Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
Standard view View as tree
Proportional text Fixed text
8 messages - Collapse all
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
ewd View profile
More options Sep 7 2006, 5:46 am
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: ewd <
e...@ono.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:46:01 +0200
Local: Thurs, Sep 7 2006 5:46 am
Subject: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello, I recommend this book to anyone seriously interested in Atlantis,
it covers the Timaeus and the Critias (or 'Atlantic'), going into great
detail as to how the story was passed down to Plato and providing an
excellent analysis of which passages of the Egyptian priest's account
should be considered as flattery/mockery (namely the inclusion of
'ancient Athenians' in the account) and which should be taken seriously.
Most importantly, it provides the most satisfactory explanation I've
read as to the '9000 years ago' dilemma. When the priest refers to a
270,000 year cycle at the beginning of the dialog, Proclus divides this
by 10 (10 Egyptian months per year) and explains that the priest is
referring to the approx. 27,000-year 'earth wobble cycle, but when it
comes to the 9000 years, he does not divide by 10 and recalls that the
Timaeus is clearly a Pythagorean dialog and that among Pythagoreans 9000
years corresponded to the last 1000 years before the 10,000-year soul
ascent/descent cycle, in other words it's really like saying 'almost one
soul cycle ago' and is not to be taken literally.
Erick
Reply Reply to author Forward
usul View profile
More options Sep 7 2006, 3:24 pm
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: usul <
usul10...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:24:36 +0100
Local: Thurs, Sep 7 2006 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
ewd wrote:
> Hello, I recommend this book to anyone seriously interested in Atlantis,
> it covers the Timaeus and the Critias (or 'Atlantic'), going into great
> detail as to how the story was passed down to Plato and providing an
> excellent analysis of which passages of the Egyptian priest's account
> should be considered as flattery/mockery (namely the inclusion of
> 'ancient Athenians' in the account) and which should be taken seriously.
i've gone back to the french translation of that book in my library (A.
J. Festugiere, 1966-1968) and did not find more than a general
explanation in philosophical terms.
> Most importantly, it provides the most satisfactory explanation I've
> read as to the '9000 years ago' dilemma. When the priest refers to a
> 270,000 year cycle at the beginning of the dialog, Proclus divides this
> by 10 (10 Egyptian months per year) and explains that the priest is
> referring to the approx. 27,000-year 'earth wobble cycle, but when it
> comes to the 9000 years, he does not divide by 10 and recalls that the
> Timaeus is clearly a Pythagorean dialog and that among Pythagoreans 9000
> years corresponded to the last 1000 years before the 10,000-year soul
> ascent/descent cycle, in other words it's really like saying 'almost one
> soul cycle ago' and is not to be taken literally.
> Erick
again, according to Festugiere, in Proclus the 9000 were explained in
platonic cosmological terms, which of course is a philosophical
interpretation as we would expect from a 28 y.o. platonic student in the
5th century a.d..
besides, in the original Timaeus (III, 21-27) the priest of Sais is said
to have spoken of 8.000 years referring to their archives + 1000 years
because the Athenians are supposed to have built their republic first,
and that is all as far as time is concerned, if we leave aside the "long
time intervals" regarding the bodies falling from outer space, a detail
which, were it all a philosophical debate, had no need to be there.
Reply Reply to author Forward
ewd View profile
More options Sep 7 2006, 6:40 pm
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: ewd <
e...@ono.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:40:53 +0200
Local: Thurs, Sep 7 2006 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> i've gone back to the french translation of that book in my library (A.
> J. Festugiere, 1966-1968) and did not find more than a general
> explanation in philosophical terms.
> again, according to Festugiere, in Proclus the 9000 were explained in
> platonic cosmological terms, which of course is a philosophical
> interpretation as we would expect from a 28 y.o. platonic student in the
> 5th century a.d..
> besides, in the original Timaeus (III, 21-27) the priest of Sais is said
> to have spoken of 8.000 years referring to their archives + 1000 years
> because the Athenians are supposed to have built their republic first,
> and that is all as far as time is concerned, if we leave aside the "long
> time intervals" regarding the bodies falling from outer space, a detail
> which, were it all a philosophical debate, had no need to be there.
Proclus covers this 8000/9000 years issue (section 146 of volume I), he
covers every possible aspect: when and where the discussion took place,
who participated, the Critias family and their relationship with Plato,
Solon's travels and why he didn't have time to write the account
himself, in-depth analysis of the priest's account, examples of islands
and coastal cities destroyed by cataclysms in antiquity, and, of course,
explanations in philosophical terms, which are extremely useful because
Plato was a philosopher and the Timaeus is full of Pythagorean
analogies, and not vague at all, in my opinion. His young age does not
bother me at all, and the fact that he wrote so long ago I consider as
an advantage when trying to understand an even older text.
Reply Reply to author Forward
usul View profile
More options Sep 8 2006, 3:22 am
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: usul <
usul10...@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:22:54 +0100
Local: Fri, Sep 8 2006 3:22 am
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> Proclus covers this 8000/9000 years issue (section 146 of volume I), he
> covers every possible aspect: when and where the discussion took place,
> who participated, the Critias family and their relationship with Plato,
> Solon's travels and why he didn't have time to write the account
> himself, in-depth analysis of the priest's account, examples of islands
> and coastal cities destroyed by cataclysms in antiquity, and, of course,
> explanations in philosophical terms, which are extremely useful because
> Plato was a philosopher and the Timaeus is full of Pythagorean
> analogies, and not vague at all, in my opinion. His young age does not
> bother me at all, and the fact that he wrote so long ago I consider as
> an advantage when trying to understand an even older text.
i have seen that; interesting, but nothing to do with Atlantis!
as i said, it is a rather philosophical commentary with no intention to
debate on Atlantis as such but only referring to the metaphysical and
ethical implications of some of the concepts within it.
i do agree about the importance of the author being close to the time of
Plato; as a matter of fact, Crantor (300 b.c.) was even closer and he
considered Timaeus no fiction at all and this is reported in Proclus's
work too.
as far as the age he had when he wrote the commentary, it is generally
acknowledged that Proclus wrote his best works when he was even younger;
nonetheless, he was obviously more concerned with the philosophical
aspects of the tale rather than with the possible historical references.
this is why Crantor, they say, decided to go to Egypt to find evidences
on Atlantis, which he found it seems on some pillars.
anyhow, the critical element is still the 9000 years; on this, i have to
say again that aside the reference to the 10000 cosmic cycle, which is
still merely an opinion, nothing else is mentioned in the french
translation i have and the priest of Sais said nothing more and nothing
less that: "i'm not troubled Solon and i will speak for you and for your
city and especially to honor the goddess who got in chance your city and
this one and raised and instructed them, yours 1000 years earlier ...
and of this order of ours it is recalled the age of 8000 years in our
holy scriptures; hence i'll tell you shortly about the laws and the most
beautiful enterprise of your citizens lived 9000 years ago ... you'll
find here ...".
if i remember correctly, Herodotus recalls that Egyptians used pillars
to record history and that they had as many as 3xx pillars going back
around 9000 years counting the generations described, but to many of our
contemporaries Herodotus is "unreliable".
so, isn't it quite reasonable that Plato used Atlantis for his
philosophical purposes adding concepts to a real information gathered,
why not, by Solon, rather by himself. moreover, Plutarch says so.
Reply Reply to author Forward
ewd View profile
More options Sep 9 2006, 11:14 am
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: ewd <
e...@ono.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:14:34 +0200
Local: Sat, Sep 9 2006 11:14 am
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> i have seen that; interesting, but nothing to do with Atlantis!
> as i said, it is a rather philosophical commentary with no intention to
> debate on Atlantis as such but only referring to the metaphysical and
> ethical implications of some of the concepts within it.
You know, it covers the entire Timaeus, which is indeed one of Plato's
most abstract dialogues, so if you just leaf through you're definitely
going to hit a lot of metaphysical stuff. But when it deals with
Atlantis it's pretty thorough and clear, especially for the time, and
obviously intended for a public already divided as to whether Atlantis
existed or not. Like I said in my previous post, he covers every
possible aspect, ie, handing down of account via Solon and Critias
family, geolophysical feasibility, with examples of past cataclysms,
mentions Gades (Cadiz) in Spain, even Ireland (says the Romans did not
invade Ireland because of respect for the mysticism of its inhabitants,
it's pretty interesting ). I agree that when he analyzes the priest's
account he sometimes gets very metaphysical, but that's because he's
trying to place it within the perspective of the very abstract Timaeus
dialog as a whole, not just the end part dealing with Atlantis.
There's a lot of interesting things in there, for example, despite it
being a Commentary on the Timaeus, does cover the Critias (he calls it
The Atlantic) out of respect for the whole Atlantis thing and says the
missing end was going to be another dialog called Hermocrates (the
fourth person present, with Socrates, Timaeus and Critias). Whatever, I
got a kick out of it and I definitely think it has a lot to do with
Atlantis.
> i do agree about the importance of the author being close to the time of
> Plato; as a matter of fact, Crantor (300 b.c.) was even closer and he
> considered Timaeus no fiction at all and this is reported in Proclus's
> work too
Thank you very much for this information
> as far as the age he had when he wrote the commentary, it is generally
> acknowledged that Proclus wrote his best works when he was even younger;
> nonetheless, he was obviously more concerned with the philosophical
> aspects of the tale rather than with the possible historical references.
> this is why Crantor, they say, decided to go to Egypt to find evidences
> on Atlantis, which he found it seems on some pillars.
> anyhow, the critical element is still the 9000 years;
What I'm saying is that it might not be that critical, again, Proclus
says 9000 years is Pythagorean and means 'almost one soul cycle ago'
on this, i have to
> say again that aside the reference to the 10000 cosmic cycle, which is
> still merely an opinion, nothing else is mentioned in the french
> translation i have and the priest of Sais said nothing more and nothing
> less that: "i'm not troubled Solon and i will speak for you and for your
> city and especially to honor the goddess who got in chance your city and
> this one and raised and instructed them, yours 1000 years earlier ...
> and of this order of ours it is recalled the age of 8000 years in our
> holy scriptures; hence i'll tell you shortly about the laws and the most
> beautiful enterprise of your citizens lived 9000 years ago ... you'll
> find here ...".
> if i remember correctly, Herodotus recalls that Egyptians used pillars
> to record history and that they had as many as 3xx pillars going back
> around 9000 years counting the generations described, but to many of our
> contemporaries Herodotus is "unreliable".
Yeah, they call him the father of lies don't they, but maybe he wasn't
bullshitting this time, could be the Pythagorean '9000 years' again
(Pythagoras spent 22 years in Egypt)
> so, isn't it quite reasonable that Plato used Atlantis for his
> philosophical purposes adding concepts to a real information gathered,
> why not, by Solon, rather by himself. moreover, Plutarch says so.
Exactly, so does Proclus, that's why he partly analyzes the whole
Atlantis account in a metaphysical way, within the context of the
Timaeus. He sees distortions at the root, in the priest's account, and
he even admits that Plato himself may have molded the account and
usedit for his purposes, as an example of a virtuous society battling a
powerful and corrupt one. But Proclus thoroughly rejects the idea that
Plato invented the whole thing. He explains that the Timaeus is the
conversation the day after The Republic (ie, the great conversation
praised at the beginning of the Timaeus is the conversation in The
Republic). Proclus points out that the day before (in The Republic)
Socrates had expressed his contempt for excessive fiction, that it
corrupts the young, so when Socrates asks Critias to tell that
interesting story handed down to his family by Solon, it is pretty
unlikely that Critias would tell a fictious tale. I find this very
interesting too.
Reply Reply to author Forward
usul View profile
More options Sep 10 2006, 11:06 am
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: usul <
usul10...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:06:58 +0100
Local: Sun, Sep 10 2006 11:06 am
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> You know, it covers the entire Timaeus, which is indeed one of Plato's
> most abstract dialogues, so if you just leaf through you're definitely
> going to hit a lot of metaphysical stuff. But when it deals with
> Atlantis it's pretty thorough and clear, especially for the time, and
> obviously intended for a public already divided as to whether Atlantis
> existed or not ....
i loved going back to reading this commentary and comparing it to what
is said in Phoedrus about the soul cycle. for this thanks.
i do not know if this last edition in english looks the same as the
french one. in the latter you could see a general explanation followed
by Porphyrius's interpretation of Timaeus, compared to the Jamblique's
and Proclus's ones. the general explanation on the 9000 is pythagorean
allright (8000=2**3 x 10**3; 9000=3**2 x 10**3 etc...); Porphyrius
supports the soul cycle theory; Jamblique refuses to link the 9000 to
Phoedrus and yet he ends his speech stating that "this is what is
symbolized by the number 9000, which matches very well the excellent
political regime of the Athenians", a political explanation so to speak.
> ... the missing end was going to be another dialog called Hermocrates (the
> fourth person present, with Socrates, Timaeus and Critias)
Timaeus deals with Atlantis very shortly; Critias is supposed to be
dedicated but is incomplete; Hermocrates never started.
Plutarch says: "Plato, ambitiously willing to discuss the subject of
Atlantis widely and with embellishments as soil of a lush and fertile
now deserted land, holding the subject suitable because of his
relationship with Solon, began his work describing large portals, walls
and halls such as in no tale, fable or poem had ever been described
before ...".
Critias was suspended in 365 b.c. when Plato was 63; Plato died 18 years
later, in 347 b.c. at 81. in 18 years he never resumed and finished this
important philosopical work. instead, he devoted himself to writing
"Laws" in 360 b.c., after his quarrel with the tyrant of Syracuse.
what could have hold him from finishing something so important if it
dealt just with things he had in his head, like the philosophical
theories of his time?!
> What I'm saying is that it might not be that critical, again, Proclus
> says 9000 years is Pythagorean and means 'almost one soul cycle ago' ...
if we take it as a link to Phoedrus's theory, which is a theory itself,
we solve the problem of the 9000 and are left with a question mark about
when did the Atlantean culture vanish? the Atlanteans-Athenians
connection is of little use, because we are pretty sure it is symbolic.
so, we have a big disaster, happended some time in the past of Egypt,
taken as the will of the Gods, annihilating the Atlantean culture and
described as a consequence of an impact because this is the most serious
cause of death and destruction for men mentioned by the priest. if we
say that also this disaster belongs to metaphysics, there goes Atlantis,
which however contradicts many authors of old.
if we don't and consequently search evidence of such events we find 9650
b.c., perhaps 8400 b.c. a meteor shower, certainly 2500 b.c. a meteor
shower that almost destroyed the 5th Dinasty.
9650 b.c. is 9000 years earlier than the time of Solon.
so, is it mainly philosophical or is it mainly real?!
couldn't it be a way out that Plato used the little historical
information gathered through Solon in a metaphysical sense for the
purpose described by Plutarch?! in this case we would have little
historical evidence on one side, what is judged as a pure philosophical
interpretation on the other side and the problem to see the line between
them in our hands, which is not an unusual situation when we deal with
the early Neolithic Age.
this would explain why Plato did not finish his work in 18 years: since
his work was not fictional, as Crantor said, he needed to know more but
he couldn't, hence turning his attention to something more useful such
as Laws, in times when Politics had become insensitive to the great
Philosophy.
Reply Reply to author Forward
ewd View profile
More options Sep 10 2006, 12:00 pm
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: ewd <
e...@ono.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:00:35 +0200
Local: Sun, Sep 10 2006 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
9000 years in the Phaedrus too... very interesting, thanks for pointing
this out, looks like 9000 years was very popular indeed (Timaeus,
Phaedrus, Pythagoras, Herodotus ...)
(PS: je crois qu'en anglais Jamblique c'est Iamblichus
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> i loved going back to reading this commentary and comparing it to what
> is said in Phoedrus about the soul cycle. for this thanks.
> i do not know if this last edition in english looks the same as the
> french one. in the latter you could see a general explanation followed
> by Porphyrius's interpretation of Timaeus, compared to the Jamblique's
> and Proclus's ones. the general explanation on the 9000 is pythagorean
> allright (8000=2**3 x 10**3; 9000=3**2 x 10**3 etc...); Porphyrius
> supports the soul cycle theory; Jamblique refuses to link the 9000 to
> Phoedrus and yet he ends his speech stating that "this is what is
> symbolized by the number 9000, which matches very well the excellent
> political regime of the Athenians", a political explanation so to speak.
> Timaeus deals with Atlantis very shortly; Critias is supposed to be
> dedicated but is incomplete; Hermocrates never started.
> Plutarch says: "Plato, ambitiously willing to discuss the subject of
> Atlantis widely and with embellishments as soil of a lush and fertile
> now deserted land, holding the subject suitable because of his
> relationship with Solon, began his work describing large portals, walls
> and halls such as in no tale, fable or poem had ever been described
> before ...".
> Critias was suspended in 365 b.c. when Plato was 63; Plato died 18 years
> later, in 347 b.c. at 81. in 18 years he never resumed and finished this
> important philosopical work. instead, he devoted himself to writing
> "Laws" in 360 b.c., after his quarrel with the tyrant of Syracuse.
> what could have hold him from finishing something so important if it
> dealt just with things he had in his head, like the philosophical
> theories of his time?!
> if we take it as a link to Phoedrus's theory, which is a theory itself,
> we solve the problem of the 9000 and are left with a question mark about
> when did the Atlantean culture vanish? the Atlanteans-Athenians
> connection is of little use, because we are pretty sure it is symbolic.
> so, we have a big disaster, happended some time in the past of Egypt,
> taken as the will of the Gods, annihilating the Atlantean culture and
> described as a consequence of an impact because this is the most serious
> cause of death and destruction for men mentioned by the priest. if we
> say that also this disaster belongs to metaphysics, there goes Atlantis,
> which however contradicts many authors of old.
> if we don't and consequently search evidence of such events we find 9650
> b.c., perhaps 8400 b.c. a meteor shower, certainly 2500 b.c. a meteor
> shower that almost destroyed the 5th Dinasty.
> 9650 b.c. is 9000 years earlier than the time of Solon.
> so, is it mainly philosophical or is it mainly real?!
> couldn't it be a way out that Plato used the little historical
> information gathered through Solon in a metaphysical sense for the
> purpose described by Plutarch?! in this case we would have little
> historical evidence on one side, what is judged as a pure philosophical
> interpretation on the other side and the problem to see the line between
> them in our hands, which is not an unusual situation when we deal with
> the early Neolithic Age.
> this would explain why Plato did not finish his work in 18 years: since
> his work was not fictional, as Crantor said, he needed to know more but
> he couldn't, hence turning his attention to something more useful such
> as Laws, in times when Politics had become insensitive to the great
> Philosophy.
Reply Reply to author Forward
usul View profile
More options Sep 11 2006, 6:22 am
Newsgroups: alt.legend.atlantis
From: usul <
usul10...@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:22:32 +0100
Local: Mon, Sep 11 2006 6:22 am
Subject: Re: Commentary on the Timaeus, by Proclus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
ewd wrote:
> 9000 years in the Phaedrus too... very interesting, thanks for pointing
> this out, looks like 9000 years was very popular indeed (Timaeus,
> Phaedrus, Pythagoras, Herodotus ...)
> (PS: je crois qu'en anglais Jamblique c'est Iamblichus
Iamblichus, noted, thanks!
no, Phaedrus does not mention the 9000.
here is what is said in that dialogue, which deals with the struggle of
soul for elevation towards perfect knowledge (sorry for this rough
translation):
"the true reason why souls struggle so much to find the Truth Plain is
that in it there is the most suitable pasture for the best part of the
soul and that from this the nature of the wing feeds itself in order to
rise; and here is the Adrasteas's law: ........... that no soul goes
back to where it started earlier than 10000 years because it doesn't get
wings in less than that, except the soul which with firm belief seeks
knowledge or loves youth according to that knowledge. If for 3 times
1000 years they have repeatedly chosen this philosophical lifestyle,
such souls get their wings and at the end of the 3rd millennium they
leave. the others, after their 1st life, come to judgement .. some serve
their sentence in the dungeons, others lifted by Justice to some
heavenly site, live there according to the worth of thier past human
life. at the end of the 1000 years both come to draw and must choose the
next life ...". the rest deals with metempsychosis then goes back to the
main path.
Pythagoras identifies the cosmic structure and the soul with the armony
of numbers and believed in metempsychosis.
Both have been influenced by eastern metaphysics.
Plato met 2 pythagoreans in 388 b.c. during his trip to Sicily
and southern Italy. if we say that Plato thought to be 1000 years from
the completion of the cycle, 9000 down by 1000, to state that Athenians
created the perfect state first, and we get to the 8000 age of the
egyptian archives, everything with magic numbers, cubes and squares.
in this field there could be 100s of pythagorean hypothesis: want
another one?
9000, down 1000 for the basic soul cycle = 8000 for the egyptian archives.
1000 is perfect because it holds the 0 (3 times), the unit, both of them
in the 10, and the 3 (10**3),that is the cube which is the 3dimensional
square, that is twice the 2 (=1+1) in 2**2. 8000 as well!
Herodotus reports 345 statues (not pillars, sorry) each one representing
a generation. 345 x 26|27 = 8970|9315, pretty close to the figure given
by the egyptian priest. 26|27 is a likely estimate of the average gap
between generations, but, as they say, he is a lier!
