. Tbeol. Flat. level that clearly precedes that of the in contact with the world.
rrfpoc; TL;ll' l'OEp<;lV 8fL,Ji) drDopl(<JJV 8E(,lc;'. V, p. 42.16; VI 10; In Tim. 1. 136.23-28; demiurgy of the young gods .The demiur- 2!. Cf. f11 1/111. I .31 [.J ... j
This does not mean, however, that he is Froclus. Tbeologie platom'cienne, Livre gic triad in the hypercostnic-encostnic 22. And not that he would be the
the lowest of them. Actually, he is only VTexte etabli et traduit par H. D. Saffrey realm [6.1 .] seems to play no role in Pro- lo\vest Intellective being. The second
the third out of seven, as we shall see. et L.G.Westerink (CUF),Paris, 1987, p. 42 clus' fourfold division. This intermediate triad, that of the "immaculate", duplica-
Cf.n.22. n.3 (p.170-l71). realm both separates and connects the tes the tirst (on a lower level) in order ro
14.CflliasVIII 3 am!A.].Festugicre, 18. Cf.fn Tim. 3.310.28-311.6; 311.21- hypercosmic and the encosmic dialws- preserve it from direct contacr with the
Proclus. Commentaire sur le Timee. Tra- 312.25. Cf. Proclus. Tbeologie platoni- moi.The hypercosmic-encosmic demiur- world and the concamination it would
duction et notes, II,Paris, 1967, p. 166 n. cienne, Livre VTexte etabli et traduit par gic gods "are unified from above by the cause. The two triads are distinct but
5. H.D. Saffrey et L.G.Westerink (CUF), P'aris, ruling leaders [i.e the hypercosmic inseparable Cf Theol. f'l(/f. V 33-:)'i. The
1 'i.The two activities are inseparably !987,p. 42 n. 2-3 (p.170-171).See also L. Gods], and from below they are drawn third term ut the second triad thus pro-
linked. Cf. M. Baltes, Die Weltentstebung Brisson, Froclus et l'mp!Jisme, in: Proclus, into multiplicity by the young gods, as tects Zeus from the world, so that his
des platoniscben Timaios naciJ den lecteur et inte!prete des anciens.Actes du Timaeus says" (Theo/. Flat VI, p. 7:1.17- providence can remain undisturbed. Cf.
antiken Inte•preten, Teil I (Philosopbia col/oque international du CNRS, Paris 19). In other words, the hypercosmic- Tbcol.l-'lat. V -14, p. 127 2-(>
antiqua, 30), Leiden, 1976, p. 52-53. (2-4 octob•·e 1985), publies par]. Pepin encosmic triad can be seen as the divi- 2). Extra argumenu, ;~re offered in
JG. Cf. Tbeol. Plat.VI 6-7 on the diffe- et H.D. Saffrey, Paris, 1987, p. 84. ding line separating the first two from 11Jcol.l-'lat. V 1.) and I 'i.
Etudes platomclennes J/ Etudes jJiawnlciennes /I
 266 JAN OPSOME!{ TO FIND THE MAKER AND FAr Ill: I< 267

(voE ()(JS' ), i.e. an intellect (l'OUS' )z·i Hence the demiurge is distinct from creates, by his very being, the intellect which he then places in the
[2] the intelligible; He does not belong to [31 the intelligible-intellective soul (Tim. 30B4). The latter intellect is therefore. according to the
realm either,for Plato explicitly says that he is an intellect 25 By saying categories that are fundamental to Proclus' metaphysics, a participated
that the demiurge is the best of causes (Tim. 29A6) Plato further intellect, whereas the former (the clemiurge himself) is the
distinguishes him ti·om the lower demiurges 26 The conclusion so far imparticipable intellect from which the participated intellect
is that the demiurge is an intellective god transcending the other proceeds.
demiurges 27 Now his precise place within the main intellective triad Produs points out that Plato is very careful in his use of titles and
[4. 1] remains to be determined (1.311.14-25). If he were the first in names: he calls the clemiurge an intellect, but never intelligible,
the triad, he would limit himself to his inner activity, 28 for this is typical whereas the paradigm is called intelligible but never intellective-''
of the first member of any order. But of course, as a demiurge he Plato is also very consistent in his use of the title ''maker and father··,
must also have an outward activity. 29 Therefore he cannot be the which, according to Proclus, he only bestows upon the universal
first intellective god. If he were the second intellective god, he would demiurge. Previously, in the lexeis-section, Proclus has already refuted
above all be the cause of life, for this pertains to the second term in Porphyry's view that the term "father" refers to a creation ex nibi!o.
any triad. But t<:n- tl1e creation of the soul he needs the use of a principle Proclus there explains that this cannot he what the term means.
external to himself, the mixing bowl (b KpGT~P- identified with Hera), 30 since the demiurge uses "stuff" which he does not create himself,
whereas when he imparts intelligence (vouc;-) to the universe, he is namely matter (Proclus holds that matter is created by the supreme
able to do so entirely on his own (for the creation of body he principle, being the lowest manifestation of its unlimited power).
collaborates with Necessity). So he is primarily the cause of intellection, Now, 3 5 after having firmly established the position of the universal
not of life. 11 Therefore he must be the third of the intellective fathers 32 clemiurge, Proclus comes back to the meaning of the title ·'maker
-the third is typically the intellective term of a triad. 33 The demiurge and father", and specifies its precise meaning by distinguishing it
from the titles "father", "father and maker", ancl '·maker". The title
24. Other typical activities of intel- [lfl' (J npt,JTLCJTOS' TJVEl' Tolr;- voEpolc:;-, "father" belongs to the summit of the intelligibles [2. 1], wherea~ the
lect are discovering and reasoning. Cf. E 11EL'EV flv pllVC)J' Eu Tt0 EatJToU KOTci mere "makers" are the young gods who bring into existence the
111eo/. Plat. V 14, p. 't9.17-20. Cf. Tim. Tpc\nov ~8H. This is a subtle point: the partial and mortal en cosmic beings [7].The title "father an cl maker"
)OB I (,\oywcitr<e l'OS' Olll' ni:'plCYI\E v) and demiurge "remains in his own accus-
characterises the third intelligible triad, intelligible intellect, which
B4; :39E9 (Kflflopr~t).This, however, should tomed nature" (Tim. 42E5-6), hut this
not he understood literally, since there is does not exclude his activity from being is the paradigm of the w1iverse and the very Jlrst cause of all demiurgy
no change in the demiurge. Cf. In Ale. directed outward. This again should not (TCJ a{no(t~ov [2.31). "Maker and father", finally, singles out the
208.3-'i (on the cognition of our soul, as be understood as if his outward activity universal demiurge.Whenever he is referring to the demiurge, Plato
opposed to that of intellect): E' v Kll'~CTfl were something additional to his inter-
does not call him simply "father" or "maker" or ''father and maker'',
ydp faTl Kctl olw cl8p<)uJc; mJ0E- cl!IE- nal activity, for the universal demiurge
nd3AliTw;- VdlElfTJli(El'. r,'llTTTEP ll TOll VOU creates by his very being. but only names him by the formula "maker and t:tther". Plato does
ur'JliL!lOS' Km or rw,)J 'l " ' (liE pyEra. Sec also 29. One could refer to 8wnil;as ibi- so at the beginning of the physical account (the present lemma),
Plotinus Enn. VI 7 [:38] 1-3 dem (7im. 42E5). Proclus distinguishes and uses an equivalent formula in the demiurge's acldress to the
25 Cf. Tim. )9E7-9 (cf infra), ami these two types of activities at In Tim.
47E4-48A2 (here, however, vo[Jc; may also ::\.315.19·30.
young gods at 41A7 (cov E:yc0 blll..lLOupyiJ-:;o nnTllP TE &pyL,Jll), just as
refer to the lower intellects in charge of 30. Tim. 42D4-5. CfJn Tim. 1.246.29- the Eleatic Stranger in the Statesman does when referring to the
the second demiurgyJ. 247.26; 3.246.28-250.28; Theol. Plat. V maker of the world (Pol. 273Bl-2:Tou oq!Houpyou Knl ncnp6c;-).
20 The rncntion of causes in this 30 In the next subsection Proclus argues that the universal clemiurge
context is indeed to be taken as a refc- 3 I It is no coincidence, so Pro cl us
n:nce to dcmiurgy. savs Pmclus. for this suggests. that Timaeus fi1'St of afl men- is called Zeus by Orpheus and explains that the Orphic and Platonic
can be inferred from the words ni.ili r~E tions the creation of Intellect at 30B4-5: teachings are in harmony on this subject, as they are in general.
ul1 TO Yl)'\'()pf\l(i\ lm' nlTLULI Tll'r'lc;- E~ cf. Theol. Plat. V 15. p. 5126-52.)
1
The tale of Zeus swallowing Phanes, for instance, corresponds to the
lll'ctYKllS' y( Yl'C oflw (f'illl. 2HA4-'i) which )2. Cf. In Tim. 1.311.19-20: Ol'l( (i),),oc; Platonic doctrine that the demiurge interiorises the paradigm (the
are closely followed by an explicit men- Ci po EoTll' T) h Tp( TOS' T(,Jl' uoE pc;Jv
tioning of the demiurge (AC>: ('mnJ ~~~ll TTCLTEptul'. equivalence between Phanes ancl the third intelligible triad is here
OtJll iiv (, blJill rn,pyi1c; KT.\.). Compare Pbi· 33.Takc, e.g. the internal structure of taken for granted). But Plato too explicitly calls the demiurge Zeus,
/elms 26E 1-8. the triads [2.3], [::l.l], [3.2], [3.3], or the for instance in the same passage of the Statesmmt or at PbilelJus
27. Cf. In Tilll. 1.511,1:\·14: li\IEp<'Y; position of [2.3] within the triad [2], or
olJv f OTL tk(J?, Tf(i! 'TuJV 611~llOUpyr;lV the triad [2]-[3]-[4]. For the general rule,
E~lJPlJilEVOS' see De m al. su /Js. 1 5 .17-18 Boese ('medii 34. Cf. In Tim. 1.419.19-2:\. !'/at. V 16 (the argument is summarised
211. Cf. fn Tim. I.) I I. 14-1 '): d AA' E i enim potentia, sicut intellectus tertii'). 3'5. In Tim. 1.311.25-313.2. Cf. Tlieol. p. '57.11-1 ·f)
Htudes p!afoniciemzes !I Etudes platonh·iennes If
 268 JAN OPSOMER TO FIND THE MAKER AND FATJIER 269

30D. This equivalence is confirmed by a number of other passages Let us now take a look at Proclus' survey of the interpretations
in various dialogues, such as Cra~)!lus 396A8-B3. where the double of his predecessors. Before explaining his own and his master's views,
etymology of''Zeus"(genitive .6Lc)c;- and Znvc'Jc;-) is explained: "through Proclus discusses critically the divergent views of his Platomc
whom (f>L'ilv) all possess life (Tb Uw)." 36 predecessors, "for differenr philosophers among the ancients were
The last part of the discussion is devoted to the question as to led to different opinions" ( 1.303.26-27). His arguments for rejecting
which class of gods the demiurge belongs: is he one of the fontal their interpretations can easily be summarised. The most serious
(mna'lm) or one of the ruling gods (cipxu<ol)?This distinction stems objection to any interpretation under scrutiny is that it is based on
from the tradition of the Chaldean oracles and their exegesisY an erroneous ontology- for instance one that considers the supreme
Proclus argues that the demiurge belongs to the higher class of the principle itself as a being or an intellect. Some predecessors make
two, that of the Sources (the fontal gods), not without adding that the wrong ontological divisions within the intelligible realm largo
a lengthy treatment would be needed to determine his exact position sensu or situate the demiurge at the wrong level. Some interpretations
among the Sources5 8 will be judged to be correct as far as their basic intuition is concerned,
Prod us concludes (In Tim. 1.319.11-21) by saying that one can but found to be Jacking in refinement. Indeed, if we leave aside
easily understand why Plato was right in saying that it is not easy Syrianus, none of his predecessors developed a metaphysical system
to discover the nature of the demiurge. However, now it should at that exhibits the same degree of complexity as Proclus'.
least be clear what the words "maker and father" mean. Those who The first three interpretations discussed are those of Numenius,
think that the demiurge is maker for the inanimate beings and father Harpocration, and Atticus, philosophers who are nowadays called
for the ensouled beings only, are wrong. The demiurge, by a single, Middle Platonists but who were already treated as one group by
undivided activity, is father and maker for all beings. Proof of this is Proclus 40 Proclus reproaches them for neglecting the transcendence
that he calls himself"father of these works" (41A7, addressing the of the first principle. Numenius (1.303.27-304.22) celebrates three
young gods). He does so because he is cause of both the substance gods, the first of whom he calls "father", the second "maker", while
and the unification of the "works" (every being is one), and both the creation is the third god. Now, if he means that the "father" is
supplies their existence and exercises providence over them once indeed the very first God, he makes the unforgivable mistake of
they have come into being. 3<) making the Good a principle among others. If Numenius were right,
Plato would even be making the Goocl lesser than the ·'maker" at
Tim. 28C3-4. Be that as it may, Numenius in any case does not respect
36. Cmt. :~9oA8-B3, and Prod us' com- he had already refuted Porphyry's inter- the absolute transcendence of the supreme principle: the One is not
ments: In Crat. 100.1-4; 101.17-21. In pretation of "maker and father" in the to be set in any relation with inferior things, although the latter refer
addition, Proclus points to Gm~r;. 523134- lexeis-part of the lemma and placed the to it. 41 Moreover, it is not appropriate to call the supreme principle
524A7;Minos 319C3-4. critical survey of previous interpretations "father", as this title makes its appearance in the classes of gods
37. Julian the Theurge (who lived at the beginning of the tbeoria-section.
under Marcus Aurelius) not only wrote Numenius, too, treats the maker and the below the One.Another mistake is to separate the "father" ancl the
down the Oracles, but is presumably also father as two distinct entities, and Proclus "maker", for Plato is speaking about one single clemiurgy and one
the author of a commentary on them. Cf has criticised him for this: in Tim. single demiurge (1.303.24-304.22).
E.R. Dodds, lZJe Greeks a/Id the Irrational, 1.304.13-16. In his polemical remark at Numenius' view of the demiurge is more complex than Proclus
Berkeley, 1951, p 283-285; R.M. Van den the very end Proclus does not name his
Berg, Prnclu.\·' I--!ynn1s. Essays, Trcnzsla- opponents, but he may be referring to allows for. Moreover, it is very unlikely that Numenius' third god is
tinns. Commentmy (Philosophia antiqua, some of the philosophers he has dis- identical with the world. Numenius' three gods are rather (1) the
l)O), Leiden -Boston - Kiiln, 200 I, p. 67-70. cussed earlier. Or he may have others in first intellect, demiurge of being; (2) the second intellect, clemiurge
)H lamblichus possibly held that the mind: a similar view is mentioned in Plu-
demiurge was inferior to the TTTiydim. Cf. tarch of Chaeronea's Platonic Question
of becoming.The latter then divides into (2a) a truly divine intellect,
Michacl Psellus, Op. min., Opusc. 40, p. !I lOOOEEAccording to the first interpre- and (2b) a demiurgic intellect. How then can we make sense of
149 O'Metra, if indeed Psellus' source for tation reported by Plutarch. "father" and
the doctrine reported there is lambli- "maker" are mutually exclusive terms, the 40.Although the term ·'Middle Plato- making the dcmiurge twofold (1.304.24-
chus (cf.lamblicbf Cbalcidensis in Pla- former for animate, the latter for inani- nism" was forged by nineteenth century 26). whereasAtticus is identi!led as the tea-
tnnis dialogos cnmmentariorum ji-ag- mate beings. Plutarch's own view is to be scholars to denote post-Antiochean pre- cher of Harpocration (1.305.6-7). The
menta. Edited with Translation and Com- found in the third interpretation Piotinian platonism, Proclus seems to obs- three of them are grouped together before
mentary by John M. Dill on (Philosophia (lOOIAB);he argues that a father is a crea- erve a certain kinship among the three Proclus begins his discussion of the view
antiqua, 23 ), Leiden, 1973, p. 308-309). tor of an animate being (every father is, by philosophers he mentions; HarpoC!~Ition ofPlotinus:erETo i'i11 ToiJTouc; Toiy:; iivooac;
is said to follmu Numenius (ETTETtll Tr~JiiE n\toJTtl'OC: iJ QJt:>ixJO<[)()c; I(T,\_ (1.)0';.16-17).
39. It is remarkable that Proclus consequent, also a maker) and insists on
concludes with a polemical remark, since the father's providence for its creatures. T0 av6p[) by distinguishing three gods and 41.CL 1304 10-11

Etudes platoniclennes I! h~tudes platoniciennes !I

270 JAN OPSOMER TO FIND THE MAKEH AND FATlll'R 271

Proclus' testimony regarding the third god? 42 Perhaps Numenius Plotinus is treated with cunsiderably more respect and
indeed used the word kosmos (1 ,304, 1), but not in order to refer benevolence. Proclus bases his account (1.305.16-506. 1) of
to the material world as such, but to its order; this order could then Plotinus' view of the demiurge not only on E11n. lJI 9 1131 l, which
be held to be identical with the world soul (and therefore with the deals with the interpretive problems raised by 7hn. 39E7-9 (lJTTEp
demiurge; cf. in{ra) 40 ovv vovs- E'voucms- t8E'as- Tc0 i\ E'cnLI' (t~ov, o"[u[ TE" E'vEwL IWt
Harpocration (304.22-305.6) is outright ridiculed by Proclus, who bam, Ka8opc;i,"According then, as lnteiJcct perceives Forms existing
pretends to doubt whether I-Iarpocration could make sense even to in the Absolute Living Creature, such and so many as exist therein
himself. Not only is he inconsistent and wavering, he apparently has did he determine that this world should possess." trans.J Dillon), 46
a tendency to confer a multitude of names and titles upon the One, but also, as I have argued elsewhere :' 7 on Enn. IV 4 128]. It is
which ought to remain free of all multiplicity and cannot be named true that Tim. 39E7-9 was central to the controversies related by
(1.304.22-305.6). Atticus' view is less fraught with ambiguity, yet Proclus: Numenius probably based his doctrine of three gods on
clearly wrong (305.6-16): he expressly equates the demiurge with this passage, as die! Amelius and Theodorus, ancl also Plotinus'
the Good. It takes Proclus only a few lines to reject this view: Plato Gnostic opponents. Plotinus rejected the interpretation of the
calls the demiurge "good", but not "the Good"; 44 more importantly, latter in Enn. II 9 [33] and offers an independent cliscussion of
the demiurge is an intellect, 45 whereas Plato undeniably puts the the passage in Emz. Ill 9 [ 13] I. Yet in my view there were other,
Good above being (and thus above intellect). Moreover, what isAtticus systemic and more cogent reasons that led to a diversification of
going to do about the paradigm if the demiurge is the same as the demiurgy and that can be observed in Rnn. IV 4 [2R !.In this text,
Good? For the paradigm - the intelligible - ought to be prior to Plotinus shows himself not quite at ease with the restriction of
intellect, but then the Good would no longer be the supreme principle. demiurgy to the intellective realm, and looks for a second
If, alternatively, the paradigm coincided with the demiurge/the Good, "ordering" principle (which he refuses to call "demiurgic", though).
the Good would not be one, but at least two things. Or if - third Here he expresses himself not as clearly as he could have, and as
possibility - the paradigm were posterior to the demiurge/the Good, a result he could easily be misunderstood.
the Good would be contemplating something inferior,horribi/e dictu. Proclus' account of Plotinus' position can be seen as a summary
of the relevant chapters of E111z. IV 4 [28]: Plotinus apparently makes
42. Cf. Rudolf Beutler Numenios ('J), comparison between Resp. Vll, 532C6, the demiurge twofold, one in the intelligible world, the other the
in: RE, Supplementband 7, 1940, col. where the good is called TOU apLCJTOV EV
672.21-23; M. Frede, Numenius, in: Toic; oven, and Tim. 37A1, where the leader and ruler of the universe. And this is correct, Proclus says.
ANRW, II,36.2, 1987, p. 1068-1069. Plato den1iurge is referred to as T<.Dv I'OTlT<~Jl' For the immanent principle governing the world can in a sense
of course calls the kosmos a blessed god ciEl TE OvTuw ... ToU ciplcrTou. Numenius, also be called a demiurge."18 As t{)!· the ''higher clemiurge", Plotinus
(34B8). Harpocration, who claims to fol- on the contrary, points out that tbe good calls him intelligible because he situates him, correctly, in the
low Nun1enius, considers nl,pni'bl' Kal is to be distinguished from the demiurge,
KiKYLtOl' to be the third god. who is merely good."The good"(To ciyn-
43. A.J Festugiere, La reuelation 8<\1') is called "idea/Form of <whar is>
d'Hennes Trismegiste, IV, Le dieu good" (ciyn8ou l8Eav, cf. Resp.VI 508E2-
incmmu et la gnose. deuxieme edition, 3; 517B9-Cl). Contrary to the Form, the 46. On Proclus' interpretation of this Th. Leinkauf und C. Steel (Ancient and
Paris. 1990 [= 19~0]. p. 124 proposes a demiurge is only good through partici- passage, seeA.J. Festugiere, Pmc/us. Co/11- Medieval Philosophy Vol. XXXII), 200'5. Ir
different solution: the third god would pation in it. The Form of the goocl is mentaire sur le Timee. Traduction et is, moreover, likely that Proclus has used
be the world as it exists in tbe thoug/.?t equated with the first intellect, which is notes, I!, Paris, 19Ci7,p. !'59 n.2; !60 n.l; Jamblichus· commentary on the
of the demiurge. "the good itself" (ELK<lnuc; iJ blllllovpyilc; John M. Dill on, Plotimts, En 11. 3. 9. I, mu! TinJae!ls as a direct source for the entire
44. Probably Atticus had argued that E'inEp Ecn[ llETOVGL<;L Tou npc,]Tou ciyn8ou Later Views on the Intelligible 1H,-!d, in: section on the denliurgc,especially \Vith
Timaeus calls the clemiurge "good" and ciyn86c;, ciya8ou lSEa av E'ill 6 TTplDTOc; 1:4PbA, 100, 1969 [reprinted in Id., Tlw regard to Porphyry and Plotinus. Cf. W.
"the best of the causes" (Tim. 29A2-3, () vo\ic;, c:\v auTociyo8ov, Num. frg. 20 Des Golden Cbain. Studies in tlw D<'l'elojJ- Deuse. Der Demimg bei PorjJhyrios
TE SrnuovpyiJc; ciynOc\c;. 6, dptcJTOc; nov Places = Eus., P1: ev. XI, 22,9-10). The ment of Platonism mu! C'bristianity. 1/11(/.fmnl>/ich, in: f)fe PIJilosophie des
GLTLLdV. El. dyu8bc; Tll'), which is what good is also "one": Num. frg. 19 = Eus. P~: Aldershot- Brookfield. 1990], p. 6~-67 Neuplr~tonis7111lS. l Jerausgegeben von
god is called in the Republic.As Matthias e11. Xl,22.6-8: ol.!Tco TOL 6 llt-c!n,Jv EK GVA- (on Plotinus himseU) and p. 68-69 (on Clernens Zin!zen (\Vege der Forschung,
Baltes, Zur Philosophic des Platonikers \oywiJ.oii TljJ on ~AETTOVTl anEISt>JKE Til Proclus' reading of Plotinus). 18(,), Dannstadt. 1977, p. 238-246, esp.
Attikos, in: Blume, Horst-Dieter- Mann, ciya8ov OTt EGTLV i:'v. Numenius does not 47.A Cra_(tsmm1 and bis Handmai- 2·16.
Friedhelm (eds),Piatonismus und Chris- take the good to be "beyond" being and den. Demiurgy according to Plotinus, ·18. !11 Tim. 1.505. 19-20: i' on ycip
tentum. P'estschriftfiir HeinriclJ Dnrrie the Forms as something transcending in: W'eltentstebung, \Veltsee/e unci lfle/1- m''" m[ (, 1•o\)c; ,·, E'yidKT!uoc; OlliJLOUpyiJc;
(Jahrbuch fi.ir Antike und Christentum, them in an absolute way. struktw: Pia tons Timaios als Grunt/text Toi) rrccvn\c;- - probably this cor-
Erganzungsband 10), Miinster, 1983, p. 40 4~. See also in Tim. 1.359.25-26; der Kosmologie in Antike. Milfelalter responds to Proclus' third demiurgic
points out, he could also have made the 360 3-4 und Renaissance, herausgcgebcn \'On lcvcl:Tl01' l)\tdV ILfl)l!((·l~lS' alTLOl'.

EtudC's pfatoniciennes ll /~tu des jJlatoniciemws ll

272 ]AN OPSOMER TO FIND THE MAKER AND FAT! !El\
273

hypostasis of Intellect, which is his name for the whole realm between interpretation of intellect (Numenius and Alcinous, e.g.) 51 likewise
the One and the world, whereas Proclus limits Intellect to the lowest distinguish different levels of demiurgy. Moreover, Plotinus appears
level of that realm. Another way of seeing this is that Proclus to think that the manual work of a craftsman is beneath the dignity
distinguishes the paradigm, which is also called Intelligible Intellect of an intellect. Here the old polemics with the Epicureans may
[2.3], and the demiurgic vov:;-, which is intellect as such, whereas for have played a role: they hac! ridiculed Plato's demiurge for exactly
Plotinus these two intellects coincide in reality and are distinguishable 52
this reason. Plotinus' account is characterised by a general tension
only conceptually: the demiurge considered as intellect at rest between models of interpretation: 'i.1 the demiurgic model, whereby
(Kronos) contains the forms, while the demiurge considered as an order is imparted onto a pre-existing chaos, on the one hand, and
actively thinking intellect (Zeus) contemplates the ideas. But this is the derivation model, that had gradually become dominant under
a distinction, not a division. 49 the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean revival of the first centuries
In Enn. IV 4 [28] Plotinus indeed mentions two "cosmopoeic'' and that was clearly favoured by Plotinus.As a result, the demiurge
principles: was bound to become a rather sonT tlgure. 'i-i
"But since the ordering principle is twofold, we speak of one Histmically, Plotinus' treatment of the clemiurge is situated between
form of it as the craftsman and the other as the soul of the all; and interpretations that identified the demiurge with the highest deity,
when we speak of Zeus we sometimes apply the name to the and those oflater Neoplatonists, who demoted the clemiurge to some
craftsman and sometimes to the ruling principle of the all." ('A'A'A' lower positioi1 within the intelligible.That option was not open to
ETIEL TO KO<JflOUV iSLTT()V, Tc'J llEV WS' TOV iST]lllOUpyl)V AEYOfLEV, TO Plotinus, who worked with a simpler metaphysical scheme, because
iSE: 0]:;- TTJV Tou Tiai'TOS' <l;ux~v, KaL Tov 6(a 'AEyovTES' aTE fLEV t0:;- he refused to allow any real distinctions within the primary
E:n"t Tl,)V bf!fLLoupyov cpEPCJ!lE8a, inE: 8E: E:n"t To ~YE!lovouv Tou navT6:;-. hypostases. So he equated the demiurge with intellect, bur transferred
rv 4 [281 10, 1-4). as many of his activities as he coulcl to the soul. This solution was
The second ruling principle is the soul, or its thinking, i.e. its not new either.As the most direct influence on Plotinus the Gnostics
intellective aspect - Plotinus' words remain somewhat vague. 50 1
have been suggested, 5 but also the Stoic active principle comes to
Pro cl us could take Plotinus to be referring to the intellect of the mind, which was called, besides many other things, both clemiurge
world soul, whereas Porphyry could claim that Plotinus just talks 56
and world soul. The idea, however. is still older. Already in the
about "the soul or its intellective aspect", without needing to be Epinomis the highest kind of soul, which possesses intelligence
more precise. (982b5), is said to be the only thing suitable to mold and craft
The reasons for distinguishing two clemiurgic or"ordering" levels (n'AciTTELl! KaL OT]fLLoupyE'Lv, 981B8).
become apparent in Enn. IV 4 [28].Whereas the Ttmaeus, at least As I have already pointed our, Plotinus refuses to call the soul a
when read in accordance with Neoplatonic hermeneutic principles, clemiurge. Unfortunately, he did not always express himself as
clearly suggests that the demiurge is an intellect, Plotinus' unambiguously as he should have. By calling intellect the real
understanding of what an intellect is makes it hard for him to accept 57
clemiurge, he seems to suggest that there is another, lesser demiurge.
that an intellect could do the kind of things the demiurge is described Wl1at is more, Enn. III 9 [ 13]1, Plotinus' exegesis of Tim. 39E7-9,
as doing. Plotinus sees intellect in essence as an Aristotelian self-
thinking unmoved mover. Such a being would be incapable of 51. Numenius frg. 12; I 5 .,'\·1 0 Des Pla-
discursive thinking- the planning and deliberating- and of the kind 'i4. Ct L. Bl"isson, Lo8os et logoi cbez
ces; Alcinous Didask. 10, I64.lH·27:
Plotin. l.eur naturl! ut /cur r(He, in: Les
of active, punctual interventions attributed to the demiurge in the 164.40-165.4. See also 1)5.-Arist. De
Cahiers Pbi/osojJbiques de Strasbotng,
Timaeus.That is why these tasks are conferred onto a lower principle. mundo 397b19-24; 398bl2-22: 400hll- 8. 1999, p. 9S.
12;b31-32.
It is remarkable that those Middle Platonists who adopt anAristotelian 'i'S.J Hatzingct; Emanation, in: NE,-4,
'i2. Cf. Cic. De nat. de(ll: !,8, 18-19;
1959, col. 1226; I~ lladot. 1999. Plotin.
1,20, 52-53; ps.-Plut. De plac. fJ!Jil. 1,7
PorjJ!J)•rc. {tudes ll£'oplatouicieunes
881B =Aetius, DG 300a7-16.
49. Cf.]. Pepin, J,'fements pour une plotinienne de l'identire entre /'intellect (L'Jne d"or), Paris p. 222-223 [=
53. Cf. D.J. O'Meara, Plotinus. An AIZIIIWire de l"Lfcole Pratique des Hau-
histoire de la relation entre !'intelli- et son objet. Plotin et le De anima d'A- Introduction to tbe Enneads, Oxford.
gence et l"intelligible chez Platun et ristote, in: Corps et ame. Sur le De tes l'tudes (V" Section), 1975-76, p. 76-
1993, p. 76; Das B(!se bei Plotin (J.!nn.
77].
dans le neoplutonisme, in:Rel'ue pbilo- cmima d'Aristote, eel. G. Romeyer-Dher- !,8), in:Th. Kobusch- B. Mojsisch, Rurk-
sopl!ique, 81, 1956, p. 39·64, csp. p. 47- bey, Paris 1996, p. 367-376 [reprinted in 56. Cf. Diog. Lacn. 7,88; 7.134-l:IC,;
harcl (eels), Platon in der abendlcindi-
50 !reprinted in: Id. De la fJhilosophie Id., Plotin, Porphyre. Etudes Neoplato- Cleant hes (SVF I 5:) 7· llymn to Zeus):
scben Geistesgescbicbte. Neue Fors- Philod. De piet. col. I l (= SVF 11 1076 =
ancienne a la tbeologie patristique, niciennes, Paris, 1999, p. 267-278]. cbungen .unn Platonismus, Darmstadt, DG 545b!2-20)
London, 19S6]; P. Hadot, La conception SO.Enn.IV 4 [28]10. 1997,p.43
'57 h"1111.V l) 15] 3,25-26
Etudes f>latoniciennes 11 Etudes p!atontctennes fl
274 JAN OPSOMER TO fiND TilE MAKER AND Fi\'1'1 ILl\ 27')

lends some support to Porphyry's claim that Plotinus considered the sympathy (1.306.:)1-307. 14): he thinks he is following Plotinus,('"
world soul a second demiurge, especially since Plotinus in his initial but this claim is rejected by Proclus. Proclus tells us that Porphyry
paraphrase of the Timaeus passage supplies the word "demiurge" regards the hypercosmic soul as the demiurge, and equates the
as the grammatical subject of the "planning", and concludes his intellect belonging to this soul with the paradigm (the mho((0cw).
interpretation with the suggestion that it is soul who does the To consider the demiurge as a soul('" is of course utter ti.1olishness
planning. according to Prod us: Plato ca1\s the demiurge l'Ol-IS', not 0vx T!.
Next in Proclus' doxography comes Amelius (the lesser known Moreover, the demiurge creates and transcends soul. If the world-
of Plotinus' pupils, the name of whom has been all but eclipsed by soul were the clemiurge, it would moreover be impossible for Plato
that of Porphyry), according to whom the demiurge is threefold, all to call the world a gocl, 6 ' for what makes the world a god is the
three of them Intellects (1 .306. 1-31): 58 he who is, he who has, and presence of the world soul in it. If however, the soul were the
he who sees.The first intellect truly is what he is; the second is the demiurge, it would have to be outside of the world and could hence
intelligible that is inside of him, but merely has the intelligible no longer be present in the world. Proclus' final argument is based
preceding him; the third is the intelligible that is inside of him, 59 but on the Neoplatonic conception of causality: tile demiurge is well
has the intelligible that is in the second, and merely sees the capable of creating (partial) encosmic intellects and gods, whereas
intelligible that is in the first. Proclus could very well endorse the soul could never do that, for it would be causing beings surpassing
type of argument deployed by Amelius: the paradigm is present in itself in excellence. But causes are always onto logically prior to their
the three different intellects, according to the principle that effects.
"everything is contained in everything appropriately" 60 Moreover, Porphyry intended his account of demiurgy to be an elucidation
in other contexts Proclus himself can be found to apply the of the thought of Plotinus. His demiurge and paradigmatic intellect
distinction "to be, to have, to see" to lntellect 61 And indeed, Proclus are meant to correspond to Plotinu~;· (alleged) distinction between
does not criticise the triple division as such, 62 but points out an immanent and a transcendent demiurge, i.e. between the thinking
(1 .306.14-15: d~LOv ouv ElcE'Lva KClL npclS' TOUTOV AEYELV) that every soul as the second ordering principle, and the immobile intellect
multitude is preceded br unity and every triad by a monad .Therefore as the true clemiurge. It does not look as if Proclus has made an
there has to be a demiurgic monad prior to the triad. The universal honest attempt to give a fair account of Porphyry's views. Only a
demiurge Timaeus is referring to in the present lemma must be drastic simplification can occasion the reproach that Porphyry posited
this demiurgic monad. Proclus' objections entirely stem from his a straightforward equation of the demiurge with the world soul
own metaphysical system, but so do the reasons for his positive and thus banished the clemiurge from the realm of intellect. Actually,
appreciation of this predecessor. Porphyry repeatedly calls the demiurgc an intellect. W Deuse, who
Porphyry, whose interpretation of"maker and father" has already has closely examined all the relevant fragments and testimonies
been refuted in the lexels-section, once again cannot count on much concludes that for Porphyry there was no great divide between
the realms of soul and intellect.<'6 The identification of the demiurge
'i8. See also !11 1'1111. 3.10:1.18-28, 244.25-30. See also H.-D. Saffrey,La Tbeo-
logie p/atonicienne de Proclus et l'!Jis-
with soul does not automatically imply that he is denied an intellective
where Proclus objects toAmelius' distin-
guishing three different intellects in 7Ym. tofre du neoplatonfsme, in: Proclus et existence. Porphyry conceives of demiurgy as a steady gliding clown
39E7-9 (cl'otrrmc; l00ac; [i.e. the ideas in son influence. Actes du Colloque de and self-development of intellect, that in his lowest manifestation
·'he who has"] T,;, (', E<JTLI' (t;Jov [i.e. the Neuc!Jatel, juin 1985, edites par G. Boss becomes the transcendent soul, maker of the world of becoming
intellect that is, the u{mJ(<ilfw] Ku8opq [he et G. Seel, avec une introduction de F
Brunner, Zlirich, 1987, p. 35.
and division. For Porphyry then~ is no contradiction between talking
who sees]). Cf. Festugiere IV, p. 136 n. 2,
explaining that Amelius read or at least 62. Cf. 1.309.21-23, where Amelius is
understood Tr~l i\ fCJTLl' (<liOI' (Diehl) as called yEvvaios-, not in an ironic way, I 63. Cf. ln Tim. J .306 ..32<107 1: oi r\- what he had written. t\mclius replied to
T(~l ((~)qJ () ~0Tll 1 . believe. Proclus again seems to applaud !lEVOS' TL;) fL\LuT\~V!I-l ouvcjbf"L\1. Proclus
this tTply. and finally Porphyry chang<'d
59. Cf. l ,'106.7-8:"for every intellect is Ameli us' threefold distinction, but instead most probably refers to the view held hy his mind and endorsed Plotinus'view (or
the same as its conjoined intelligible." of insisting on the need to place a monad Porphyry af'ter the dispute reported lw so he thought)
This could be either a reason offered by before the triad and thus associating Ame- the latter in his Li(<' o(Plotinus (eh. I H). (J I. See A.ll. Armst rong.l'/olinus, Vol.
Ameli us or Proclus' own gloss. li us' threesome with his own demiurgi<: Porphyry tells the reader that he first 111 (!.CL). Cambridge, Mass ~ London.
60.TH 1Z1eol. § l03,p. 92. 1.'\: rlcivw <'v triad [5. 1], he now seems to be saying that wrote against Plotinus in an attempt to 19(17. p.•IIO n I
ndrru·, OLKEL<dS' OE El' EKdrrn,J. Cf. Porph. only one of the three, the lowest of them, show that the objects of thought exist (,'i Cf. Till!. '!2C7·1J"''7 nlollqT<IS'
Sent. 10: rlul'TC1 [!El' El' rriiml', a),),iJ o[- is the demiurge and thus to associate the outside the intellcct.At Plotinus' request, (,(,_ CC \V D<'usc. [)er /)elllilll;~ !Jei
KE[(I)S' Tl~ fKcicJTOU oUulq_. other two with the paradigm (as Ameli us Amclius then wrote a lengthy treatise l'orp/Jyrius wtd }am/Jlfcl>. esp. p. 24H,
6 I. Cf. In Tim. 1.242.27-30 and does himself) and with Life respectively. against Porphyry. Porphyrv replied tu 2t:; I
Etudes platoniciennes If hudes jJlotonicienues 11
 276 JAN OPSOMER
of the demiurge as a soul and as an intellect; it is just that at the
end of the demiurgic process we find the soul taking over matter
and imposing order on it.
That some being could be soul and intellect at the same time was
a ghastly idea for a late Athenian Neoplatonist such as Prod us. Yet
Porphyry did not seem to have problems with it. Neither, I should
add, did some of his near contemporaries. Numenius too appears
to refer occasionally to his third, demiurgic, intellect as a soul. Several
scholars have argued that he considers the world soul to be the
demiurge.<>"l Numenius is known for saying that soul is
indistinguishably and inseparably identical with its principles, 68 and
conversely ascribes to the demiurge certain attributes and functions
that are clearly those of the world soul(' 9 Porphyry's and Numenius'
views on demiurgy are in fact remarkably similar. Both allow for a
dynamic continuum in which the boundaries between deities are
not always sharp, in which entities divide into two and merge again
into one. Even Plotinus, as we have seen, did not clearly distinguish
between soul, the intelligising soul or the intellect of the soul. Proclus,
however, insists on clear-cut, well-defined and stable distinctions
between hypostases.
Proclus is much more sympathetic to lamblichus (1.307.14-
30913). The "divine lamblichus" gets more credit, despite alleged
inconsistencies and ambiguities in his interpretation. Proclus starts
off by saying that Iamblichus went to great lengths to counter
Porphyry 70 and to expose the latter's interpretation as un-Plotinian.
Proclus adds that Iamblichus himself: in his own Commentary on
the Timaeus (frg. 34 Dillon), concurs with Plotinus in equating the
dcmiurge with the entire intelligible realm. In support of this assertion
Proclus even includes a literal quotation from Iamblichus'
commentary, which presumably contains a reference to the passage
at hand.
But after him (Porphyry) the divine Iamblichus, attacking the theory
of Porphyry at length, and condemning it as being un-Plotinian, in giving
his own theology, denominates the whole intelligible cosmos as the
67.Cf.M.Frede,Numenius, 1987,p. ()8. Iambi. De an. ap. Stob. 1,49,67,p.
1058, 1068; Il J Kramer, Der Ursprung der 4S8.3-4 Wachsmuth = frg. 42:EVLuaLV flEV
Geistmetaf!b)'sik. Untersuchungen zur ouv IWL TOUT<lTllTO ci8tciKpl TOV Ti]S
Gcscbicbte des rtotonisnUIS Zll 1iscben ~'uxiis npt'1s· TClS i:auTiis cipxas npEO•
Plrzton und Plotin. Amsterdam, 19()4, BEtiELV cpoivnm Nm!fl~VIOS'.
p. 72-75. Also \V Deuse, lintersttchtt!l- 69. Esp. in frg. 18 des Places.
gell zttr mitlelplaloniscben und neu- 70. Iamblichus, who was probably
platonisciH!II Seelelllehre (Akademie Proclus' source, was wont to criticise his
der \Vissenschaften und Literatur. rival, sometimes in quite offensive terms,
Abhancllungen der Geistes- und Sozial- as can be seen in the following guotation:
wissenschaftlichen Klasse, Einzelveri)f- ouSi, cplAtl<JOqlOS' <'J TprlTTOS' o(JTOS' TijS
fentlichung 3), Mainz Wiesbadcn, fJEuJp[os, c'!A\c1 ~apBapuciis ci,\a(ovdas
1983.p.67 ~,)s (ajJ. Procl. In Tim. 1.153.9-10).
ftudes platoniciennet /I
TO FIND THE MAKER AND FATHFI{ 277
demiurge, being in agreement himself, to judge at least by what he writes,
with Plotinus. At any rate. he says in his ConmzeJ/taries:"ReaJ Existence
and the beginning of created things and the intelligible pat~tdigms of
the cosmos, which we term the intelligible cosmos, and such causes as
we declare to pre-exist all things in Nature, all these things the Demiurge-
God whom we are now seeking gathers into one and holds within
71
himself." (In Tin~c 1.307.14-25 = lamb!. In Tim. frg. :14. trans.J Dill on)
These literal words could mean two things, says Proclus. There
is no problem if lamblichus merely wants to say that the "intelligible
universe" and "true being" exist "demiurgically" in the demiurge,
according to the well-known principle that everything is contained
in everything, on each level appropriately. Yet if he means that the
demiurge is identical with the entire realm between the world and
the One (Plotinus' view), then we have a problem indeed (1.308.8:
TOt>To ~8ll chwpCas- 0.6o1'). Proclus endeavours to ref1.1te the view
that the demiurge is identical with the intelligible realm from
Iamblichus' own teachings (1.30R9:E'e t0v lltlCiS' alm'y;- civEol8aeE).
Suppose the clemiurge were indeed all there is between the One
and the world. In that case there would be no place for the other
divine beings recognised by lamblichus himself: neither for the so-
called (Orphic) Kings who are prior to Zeus; nor t()r the three Kings
mentioned by Plato in the second Lcttcr 72 It is equally impossible
to hold both that eternal being is the very first being and that the
demiurge, who as allegedly coinciding with the paradigm is eternal
being, occupies the whole intelligible realm. For the use of the
term "very first being" (npL(nunov ilv) cannot but refer to only one
section in the realm of being, namely the highest. 73
However, Proclus acknowledges that lamblichus has treated the
same matter with much more accuracy elsewhere, namely in his
essay On t!Jc speech of Zeus i1z tlJe Timaeus. There he holds, as
Proclus reports, that first there are the intelligible triads, and then
three intellective triads. Next is the intellective hebdomad, in which
the demiurge occupies the third place among the fathers (i.e. the
first triad in the hebdomad). - 4 As bras concerns the demiurge, this
interpretation coincides with that of Proclus, although lamblichus'
intellective realm is structured differently. That is, unless A.J.
Festugierel 5 is right and we should change the text so that the
succession would be: (three ?) intelligible triads, three intelligible-
this point. Cf. fom/Jlicbi Cbalcidensis in
72. OnAmelius' and Iamblichus' inter- Platonis dialogos cmnmentariorum
pretation of the "three Kings", see I!. D. fi<~giiW/Ita, l.eiden, 1973, p. 308.
Saffrey- L.G.Westerink,Proc/us. Tb"olo- 7"1. Cf. in 11'111. 1.:\08.19-23
gie platonicienne, Livre 11 (CUF). Paris, 7'>.1\J Fe~rugit're, Proclus. Cmmnen-
1974, p. LII-LVIL tain! sur le Tinu!e. Traduction et notes,
73.]. Dillon seems to have overlooked 11, Paris. 1')(,7, p. 164 n. 5.
ttudes Platoniciennes f!
 278 JAN Ol'SOMER
intellective triads, the seventh, intellective triad 76 This emendation77
is supported by an ancient scholion in the Coislinianus relating
Iamblichus' view7 HIf it is correct, Iamblichus' structure of the entire
"intelligible universe" would almost coincide with that of Proclus.
Proclus concludes that Iamblichus'theology deserves to be judged
on the basis of this text rather than the treatment in his commentary,
which is superficial and ambiguous if not erroneous. We can easily
understand the reason tor Proclus' sympathy tor lamblichus: it was
he who inaugurated an evolution away ti·om the Plotinian monolithic
conception of the intelligible towards a multi-layered structure closely
resembling that endorsed by Syrianus and Proclus 79
Last in the row of"ancients"comesTheodorus,pupil of Porphyry
and of Iamblichus, but also their opponent, and too eccentric or
original ever to become canonical. Not unlike Amelius, he
distinguishes three demiurges. His threesome consists of"substantial
intellect" (or:"the intellect which is being"), "intellective substance"
(or: "pure intellect") and the "source of the souls" (1.309.14-20).
Theodorus does not situate these three demiurges immediately after
the One (asAmelius had done), 80 but after the intellective-intelligible
gods,s 1 in other words, on the level oflamblichus' intellective triad. 82
This explains why Proclus tries to argue (1.309.20-310.2) that only
"intellective substance" can rightly be identified with the demiurgic
intellect. One would also have to change the order ofTheoclorus'
threesome and assign the middle position to the "source of souls":
indeed, "power" or "life" has this position in any triad. Finally the
name of the now second god should be changed from "source of
re! T('{c; <TpE.l<; ?> l'Cl'lTfr<;' TpL~
later Neoplatonists never regarded Ploti-
TitS' T(Ul' <t'OI]Tl~lJ!Kul> \IOEf!li)l! nus as an authority of the first rank, with
Tfll00Uc; fl' Tlll'Ocpcr E(38t'l)J<\] whom it was not proper to disagree. The
Tpl TptTnl' fl' TCi[c;· 1TC/T(JUUL\J influence of Plotinus on later philosophy
cllT!Jl!EflU blli'LUVllYl;l Trtell'. was very great, but he did not dominate
77.Thoma.~Taylor has suggested the the thought of ltis time or entirely deter·
same emendation, without knowing the mine the later development of Platonism."
.~cholion.
80. Proclus' supreme One that is, ancl
7H. Cf. In 7/m. eel. E. Diehl, vol. I, p. not the One ofTheodorus, which the lat-
473.28-30. On the great value of these ter equates with the intelligible. Cf. W
ancient scholia see H. D. Saffrcy [& L.G. Deuse, Tbeodorus von Asine. Sannn-
Westerink] Procfus. Tbeologie platoni- lung der Testimonien und Kommentar
cienne, totne (), liure VI. Index g6n6ral (Palingenesia, 6),Wiesbaden 1973. p. 108.
(CUF). Paris, 1997, p. L'I:I-LXVIT. It is pos- 81. Again Proclus is referring to his
sible, nonetheless, that the scholiast has own category of the intellective-intelli-
tried to explain the text from what he gible,pace Deuse (ibid.).
knew about Proclus'vicws. 82. Cf. restugiere II, p. 165 n. 3. For a
79. Cf. A.H. Armstrong, "Piotinus", in schematic presentation of Theoclorus'
1ZJe Cambridge ffL,·totJI of Later Greek ontology see L. Brisson,Le 1nrJme et /'au-
and Rarf1• !Vledieuaf P/:Jilosoph)l, Cam- tre clans fa structure ontolof(ique du
bridge, !967, p 215:"The Neoplatonism of Timee de Platon. Un commellfaire sys-
lamblichus was in many ways a ti·esh start. tematique du Timee de Platon (Inter-
which helps 10 account for the fact that national Plato Studies, 2), SanktAugustin,
those very authority-minded people the 1994 2 , p. 68 n. 2.
Etudes fJlaton iclennes 11
TO FIND THE MAKER AND FATl!EH 279
souls" to "source of life", as the source of the souls is but one of the
sources contained in 'the life-giving source (intellects are not as such
ensouled- they are prior to soul-, but do possess life). Of course,
a generous reader may agree that, if' these points were conceded,
Theodorus' view would be in essential agreement with that of
Iamblichus (and Proclus), at least according to the way it is presented
by Proclus.
I have examined the way in which Proclus construes the relations
among the interpretations of various Miclclle- and Neoplatonists in
one particular lemma. Proclus clearly treats the pre-Plotinian Platonists
as one group, not because of what they have positively in common,
but rather because of the very fact that Plotinus' insight was
inaccessible to them. Plotinus understood that the figure of the
demiurge should be analysed on two ontological levels and that
the demiurge truly belongs to the intelligible realm. Thus Plotinus
succeeded in keeping the true demiurge exempt from the world-
immanent aspects of demiurgic activity and to safeguard his
transcendence. He refused, however, to acknowledge anything more
than conceptual distinctions in the hypostasis of Intellect. The
necessary ontological divisions were introduced by Iamblichus,s~
who developed a more refined and complex theology and
consequently could assign to the demiurge a more precise place in
the intelligible realm.As regards Plotinus' immediate disciples, Proclus
criticises Amelius' view, but not in an unfriendly way. He is visibly
much less patient with Porphyry. Syrianus, finally, established the
complete and correct interpretation of the demiurge's theological
status, situating the demiurge within a refined ontological hierarchy
and explicating all the equivalences with the Chaldean and Orphic
theological traditions. Of course, Proclus is not thinking in terms of
different systems, but of different inte11Jretations of Plato's
philosophy, which contains one single theological truth (albeit a
complex one); this entails that Proclus cannot avoid that his own
interpretation gets in the way of an unbiased understanding of
alternative views.
The construction of the exegetical history as it is seen here is
highly typical of Proclus' procedure throughout the Commenta1y
and is essential to his self-definition as a Platonist.H 4 The difference
83. One could argue, however, that their guide, Plato: Plotinus was t1rst, then
Iamblichus actually cteveloped certain came his disciples Ameli us and PoqJhyry,
tendencies already present in Plotinus' ami thirdly their disciples Iamblichus
work. andTheodorus ("statues of wisdom") fol-
84.The introduction to the Platonic lowed by a number of others. From this
11.Jeology contains a famous glorification tradition the authentic and pure light of
of the Platonic philosophers who revea- truth came clown to Syrianus, who com-
led Plato's mystical insight in their sacred municated it to Proclus himself (Tbeol.
interpretations and who themselves Plat. l 1, p. 6. 16-7.8).This historical cons-
have received a nature not unlike that of truction enables Proclus to consider him-
Etudes platnuiciennes /l
 ]AN OPSOMER TO FIND TilE MAKER AND FAT!l ER 281
280

in philosophical style between Porphyry and Iamblichus which led
to two currents in Neoplatonism was commonly recognised, and
had already been emphasised by Iamblichus himself. Iamblichus
defined his own approach as more "hieratic" as opposed to the more
soberly philosophical style of Porphyry, and accordingly awarded an
important place to theurgy. 85 It is clear that Proclus counts himself
as belonging to the Iamblichean tradition. 86 Later Damascius will
confirm the existence of these two traditions, 1n not without adding,
88
however, that Plato muted the two approaches into one single truth.
The mysticism of the tradition to which Prod us belongs is nicely
8 demiurge's essence. According to the Seuentb Letter92 the soul cannot
illustrated in the le.xeis-section of the present lemma. 9 There
(1.300.28-303.23) Proclus explains why Plato says it is difficult to
find the demiurge and impossible to communicate this knowledge
to others. In order to discover the demiurge the philosopher has to
ascend from the lower realities towards the superior levels. However,
more is needed .The soul has to become itself an "intellective universe"
(K6ap.ov voEpc'w); it has to assimilate itself as much as possible to
the intelligible universe 90 and thus approach the god.ln this manner
the soul will discover the demiurge. It will neither "stumble upon"
him through conjectural reasoning -- which always remains
uncertain and hardly exceeds the domain of the irrational -,nor
will it discover him through scientific reasoning; for the latter is
syllogistic and composite and therefore unable to grasp intellectively
the intellective nature of the clemiurgc. What is needed is an
immediate visionary intuition, a kind of contact, a unification 91 This
is indeed not easy (E pyov).
But to explain the demiurge's nature to others is more than
difficult, it is impossible, For in order to express what one has seen
one has to go back to language, and by doing so again lose the
grasp the true essence of a thing by means of a name, a definition,
an argument, but only through intellection.This is true a fortiori for
knowledge of the demiurge. Therefore it is impossible to
communicate his intellective essence through nouns and verbs 9 _~
One could object that philosophers do speak about the demiurge.
True, but they speak about him, they do not express him directly;
and they speak in a discursive, not in an intellective way. Discursive
thinking on its own will never be able to attain theological truth 91

self the heir of an ancient and sacred
theological tradition. It is hardly surpri-
sing that we clo not 11ncl even a hint of
criticism in this passage. The introduc-
tion to the Platonic Theology was
indeed not the appropriate place for cri-
tical remarks against, e.g., Porphyry. On
the philosophers bridging the gap bet-
ween the generation of Iamblichus and
Syrianus, who here remain anonymous,
see Saffrey- Westerink I, p. XXXV-XLVIII.
Compare also 1-lierocles De prot,fd ap.
Phot. Bib/ 2!4.
SS. De myst. 96.7-10: oLr'>n cjlLAO-
O"Ocbc<Jc; pCiAAOV Kat AOYlKt0c;, CLAA' ouxi
1mTa Tr'1v El'fflY<ll' Tl01' lfpEL"v n'xvrw
T('Jl! rl1TOAOYI 0\Ll,ll' 1TOLELTOL' OLCJ TOUTll
OL)Wl Ofl]J 8EO\JpyLKl~JTEpllV El1TEll' 1TEp'L
m!n0i'.
86. Most scholars admit the diffe-
rence of philosophical styles between
Porphyry and Iamblichus (although cer-
tain qualifications need to be made) and
the primal importance of Iamblichus for
late Athenian Neoplatonism. Cf. Karl
Praechter, Richtungen und SciJulen im
Neuplatonismus, in: Genethliakon fOr
C.Ro!Jert,Berlin, l910,p.10S; 119 ("Die
Richtung der Athener stimmt mit der des
Iamblich vollkommen iiberein."); 121;
141 ("Von Porphyrios trennt ihn [sc.Iam-
blich] auf dem Hauptgebiete philoso-
phischer Arbeit eine tiefe Kluft, hingegen
ist von ihm zu Proklos vollkommen
ebene Balm").
87. Cf. A. Smith, Porpby1y's Place in
tbe Neoplatonic Tradition. A Study in
Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, The
Hague, 1974, p. 117 (commenting on
"Olympiodorus" = Damascius In Pbaed.
I § 144): "A familiar pattern emerges -
Iamblichus as originator of an idea, Pro-
cl us as expounder and refiner."
88. Damascius I § 172, L.G.Westerink,
The Greek Commentaries on Plato's
Phaedo, Volume !I, Damascius,Amster-
dam - Oxford - New York, 1977, p. I 05
(trans. L.G.Westerink):"To some philoso-
phy is primary (iht ol )lEV Ti]V <jlLAOOO·
qJ[av 1Tpl1TlpWCJLI'), as to Porphyry and Plo-
tinus and a great many other philoso-
phers; to others hieratic practice (oi 8E
Ti]v tEpantojv), as to Iamblichus, Syria-
nus, Proclus, and the hieratic school gene-
rally. Plato, however, recognizing that
strong arguments can be advanced from
both sides, has united the two into one
single truth by calling the philosopher a
'Bacchus' "On Plotinus', Iamblichus' and
Porphyry's attitude to theurgy, see A.
Smith,PorjJ!Jyrv's Place in the Neoplato-
nic Tradition, eh. 9, esp. p. 139-141.
89. One may compare Marinus Vita
Procli 22.
90. The famous doctrine of the
r'J~OLLuO'lS' 8Et;l, based on Theaet. l76AB.
Appendix I
I.The One
1. The One, i.e. the first God
II. The Transcendent Gods
2. The intelligible Gods
(Being)
3. The intelligible-intellective
Gods (Life)
91. Cf. In Tim. 1.:301.22-302.14.
92. Cf. Epist. VII, 342A7-03.
93. Cf. In Tim. 1.303.8-16. Proclus
does not seem to take into account that
Plato actually merely says that it is impos-
sible to explain his nature to euer)!Oile.
94. Cf. A. Smith, Porphyt)''s Place in
t!Je Neoplatonic Tradition, p. 119:"From
Jamblichus onwards the human is una-
ble to attain direct knowledge where
subject and object are identical. This is
reserved to the divine level and can only
be achieved by man when, with the help
2.1./imit, unlimited, intelligible being
2.2.1imit, zmlinlited, intelligible lite
2.3. limit, unlimited, intelligible
inrellect (111/xture)
3.1. fJeing, life, intellect
:L2. being, l(f'e. intellect
3.5. being, life, hztcl/ect
of the gods, he t•·anscends himself and
his own limited nous.The ordinary nous
of man will always stand outside the
object it contemplates. never be united
with it, nor experience it, until aided by
thcurgy which enables it to he united
with its object and become the sort of
nous and enjoy the sort of v(nlOL'O that
we tind in Plotinus."And p. 120:"Thus for
Proclus thcurgy is not a way of by-pas-
sing noesis hut rather the only means of
attaining it_''

Etudes platoniciennes If Etudes jJ/atoniciennes If

 282 JAN OPSOMER TO FIND THE MAKER AND FA'J'l!ER 283

4.The intellective Gods
(Intellect)
Til.The Gods of the World
'5.The lrypercosmic Gods
(assimilative)
6. The hypercosmic-encosmic
Gods (apnluto{)
7.The encosmic Gods
8. The universal Souls
9.The Superior Kinds
(intelligible souls)
4.1. triad of the "parents"
4. 1.1. pure intellect (Kronos)
4.1.2. intellective life (R11ea)
4.1.3. demiurgic intellect (Zeus)
4.2. triad of the "immaculate"
4.2.1.Athena
4.2.2. Kore
4.2.3. Kouretes
4.3. the "seventh divinity"
5.1. dcmiurgic triad(= Zeus):
Zeus2, Poscidon, Hades
5.2. life-giving triad (= Kore):
Artemis, Persephone,Athena
5.3. converting triad(= Apollo)
'5.4. immaculate triad (= Cory-
bantes)
6.1. demiurgic Gods: Zeus3,
Poseidon2, Hephaestus
6.2. guardian Gods: Hestia,
Athena2,Ares
6.3. life-giving Gods: Demeterz,
Hera2,Artemis2
6.4. educating Gods: Bermes,
Aphrodite2,Apollo2
[analogous to the preceding]
celestial gods not errant: stars
errant: planets
sublunary gods
Angels
Demons
Heroes
T<'l TTQV T(J<'JE: TT<lV (,)00. 13-2'-f) and TUht (300.2·1-28)
E1JpELV TE Epyov (300 28-.)02. 2))
Eup6vTa llil 50vcnov AEyELv (302.2'5·.">03.23)
3. The wider issue (TlS tS bfl)l Louf)yclS' tltJT<lS' 1w\. Ev TTOL\J ni(u
TETCXKTm Tc0v OVTUJ ') (303.24-319.21)
3.1.Who is the Demiurge? (303.24-317.20)
3.1.1.Views of";mcient" philosophers (303.26-310.2)
1. Numenius (5<)5.27-304.22)
2. Harpocration (">04.22-30'5.(>)
3. Atticus (305.6-16)
cf. Plotinus (:>.05.16-306. L)
'S.Amdius (506.1-31)
6. Porphyry (30()_) 1-14)
7. Iamblichus (307.14-309. 13)
8.Theodorus (309.14-.310.2)
3.1.2.The view of Syrian us and Proclus (310.3-317.20)
The Demiurge is a divine intellect responsible for the creation
in its entirety. Both Orpheus and Plato call him Zeus.
3.2. To which class of beings does the Demiurge belong?
(317.20-319.21)
At first sight the Demiurge is to be equated with the third of
the apxLKOL mentioned by Julian the The urge. But it is better to situate
the Demiurge beyond the triad of the Fathers that are called npxL )(()[.
and to call him the unique causal source (as in the Oracles).

AjJpendix 2. Proclus' discussion of Tim. 28C3-5: Sur-

vey

I. lNTRO!lUCTION (299.13-21)
299.19-21: ~flcJs· iiE: TTpunov XP~ T~v \E'~Lv auTllv Ka8' m!TTjV
E~E Tciom·Tuc; E: TIEL nt ounJ TTpllS' T~v oA11v 8EL,JpCav dva8paf1ELV.

2. EXPLANATION OF ISOLATED TERMS (299.21-303.23)

TTCXT~pand 1TOL llTTlS' (299.21-300.13)
[Porphyryl
, Etudes platonicfeunes I!
 Responsable de publication :
ETUDES

]ean-Fran<.;ois Pracleau
(Universite de Paris X - Nanterre,
PLATONICIENNES
Institut Universitaire de France)

II

Comite de rcdaction .
Publication annuclle
Luc Brisson (Paris), Marie-Laurcnce Desclos (Grenoble), de la
Louis-Andre Dorion (Montreal), Societe cl'Etudes Platoniciennes
Francesco Fronterotta (Lecce), Francisco L Lisi (Madrid),
Denis O'Brien (Paris)

Publie avec le concours

de l'lnstituto de Estudios Clasicos sabre la Sociedad
y la Politica Lucio Anneo Seneca,
du Dipartimento di Filoso(ia dell'Universita
degli Studi di Lecce
et du Departement de Pbilosophie de l'UniversiUJ
de Paris X- Nantcrre

Adresse cle la redaction ·

Etudes platoniciennes I Snciete d'Etudes Platoniciennes

101, rue de Fontenay
94300 Vincennes
Paris
e-mail : sep@agalma.net Les Belles Lettres
2006