Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii

Τούτων δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος δεδειγμένων πρὸς μὲν τὸ πρῶτον | ἀπορεῖται, πόθεν τὰ κακά· καὶ γὰρ εἴτε θεόθεν, ψευδὴς λόγος ὁ δεικνὺς μόνων ἀγαθῶν τὸ θεῖον αἴτιον· εἴτε ἀλλαχόθεν, εἰ μὲν ἐκεῖνο θεόθεν, πολλῷ μειζόνως τὸ θεῖον αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν· εἰ δὲ μὴ θεόθεν, αἱ ἀρχαὶ πλείους μιᾶς, ἣ μὲν ἀγαθῶν ἣ δὲ κακῶν. πρὸς δὲ τὸ δεύτερον, πῶς αἱ αὐτοφάνειαι γίγνονται τῶν θεῶν, φαινομένων τότε μὲν ἀτυπώτων φώτων, τότε δὲ τετυπωμένων· μὴ γὰρ προισέμενοι ταῦτα τὴν ἱερατικὴν ὅλην ἀνατρέπομεν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν θεουργῶν, καὶ ἄνευ τούτων τὰς αὐτομάτους ἐπιφανείας τῶν θεῶν ἐν σχήμασιν ἄλλοτε φανταζομένων. φανταζομένων. ἄπορον οὖν πῶς μὴ μεταβάλλον τι τῶν θείων ἐν διαφόροις αὐτοπτεῖται μορφαῖς. πρὸς δὲ τὸ τρίτον, πῶς χρησμοῖ δίδονται ψευδεῖς τῶν χρώντων μὴ ψευδομένων, ὧν τὰ χρηστήρια μεστὰ πάντα· καὶ πῶς οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ πρὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ὄντος διὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν οἱ θεοὶ καὶ ψεύσονταί ποτε καὶ ἀπατήσουσι τοὺς ἀναξίους τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτόθεν τυχεῖν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἄν τις διαπορήσειεν πρὸς τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους, καίτοι δι᾿ ἀναγκαίων ἀποδεδειγμένους.

These things having been demonstrated by Plato, with regard to the first [type] the difficulty is raised: where do evils come from? For if they come from god, the argument that shows the divine to be the cause of good things only is false; if from elsewhere, then if that [source] is from god, the divine is all the more the cause of evils; but if it is not from god, the principles are more than one, one of goods and the other of evils. With regard to the second: how do the self-manifestations of the gods come about, when at one time unshaped lights appear, at another shaped ones? For if we do not admit these, we overturn the whole hieratic art and the works of the theurgists, and, apart from these, the spontaneous epiphanies of the gods, who appear at different times in [different] shapes. So it is a puzzle how something divine, which does not change, is seen in person in different forms. With regard to the third: how are false oracles given, when those who give the oracles do not lie — oracles of which all the oracular shrines are full? And how, since the good is prior to truth, will the gods not, for the sake of the good, sometimes lie and deceive those unworthy to attain the truth directly? These are the difficulties one might raise against the arguments stated, although they have been proved from necessary [premises].

Τὴν μὲν ἀναβίωσιν τοῦ Ἠρὸς οὐκ ἄλλην ἢ τὴν εἴσοδον εἰς τὸ σῶμα τῆς χωρισθείσης ψυχῆς εἶναι λέγοντες ὀρθῶς ἐροῦμεν· βίος γάρ ἐστιν αὐτῆς ἡ κοινὴ ζωὴ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος· ταύτης οὖν τὴν ἀνάκτησιν ἀναβίωσιν ἐκάλεσεν, μεταβολὴν οὖσαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ζωῆς ἐπὶ τὴν κοινὴν καὶ σύνθετον. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐξιέναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ εἰσιέναι δυνατὸν εἰς τὸ σῶμα, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κλεάρχῳ τῇ ψυχουλκῷ ῥάβδῳ χρησάμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ μειρακίου τοῦ καθεύδοντος καὶ πείσας τὸν δαιμόνιον Ἀριστοτέλη, καθάπερ ὁ Κλέαρχος ἐν τοῖς περὶ ὕπνου φησίν, περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς ἄρα χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὡς εἴσεισιν εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὡς χρῆται αὐτῷ οἷον καταγωγίῳ· τῇ γὰρ ῥάβδῳ πλήξας τὸν παῖδα τήν ψυχήν ἐξείλκυσεν καὶ οἷον ἄγων δι᾿ αὐτῆς πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἀκίνη|τον ἐνέδειξε τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἀβλαβὲς σῳζόμενον ἀναισθητεῖν προσ . . . 15 . . . γραφόντων ὅμοιον ἀψύχῳ· ἐκείνην δὲ μεταξὺ διενεχθεῖσαν πόρρω τοῦ σώματος ἐγγύθεν αὐτῆς ἀγομένης πάλιν τῆς ῥάβδου μετὰ τὴν εἴσοδον ἀπαγγέλλειν ἕκαστα. τοιγαροῦν ἐκ τούτων πιστεῦσαι τούς τε ἄλλους τῆς τοιαύτης ἱστορίας θεατὰς καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην χωριστην εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ὅπερ λέγω, τὸ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξιέναι τε δύνασθαι τοῦ σώματος καὶ αὖθις εἰσιέναι καὶ ἔμπνουν ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἀπελελοίπει, ταῦτά τε δηλοῖ πάλαι τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν τοῦ Περιπάτου γεγραμμένα, καὶ ὅσα τοῖς ἐπὶ Μάρκου θεουργοῖς ἐκδέδοται πίστιν ἐναργῆ πορίζει τοῦ λόγου. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι διὰ δή τινος τελετῆς τὸ αὐτὸ δρῶσιν εἰς τὸν τελούμενον· καὶ ἔστι πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον οὐκ ἀνθρώπινον, ἀλλὰ δαιμόνιον τὸ μηχάνημα καὶ θεῖον. ὥστ᾿ οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη θαυμαστόν, εἰ καὶ τῶν προκειμένων θεαμάτων τὸν ἄγαθοειδῆ βούλησιν ἐξελθεῖν τε τοῦ σώματος ἀδιαφθόρου μένοντος καὶ ἐξελθόντα δύναμιν προσλαβεῖν θεωρὸν τῶν ἀοράτων ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἡμῶν καὶ μνήμην ὧν εἶδεν καὶ ἔκφασιν· οὐ γὰρ τὴν τυχοῦσαν εἶναι ταύτην ψυχήν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο παρὰ θεῶν γέρας λαβοῦσαν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας ψυχὰς ὑπεροχήν, εἰ μὲν βούλει, καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο δυσπαράδεκτον, διὰ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς θεοπρεπές· κωλύει μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν καὶ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν αὐτὴν ἐκείνων δια|φέρειν καὶ ὡς ἐγγυτέρω θεῶν οὖσαν [τετυχηκέ]ναι ταύτης <τῆς> αὐτοψίς· ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ [περὶ ἄλ]λων ψυχῶν χρησμοὶ διδάσκαλοι [γεγόνα]σιν, ἄνωθεν αὐτὰς ἐξ ὑπερτέρων ἡκούσας σειρῶν καὶ τάξεων ἡγεμονικωτέρων ἐκφῆναι τῶν θείων ἀγαθῶν ταῖς ὑφειμέναις πολλὰ καὶ ἀλήπτων ἐκείναις. Εἰ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο λέγοι τις ἄδηλον, ἐκεῖνό γε παντὶ γνώριμον, ὅτι τὴν παροῦσαν ζωὴν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἄγγελον τούτων ὑπερέχουσαν προστησάμενον μενον τῶν ὁμοταγῶν ἄξιον πεφηνέναι τῆς ἀγγελικῆς ταύτης τάξεως πρὸς ἐκείνας. καὶ γὰρ ὁρᾶν ἔξεστιν, ὅπως ἡ μέθεξις τῆς κατὰ πρόνοιαν δόσεως, ἄνωθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἠργμένη τῶν θεῶν, καὶ ἡ κατὰ νοῦν ἐκφαντορικὴ τῶν θείων δύνα μις κατὰ μικρὸν ὑφιζάνουσα πρόεισι διὰ τῶν μέσων, ἐν οἷς τὸ προσεχὲς δήπου τοῖς θεοῖς ὁμοιότερον ὂν αὐτοῖς τῶν πορρώτερον οὕτω διαπορθμενύει τὴν παρ᾿ ἐκείνοις ἱδρυμένην ἀλήθειαν· πρῶτος μὲν οὗτος ὁρᾷ τὰ θεῖα· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον παρέχονται τὴν αὐτοφανῆ γνῶσιν δι᾿ ἀκοῆς, οἷς ἐκεῖνος ἐξήγγειλεν· εἶθ᾿ οἱ μετ᾿ ἐκείνους παραδεξάμενοι καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνων † περὶ ὧν ἤκουσαν τὴν φήμην. τοῦτο δὲ τεκμήριον ἐναργὲς τοῦ πορρώτερον ἤ ἐγγύτερον ὄντος αὐτῶν τῶν θείων φασμάτων· οἷς ὁ πρώτιστος ὁμιλήσας δήπου τῶν ἄλλων θεοειδέστερος. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ τὴν ἀκοὴν εὐτυχῆσαι τούτων ἄνευ τῆς ἐκ θεῶν καθηκούσης ἐγὼ θείην ἂν εὐμοιρίας, ὥστε πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν θείαν εἴς τινα τῆς ζωῆς ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἀνήκουσαν ὑπάρχειν.

We shall be right to say that Er's return to life was nothing other than the entry into the body of the soul that had been separated from it; for its bios [life lived in a body] is its common life with the body; the recovery of this, then, he called anabiōsis [return to bios], since it is a change from its own proper life to the common and composite one. That the soul can both go out of the body and come into it is shown also by the man in Clearchus who used the soul-drawing wand on the sleeping youth, and who persuaded the divine Aristotle, as Clearchus says in his books On Sleep, about the soul: that it is separated from the body, that it enters into the body, and that it uses it as a kind of lodging. For striking the boy with the wand, he drew out his soul, and, as it were leading it by means of the wand far from the body, he showed that the body was motionless and, though kept unharmed, insensible [...] like a lifeless thing; and that the soul, carried meanwhile far from the body, when the wand was brought near it again, after its entry reported every detail. Accordingly, from this both the other spectators of this kind of inquiry and Aristotle were convinced that the soul is separable from the body. This, then, which I am saying — that the soul can go out of the body and enter it again, and make what it had left breathe once more — is shown by these things written long ago by the leaders of the Peripatos; and whatever has been handed down by the theurgists of the time of Marcus provides clear proof of the account. For they too, by a certain rite, do the same thing to the person being initiated; and every such contrivance is not human but daemonic and divine. So it would be no wonder if, for the spectacles set before him, the man of good form, by [divine] will, both went out of the body while it remained uncorrupted, and, having gone out, gained a power able to behold things invisible to our senses, and memory of what he saw, and the telling of it; for this was no ordinary soul, but one that received this privilege from the gods because of its superiority to the other souls — in its very essence, if you like; or, if that is hard to accept, because of the godlike character of its life. For nothing prevents it from differing from them even in essence, and, as being nearer to the gods, from having [obtained] this direct vision; just as oracles too [have been] our teachers [about other] souls, which came from above, from higher chains and more sovereign orders, to reveal to the lower souls many of the divine goods, even of those beyond their grasp. But if anyone should say that this too is unclear, this at least is known to all: that the messenger of these things, having lived a present life surpassing that of his peers, must have shown himself worthy of this messenger's office towards those [souls]. For one can see how the participation in the gift bestowed by providence, beginning from above from the gods themselves, and the power that reveals divine things through intellect, sinking down little by little, proceed through the intermediate beings, among which the one next to the gods, being surely more like them than those further off, thus ferries across the truth that is established among them: this one first sees the divine things; after him, those to whom he announced them receive the self-manifest knowledge through hearing; then those after them, receiving it from them in turn, † the report of what they heard. And this is clear evidence of being further from or nearer to the divine apparitions themselves; and he who first of all had converse with them is surely more godlike than the others. For I would not ascribe even the good fortune of hearing these things to anyone without the good lot that comes down from the gods; so much the more, then, must the divine [vision] belong to a surpassing excellence of life that has risen to the summit.