1 Aphrodite in Proclus' theology Tuomo Lankila

Introduction

The ancient myth-makers depicted gods as active anthropomorphic beings. Nevertheless their poems were an artistic expressions inspired by a religion which sacral practice did not treat the gods as human like super-beings, but non-personal numinous forces. Proclus, for whom ideal philosopher should be a hierophant of the whole world1, tries to find a place for all different modes to see divinity within a framework of coherent system which for him is built on Plato's theology. He claims that divinity should be revered in its all manifestations and he illustrates how divine powers are to be seen in a reality articulated in levels, grades, and degrees. These traits are emphatically exemplified in his account of Aphrodite. In the following I will try to reconstruct the outlines of the Proclean theology of Aphrodite. In the first place the amount and role of the passages concerning Aphrodite in Proclus' works and the way to approach this evidence will be discussed. Secondly, Proclus' concept of divinity and his theory of the classes of the gods will be dealt with to the extent that it is necessary for the specific topic of this study. Then available material is laid out in the order suggested by Proclus' theory of divine hierarchy beginning from below, from Aphrodite as a terrestrial demon, and going through the goddess' higher manifestations to the interpretation of her as a hypercosmic deity.

2 The sources of the theology of Aphrodite in Proclus

We do not have any systematic treatise of Proclus on Aphrodite, although he seems to have had an intention to write a such one. In the preface of his main work, the Platonic Theology, he says that after the exposition of Plato's general theory of the gods, he will in the middle part of his study enumerate all the classes of the gods and in the last part he will discuss particular divinities celebrated in the different passages of the Plato's writings.2 The promised last part, however, does not exist in the Platonic Theology in the form in which the work has come to us. Neither the second part is carried out according to the design as the work ends abruptly with the discussion of the hypercosmic-encosmic order of gods. Thus all attempts to reconstruct the Proclean theory of the cosmic and sublunar deities had to be done with fragmentary evidence mainly based on other works. A search in the texts included in the TLG canon gives result of the 134 references relevant for the Proclean theology of Aphrodite. We would get 9 more, had we included the "foam" with its variants and the epithets based on it. These passages do not, however, identify any new issues in addition to the passages already taken for the inspection, nor they change the relative order of the works. From the sources identified this way I will, however, exclude from consideration the Chrestomathy for its dubious authorship and also the Hypotyposis which could be regarded as a purely astronomical work. Thus this investigation is based on the passages identified by 97 references which are relevant for the reconstruction of the theology of Aphrodite in Proclus. The distribution of these mentions shows clearly what weight each work of Proclus have in the pursuit of Aphrodite. The order of the sources is In Rempublicam (39 mentions), In Timaeum (35), In Cratylum (11), Theologia Platonica (5), The Hymns (3), In Alcibiadem

3 (2), In Parmenidem (2). These texts have to be dealt with in the context of general issues of each work and also considering each work's definite role in the Proclus' written production. Aphrodite is nowhere for Proclus immediate object of study as such. Most close of this he comes with the 15th treatise of the Republic commentary where he interprets the famous affair between Aphrodite and Ares and in the chapter 183 of the Commentary on Cratylus in which he is dealing with the etymology of the goddess' name. The key issue of his study in the first case is the problem of the inspired poetry as a mode for expression of the divine truth and parallel to the Platonic philosophy and in the latter case the theory of language and the problem of the correct names. Secondly, we should keep in mind the general intention of Proclus' theoretical program which is the harmonizing of the all traditions which for him are speaking for common, authentic truth. These are Platonic philosophy, Homer, the Chaldaean Oracles and Orphism. In the case of Aphrodite Proclus forms his views especially through the exegesis of Orphism and Homer. These sources are complementary. However Orphic views concern mainly goddess' higher forms and Homer deals with her from the Proclus' viewpoint mainly as a cosmic deity. For Proclus the key idea is that where Homer and myths suggest, speaking in riddles, there Plato establishes concepts grounded on understanding. Thus the task to interpret mythology and inspired poetry means transposing truths expressed in enigmas to the scientific language of Platonic philosophy. In this pursuit Aphrodite is shown to have crucial relevance. Long tradition, in which Plato himself took part, had subjected for its criticism the tales concerning the goddess. These myths were seen among the most scandalous and problematic depictions of the gods. Things which caused the criticism were the behavior of the gods of mythology, which were

4 seen to be excessively similar to that of the human beings or linked to sexual indecency (Ares and Aphrodite) or to outrageous violence (the castration of Uranus and Cronus). Proclus, however, finds deep theological and soteriological truths in the myths which have shocked interpreters who were able only to see surface. He lays out a radical thesis of mythological exegesis, according to which often a myth, which is most frantic and most incompatible to conventional notions on justice and decency, or indeed frankly absurd, could refer through symbols to the highest divine principles.3

What does the term "divine" mean in Proclus?

Before considering what Proclus has specifically to say about Aphrodite let us try to clarify briefly what the term "divine" means for Proclus. In the Platonic Theology Proclus says: "... divine, this simple word, what we have in our mind when we are pronouncing it? ... every god exists as the highest summit of unity (unification) which characterizes the different levels of being. ... we must admit that it is like this: a being which participates to one or the one tightly unified to the being"4. Neoplatonism identify theology with henology, the doctrine of the One. The One is good and the Good is the god. Divinity is the same thing as unity, unification means deification, and divinity is the guarantor, origin and source of essence for all being.5 In the strict sense the gods are for Proclus only the One and its participated classes in the primal being, these are the so called "independent henads (unities)6. However, unity is present in all levels of reality down to the matter and because of this, the Neoplatonists accept the ancient dictum of the Presocratic philosophy that everything is full of gods.7 The gods of Olympus find their place in the Proclean hierarchy far below the independent henads, but even they are certain manifestations of unity, Aphrodite

5 among them. In the same passage of the Platonic Theology Proclus continues: "... the word god can refer to that which is the god in absolute meaning, which is god by pure unity, which is god by participation, which is god in contact or which is god by similarity. Indeed, all which is beyond being is the god in the first sense, all intellective is the god by unity, every divine soul is the god by participation, the divine demons are gods with contact to the gods and the human souls get divinity by the similitude of this word."8 Thus the same divinity known by the certain mythological name could be present and is necessarily present in the different levels of reality. 9Research on Aphrodite has located Plato's lower goddess to the level of hypercosmic-encosmic gods, in the studies of Luc Brisson on the Orphism in Proclus, for example, exactly to the second term of the fourth triad of the hebdomad formed by the hypercosmic-encosmic deities.10 However, it is more difficult to situate the first Aphrodite. From the point of view of cultic practice Proclus' separation of nameable and unnameable gods is important. The first triads of his system are noetic (intelligible), noetic-noeric (intelligible and intellective) and noeric (intellective) triad. Everyone of these manifests in its level the hypostases of being, life and intellect as they unfold themselves from the primordial unity towards their particularized forms. The intelligible triad is arranged to three subtriads which are the good, wisdom and beauty. The noetic-noeric order is divided correspondingly to the triads which could be called, depending of the scope of inquiry, with the names of faith, truth and love or with the names, picked up from the Platonic Phaedrus, supracelestial place, sky and subcelestial vault. The noeric triad represents three level of demiurgic action and intellect. Proclus calls the gods in the intelligible order ineffable and secret. Only the lowest of them which he identifies to Orphic Phanes is nameable in very

6 obscure sense. Noetic-noeric triad is the reign of Uranus, noeric that of Cronus. Proclus' ideal prayer presupposes precise knowledge on all classes of the gods.11 Perhaps we can see a model of this kind of prayer in the prefaces of the main works of Proclus' which he has habit to begin with the pray. At the beginning of Parmenides' commentary he asks different gift from each divine class for the reception of the most mystical vision of Plato. From the noetic gods he asks perfect intelligence, from the noeric uplifting power, from the hypercosmic gods free activity unconcerned with material inquiries, from cosmic winged life, from the chorus of angels the manifestation of truth, from the good demons abundant filling of the divine inspiration and from the heroes august mind and lofty attitude.12 The One and the henads are not proper receivers of prayers because they are not accessible to prayer linked with human language. These highest divinities should be worshiped only by silence transcending intellect and the unification prior to silence.13 Proclus' hymns complete our view of his theory of prayer offering also examples on what gift should be asked from the individual divinities. These hymns are composed according a stable pattern; they begin with invocation, enumerate then attributes and powers of the god appealed to and at the end request something which is appropriate to this deity.14 Two of the surviving hymns of Proclus are dedicated to Aphrodite. First hymn is directed to the whole foam-born series ( ) beginning from the goddess of the cosmic level and praising her as mother of the different Erotes (, Love-bearer).15 Second hymn worship her as a Lycian goddess, referring to Proclus' native country. In both of these hymns Proclus asks from Aphrodite freedom from unholy, earthly-bound desires.16

7 Demonic Aphrodite

Proclus gives in the Republic commentary an exegesis on the judgment of Paris17. He uses for Paris alternative mythological name, that of Alexander, and speaks sometimes only on the barbarian. Proclus' interpretation has as well demonological as psychological interest. Sheer idea of the real quarrel of the goddesses is monstrous and should be rejected. There has never been verdict of the mortal barbarian on the goddesses. Proclus explanation for experiences of divine manifestation are that their concern lower links in the divine chains and that the gods reveal themselves to the soul's internal faculty of fantasy which have its material part in the so called pneumatic vehicle of the soul.18 Denying Paris' judgment as historical event Proclus frees himself from taking stand for this particular case of divine epiphany. Here the mythologists have presented thing which concerns soul's incarnation outside space and time as a historical and mythological tale. The core in the Paris' story in Proclus is psychological. His exegesis is based on the doctrine of the modes of the soul's life which he finds form Plato's Phaedrus. In their coming to the world souls choose under divine supervision a form of life which corresponds their dispositions. Kingly life is dependent on Hera, philosophical on Zeus and loving on Aphrodite. Proclus seems to think that, according to the key of interpretation found in the Phaedrus, Athena, as a goddess of wisdom, is somehow representing Zeus. Myth depicts the real relation of influence in a way that transposes the qualities of different lives to the gods and transforms a mortal being to the judge of the divinities. Proclus' account of Paris' choice is typical Platonist explanation for the behavior of the majority. Blind soul cannot recognize its own good. Paris makes his choice "careless and throwing oneself on the sensible beauty and pursuing idol of the intelligible beauty".19

8 No doubt remains that in place of Paris Proclus would have given the prize to Athena. This would have been the philosopher's solution and especially appropriate to Proclus who brings forth in his theoretical writings and hymns his special relation to this goddess. After all, as Marinus tells, Athena moved to live with Proclus after her statue was removed from the Parthenon by the agency of the ruling religion of "great confusion" (Proclean euphemism for the Christianity).20"The authentic erotic, henceforth it has taken understanding and wisdom to be its guides, and can separate by aid of these between real and apparent beauty, does not belong indeed no lesser measure to Athena than Aphrodite", says Proclus. "But he who pursues exclusively and passionately only the life of love draws himself away from the really beautiful and good and with desire and trust of the glutton grasps at the idol of beauty and remains joined to the fall without accessing the perfection appropriate to the real erotic".21 Proclus does not condemn the pursuit of earthly love as such. Neither should opposition in his thought between the goddesses be interpreted in the way that it would equate Aphrodite to the amorous life driven by passion. Surely, she represents that also, but not only that. And not at all if goddess is contemplated as leading deity in her own divine series or chain of being. The real summit of erotic belongs to Aphrodite. "Because perfectly erotic being, whom is taken care of by Aphrodite, ascends towards the divine beauty itself, despising the beautiful things in the level of sensible".22 Proclus connects thus Aphrodite to the authentic erotic madness which functions as a springboard for the soul's purification.23 However, the series of Aphrodite's practices includes also providence for the beauties perceptible in the corporeal and material level. "At the same time there exists certain aphrodisiac demons, who supervise apparent beauty and that which is seen being in matter and because of that it is said that such a person who respects idol has gained the help of

9 Aphrodite".24 In the Republic commentary Proclus deals with the issue of the divine possession in connection to Aphrodite.25 Proclus cites with evident approval his predecessor's Neoplatonist Theodore of Asine argument for the case that divine possession could be happen also to women. Theodore's example is the Helen of Sparta. Aphrodite filled Helen with graces regarding soul and body so far that Helen was born to be like a new Aphrodite, who coming from the sky cheated the barbarian (i.e., Paris) to think that he possessed something which he did not own in reality. Helen was not anyway less divine than his Dioscure brothers. Theodore's version of the story of Helen seems to support view that Helen with whom Paris lived was not the real Helen but some kind of idol. Treatment of the Paris could be then example of the famous cunning intelligence of the goddess of love. According to Egyptian tradition Helen took part in the holiest rituals. The Egyptians have reserved in their memory authentic image of Helen, but among the Greeks "men of the theater" has slandered Helen with stories which have no true basis ever. Proclus does not take directly stand for the holiness of Helen. The context where the question emerges is the traditional Platonist defense of the identity of the virtues of men and women. The story narrated by the philosopher of Asine offers one argument more to Proclus in this task. However it is clear from the way he is resorting to it that Proclus believes in the possibility of the real divine possession. In the commentary on Cratylus 26 Proclus gives very accurate opinions on the theory of divine series, how demons acting in the material world should be seen as the extremities of these divine chains and what significance this fact has for the interpretation of myths. Every one of the gods transcends all lower beings and at the same way also the highest demons live without relation to the lower reality. But terrestrial spirits and particular demons

10 participate in the divine demiurgy producing beings of the world of becoming. They do not mix themselves to mortal beings but "move" the nature and helps its fertile forces by removing obstacles for their course. The myths veil really existent things by a homonymy, says Proclus. The myth-makers use same names to refer as well to the leaders of the series as to the lower spirits. Aphrodite and other gods start from the above and process through to the last being leading their own chains which includes many kind of causes different in their essences like angels, demons, heroes, nymphs. This is why the myths tell on intercourses between gods and mortals. Proclus thinks that very last members of the divine series (), the demons which have lot in common with the humans, can in fact have intercourse with the humans and generate thus heroes. This is no wonder, seeing that the lowest demons are not only sympathetic to humans, but also to other species of the living beings, and this is why we have cases of nymphs joining to trees, wells, deers and snakes. Proclus connects the question about the relation between Aphrodite and Eros to the relations of the (celestial) gods and demons. He reminds us, that Plato calls Eros demon in the Symposium saying that he is a companion of Aphrodite, and originates from Poros who is a real god, but in Phaedrus Plato calls Eros himself god, because he is a force uplifting the life.27 Thus the case of Eros also shows that the demons are companions and followers of the gods. But this is not the whole truth of the relation of Eros and Aphrodite as we well see in treatment of the gods at the higher levels of hierarchy.

Cosmic Aphrodite

Proclus' considerations on Aphrodite as a cosmic deity include a lot of purely astronomical issues (mentions of epicycles, distances of the planets, irregularities of the celestial

11 movements caused by the fact that the stars are moving not only with their spheres, but also in depth of the their spheres,28 etc.). I will ignore these passages which have little relevance to theology. Dealing with the problem of the motions of the stars he proceeds into themes with psychological and theological dimensions. He presents the theory of the planetary movement held by Porphyry and Theodore of Asine29, who explained the phenomenon on the basis of differences in the volition of souls of the planetary gods. According to these predecessors of Proclus, stars in the series of Helios "return" towards universal intellect, but Helios in essential, Aphrodite vital and Hermes in intellective mode. Proclus rejects this theory agreeing with the critique of Iamblichus. Here we have interesting case in the Neoplatonic exegesis where Iamblichus and Proclus openly criticize their predecessors for attributing to Plato theories of which he has written nothing. ... Sun is above the Moon, because ..." says Proclus, " ... it fills the Moon with its powers and it relates to sublunar world as father"30. Aphrodite and Hermes are sunny stars, because they are helping the Sun in its creative action, collaborate with it in order that all things complete their fulfillment. As a cosmic monad the Sun is "miraculous, unsurpassable, disproportionate power in itself and with all others"31. We see here Sun's relation to visible world matching to the relation of demiurge to cosmos, and this again mirrors the relation of the One to reality. Aphrodite and Hermes presents themselves as inseparable companions of Helios in the cosmic demiurgy. They set their own movement in harmony with the creative act of this star. They bring proportion and symmetry and the happy mixing to all things.32 Aphrodite and Hermes depart and approach the Sun as his bodyguards.33 As well Hermes as Aphrodite are unifying principles in the world. Hermes, because he according to the undeniably obscure expression of Proclus, "takes part in the making of the daily and nightly

12 phenomena and masculinize and feminize itself". Aphrodite participates in the creative acts of the solar monad " for she has ability to bind and adjust that which has been separated".34 In another passages35 Proclus says that Aphrodite unifies and leads to communion ( ) Hermes' and Helios' action, gives harmony to which is in the one careless () and in the other stretched (), whatever these qualities for Hermes' and Helios' demiurgy may mean. Proclus introduces an interesting addition to Iamblichean theory on the celestial companions of Sun. He sets the triad of the Helios in correspondence with the noetic-noeric triad. "Perhaps these stars have appeared into cosmos in analogy with the first three monads ... these monads we find "at the vestibule of the good (a reference is to Plato's Philebus 64c1). And indeed as we have learned from the Republic (VI 508 B 12) sun produces the light as a likeness of truth, Aphrodite is the cause of beauty to the beings in cosmos and the copy of the beautiful being there (i.e. in the noeticnoeric triad). Hermes, being calculating, is the cause of proportion for all beings in the world of becoming ... Like sun Aphrodite and Hermes also are analogous to these mutually unified monads and because of this they also want with justice to come together and make their cycle in concert".36 Little later Proclus returns to this analogy between the cosmic and noetic-noeric triad, which points out that this correspondence is not for him a casual result of exegetic zeal but a key issue. "We should remember in this point", says Proclus, "that which we have used to say on the level of the all cosmic bodies, that the sphere of the fixed stars is the monad, being at the same time cause for all stars. And that below it we have the triad of Uranus, Cronus and Ares, where first is the principle of connexion, second principle of proportion and third principle of separation. And again the moon is the monad and cause of all generation and corruption and the elements in the world below it form a triad, and between

13 these two (i.e., triad of the moon and the higher planets) are planets of the stable velocity, Helios, revealing truth, Aphrodite revealing beauty and Hermes revealing proportion in the relation of the things, and they reveal these three monads which are set in the vestibule of the good as we have said many times ( , , , , )".37 In this same place of the Timaeus commentary38, where the main issue to be dealt with is the world's body, Proclus explains that planetary deities are causes of the passionate and cognitive powers in the humans as far as the subject of consideration is the composite of body and soul and the soul's two lower irrational parts (powers of the rational soul depend on, naturally, higher place in the divine hierarchy). The moon, "visible image of the source of nature", is the cause of the physical growth, sun produces the totality of the sensations, Hermes is the cause of the movement of the imagination, only movements, Proclus specifies, since "the cause of fantastic faculty as such is Helios because sensation and imaginations form the same faculty". Aphrodite produces the lustful desires of the lower irrational soul ( ). Ares produces the movements of anger depending on nature, Zeus produces vital powers universally and Uranus in the same manner, cognitive powers. The task of the planetary gods is to join the age period of the human being to the seven divine series. Proclus gives his most detailed description of this issue in the commentary of Plato's Alcibiades,39 in the manner which correspond, albeit with some strain, to theory just outlined. "The first age is activity along the mode of moon, because we live then obeying our vegetative and nutritive faculties. Second belongs to the activity of Hermes because then boys dedicate themselves to grammatic, cithara and flute. Third is that which belongs to

14 series of Aphrodite as they begin to produce sperm and set in motion the natural powers of the child-making ( , ). Fourth belongs to series of Helios, as young man is in the midday of his life and exhibits perfection of his age, this has exact location between birth and death (being the site of middle term). Fifth belongs to Ares, because men are contending mainly for power positions and excellence in relation to others. Sixth is the age of Zeus as they see as a good thing to dedicate themselves to political and practical life with wisdom. Seventh belongs to Cronus because then it is possible to detach from the world of becoming and go to other one, to life without body". Role of the Helios forces Proclus to identify the midday of the life actually with the life epoch of a young man, and the agreement with the earlier mentioned theory of the Timaeus commentary is not altogether successful, but as far as the exegesis regards Aphrodite, it includes no surprise. Once more Proclus returns in the Timaeus commentary to the question of Aphrodite and desiring soul when he starts to deal with the structure of the human body.40 This anatomical exegesis does not advance very far, because manuscripts breaks off here. Proclus sets the planetary gods in connection with the human faculties in a way that "someones have used to say". This mode of expression implies perhaps a little bit reserved attitude to the expounded theory. Most interesting thing in this passage is that Proclus places Hermes with the discursive faculty between thymos of Ares and epithymetikon of Aphrodite. But how could he do otherwise seeing that he has to treat divinities in their natural, planetary order, going this time from top to bottom, from the sphere of fixed stars to the level of moon? Another interesting thing is that he continues establishing correspondence between our pneumatic body with sky and mortal body with the sublunar world. But this passage neither has anything surprising to say on Aphrodite.

15 With respect to the theory of the body of world, Proclus rejects the doctrine between correspondences between divinities and elements.41 In this doctrine, which is Pythagorean according to Proclus, the element of Aphrodite is air. Proclus says that the Pythagoreans have the correct opinions as far as they regard Aphrodite and Hermes gathering and unifying divinities, but their doctrine of the elements differs from the Platonic view according to wich all elements are present to each planetary sphere in the same way as sublunar elements participates to each other. Proclus asks: "Because this is what we see in the sublunar elements, should we not admit with even more reason that in the celestial bodies each elements is in each sphere, although certain body participates more to fire, other one to air, another to water and other to earth?" What comes to dedicating seasons to divinities, this theory Proclus accepts.42 Cronus and Ares, winter and summer forms one opposite pair, Zeus and Aphrodite, spring and autumn, another. Hermes is again enigmatic because "Hermes is common to all seasons, as he represents in each of them same foundation and common order, which is divided along the same reasons to all". I cannot explain what are the theoretical or mythical reason for this opinion of Proclus. Identity between Aphrodite and autumn on the other hand is easy to understand: "... autumn belongs to Aphrodite", Proclus says, "because during this season seed is thrown to earth and the task of Aphrodite is to mix fertile germs and lead them to the communion with the cause of becoming ( ). Proclus sees Aphrodite as a power which brings into harmony masculine and feminine, formal and material causes in cosmos.43 This is why he also interprets office for the supervising public marriages in Plato's ideal state analogous to Aphrodite. Last Aphrodisiac item of cosmos to be discussed belongs to the area of astrology. Each

16 star has significant positions for the calculation of opportune time for the conception. Each star has also mutual positions which are dangerous for the development of embryo. Aphrodite's falling into affliction destroys the seed if it happens at 120th day of pregnancy.44

Aphrodite as a hypercosmic-encosmic deity

In the next higher level, the hypercosmic-encosmic order, Proclus posits the divine dodecad which corresponds to the twelve gods of the Phaedrus dialogue. Plurality of these deities is "incomprehensible and impossible to enumerate for human intuition", says Proclus, but inspired Plato defines them in the Phaedrus' vision according to the dodecad. None of the theologians, who have written something about them, has not been able to define perfect number of these divinities, as opposed to that plurality which relate to the primordial principles, intellective gods and intelligible gods".45 With these previous gods Proclus means probably the first henads derived from the One -- the limit and the infinite -- and noetic and noetic-noeric triads mentioned above. According to Proclus Plato supposes that number twelve is appropriate to these divinities, which are called "unchained", because the dodecad is wholly perfect, being composed by the primordial principles and most perfect ingredients and covers all procession of being with its measure.46 This obscure way of expression refers to the fact that twelve is the result of multiplication of three by four, triad being the structure of conversion and perfection and the tetrad structure of stability and harmony. The leading monads of the dodecad Proclus calls with the name of Zeus and Hestia. These twelve divinities are divided into the demiurgic triad (Zeus, Poseidon and Hephaestus), guarding and immutable triad (Hestia, Athena, Ares), generative triad (Demeter, Hera, Artemis) and uplifting triad (Hermes, Aphrodite, Apollo).

17 Here we are interested in only the properties of the last triad and two last terms of the immediately preceding triads, I mean the gods Hephaestus and Ares, for obvious mythological importance of these gods for Aphrodite. Hephaestus' function is to install "nature in bodies and construct the abodes of the cosmic gods"47. The cosmic wholeness will be beautiful because Hephaestus produces it by his unification with Aphrodite. By his liaison with Aglaa Hephaestus brings forth Euclea, Euthenea, Eupheme and Philosophrosyne who are producers of the all corporeal things which are exceptionally beautiful48. The most universal and first species of life originate in the second and third terms of the uplifting triad (Aphrodite and Apollo) with the last term of the previous triad (Ares). The souls are installed to their modes of life according to these divinities when they descend to cosmos. We may think that it would be more consistent to derive the modes of life from the intermediate terms of the guarding, generative and uplifting triads because these terms corresponds to Hera, Athene and Aphrodite and this would be in total harmony with the previous exegesis of the myth of Paris' judgment. However, this is what Proclus says in the Platonic Theology. His grounds for this solutions remain this time inaccessible for us. Souls ascends through the same triad by way of which they had descended. Philosophy, love and the cult of the gods recuperate all that was lost in becoming. "Hermes is the guarantor of the philosophy", Proclus continues, "and it (i.e., philosophy) rises both universal and particular souls by the strength of dialectics towards the Good itself".49 It is worth of notice that here Proclus says that universal souls also, that is the souls higher than humans, practices somehow dialectics! Aphrodite on her part is the primordial cause of the loving inspiration, which spreads out in whole order, orientates towards beauty and the uplifted lives.50 Finally Apollo concludes all things with the aid of the art of the Muses,

18 "turns all things to conversion and sets them to revolve in common, as Socrates says, raising them through harmony and rhythm towards intellective truth and the light present in it".51 This view of the souls' salvific road is at first glance in accordance with the famous passage of the Platonic Theology which is often cited as a Proclean "definition" of theurgy.52 There, however, the highest path of ascent links the theurgic power, faith and good, the second salvific channel goes from philosophy through truth to wisdom and the third from the erotic madness through love to beauty. Hermes and Apollo does not seem to occupy always same position in the works of Proclus but way of Aphrodite is the same as well in the first as in the sixth part of the Platonic Theology. The fifteenth treatise of his commentary on the Republic53 is dedicated to the relation of Aphrodite, Ares and Hephaestus inquiring the role of these divinities in cosmogony from the hypercosmic to the sensible order. This tractate is one of the largest Proclean passages which concerns Aphrodite and it is discussed quite often in the research because it clarifies Proclus' manner to use Homer as a source for the theological doctrines and his method to save offending myths with the aid of allegorical interpretation. Proclus says that Hephaestus and Ares are both acting towards the whole reality. Ares separates opposing principles of the wholeness, saves them as immutable and intact, in order that the world should always be fulfilled by all forms. Hephaestus creates in accordance to his art the perceptible world order, fills nature with the generative principles and forces. Symbols of these are according to Proclus the celestial tripods mentioned in Iliad (18 373). The brooches, spiral armlets, cups and chains mentioned in the same song a little bit later are for Proclus symbols of the forms in the sublunar world, which Hephaestus casts. Both gods need Aphrodite for their deeds, one for rendering the opposites in harmony and order, other in purpose to bring perceptible beauty and shining clearness to his

19 creation, so that this world could be made into the most beautiful of the sensible things. Aphrodite is present in everywherem but Hephaestus participates to her in the mode of the higher realities. We find in this exegesis four different level of the demiurgy. Two pairs, where Hephaestus manifests higher, Ares lower demiurgy. Hephaestus mode of participation in Aphrodite is hypercosmic and celestial, that of Ares cosmic and sublunar. Mythology conceals Hephaestus mode of action telling that he takes Aphrodite as his spouse observing the will of Zeus. Ares relation to goddess is called by myths to adultery. "For the maker of the sensible belongs naturally connection to the cause which creates beauty and unity, but for the god, who oversees dividedness and opposition in the worldly things, for him is the unifying force somehow alien. The separating classes of the gods are directly opposed to the classes which are unifying. Because of this, the myths call adulterous an union of the different causes." But this kind of union is also necessary for the cosmogony, "in order to put opposites to harmony and that the internal war of the world will end to peace".54 At every level the oppositeness is the gift of Ares. At the celestial level it refers to mutual strife between forms when they try to oust each other, at the terrestrial level it refers to the struggle of the elements and forces. Because Helios is the companion of Hephaestus in the producing of the universal forms he denounces to Hephaestus the intercourse of Ares and Aphrodite. The chains of Hephaestus by which he captures Ares and Aphrodite are forces invisible to others and using them Hephaestus "builds from the opposites of Ares and Aphrodite's joining goodies a unified order, since becoming needs both of them".55 Hephaestus' chains are different in the celestial and the sublunar world. Former are indissolvable, latter possible to loose. Proclus finds the word "chain" as an uniting physical force also in Plato's Timaeus and this is enough for him to equate the demiurgy presented in

20 Timaeus with that of Homer. At the celestial level Hephaestus obeys Zeus, at the cosmic level he chains Ares and Aphrodite paying obedience to Poseidon. Poseidon is the god whose will command that terrestrial bonds should also be released, because he is the manager of the cycle of change and sees that all which is born will be destroyed and returned to new beginning. The demiurge, be he celestial as Zeus or cosmic like Poseidon, builds the wholeness with the aid of opposing things and brings friendship to it by proportion, conducting to communion the deeds of Hephaestus, Ares and Aphrodite. Proclus who usually favors method of hypostasizing or making divine principles into independent entities, comes here closer to the way of speaking in which gods are seen as different aspects of divinity. The demiurge produces opposites "from itself according to Ares in himself, he establishes amity acting on the power of Aphrodite and he joins Aphrodite and Ares because he has beforehand as a preexisting model of the art of Hephaestus".56 The Demiurge is all things and acts with the all gods. The gods of the younger demiurgy are imitating Zeus but their creations have not the value of father's work because their creations are mortal things. In the Timaeus commentary Proclus deals with the same passage of Odyssey using allegorical interpretation: "... let as say, that due to this harmony and proportion (), first of all emerges identity () and following it unification ()".57 We get to know from this exegesis, that what Hephaestus joins, is at the higher level identity and otherness, at the lower level harmony and dividedness. Both of these pairs express communion and oppositeness whose theologians are used to talk as Aphrodite and Ares. When Apollo, Hermes and other gods see them in chains, they laugh and this laughter also is a demiurgic act, which according to Proclus gives basis for the cosmic things and sets power to their mutual bindings. In the commentary of the Republic Proclus provides whole

21 treatise dedicated to this divine laughter.58 Here the laughter of gods is described as a mystical sign which refers to the universal and always in the same manner moving plenitude of wholeness' energy ( , )59. In another passage of the Timaeus commentary Proclus provides further insights into the role of Aphrodite in the famous battle of the gods told in Iliad.60 He has already dealt with the myth of Atlantis interpreting it as symbolic depiction of the struggle of opposites in cosmos. Generally war functions in tales as an image of cosmical disintegration and strife and this should be also basis for the allegorical interpretation of the theomachy.The gods are arranged in five pairs of opposition. Disposition follows naturally from the Homeric text and therefore the positions held by Ares, Hephaestus and Aphrodite depart those presented in the exegesis of the Hephaestus' chains. Poseidon and Apollo represent here the demiurgy in the world of becoming, former the mode of totality and latter the mode of particularity. Hera and Artemis are opposites as providers of life, Hera's mode is rational, Artemis' physical. Athena and Ares represent the causes of opposites, Athena governing the determination of intellect or separateness in the intellective forms and Ares ruling over passionate and material oppositions. Hermes and Leto practice perfection of the souls, their mutual opposition is opposition between the principles acting on the one hand with cognitive powers and discursive understanding and on the other with vitality and will. Hephaestus opposite here is the river deity Xanthus, this pair Proclus represents as the gods producing the corporeal order of the world and forces inherent in it. Hephaestus creates actively, Xanthus represents passivity. At last there is Aphrodite interestingly outside of the decad. It is easy to see that here the pairs of opposites are analogous to the Neoplatonic

22 hypostases of being, life, intellect, and soul, the latter seen as a discursive (Hermes) and irrational structure (Leto), sensible and corporal world where Hephaestus is the nature, Xanthus sensible order receiving the forms. Aphrodite is below the decad representing the connection of whole demiurgy as a principle of harmony. Thus her opposite is the real demiurge, Zeus, present in the picture only implicitly. Other interesting feature of Aphrodite in this passage is that Proclus explains that Homer sets Aphrodite apart in order that she illuminates all things with unification and harmony, but especially in order that she will come to assistance of the weaker part, because in them plurality dominates unity ( , , , ).61 Proclus points out that every opposition is correctly understood only in its connection with unity. The unity manifests itself always in three modes: a unity before participation, a unity as correlated and immanent in the participants and finally as a unity which arises from aggregation of the participants and after them. This is one formulation of the systematic difference which Proclus is used to emphasize between the three modes of unity and the factors of relation of participation. But it is interesting that difference between unity before and unity after (that is totality of parts) is expressed here as a theological relation between the implicit Zeus and Aphrodite. To this issue we can add the only mention of Aphrodite in the Parmenides Commentary where Proclus says, that if we mount up to the gods from numbers, the hexad is sacred to Aphrodite and the heptad to Athena. "The heptad of Athena is unifying, and Aphrodite's hexad safeguards plurality in company with communion" (this translation Morrow-Dillon).62 We do not know why just the numbers sex and seven represent these kinds of relation as Proclus leaves the case to rest only on the authority of the Pythagoreans. But the link

23 between the hexad and the goddess of love is very ancient and seems to go beyond the Pythagorean speculations to the Near Eastern religions. The theme representing Aphrodite as the helper of the weaker comes to surface also in the passages of the Republic commentary which complements Proclean exegesis of the theomachy.63 Here Proclus is particularly interested in the confrontation between Hephaestus and Xanthus. In this physical interpretation of internal opposition among bodies Hephaestus represents heath and dryness, Xanthus cold and wet. "And because every opposition is necessarily determined to end in mutual harmony Aphrodite is also here. Aphrodite establishes amity between the opposites, but she joins herself more at the part of weaker, because they before all come to be ordered when they enter in relation of proportion and reconciliation with the stronger".64 So we can see that there is a bit of something to be called grace, in the meaning of compassion and generosity, among the blessings of Aphrodite. As a cosmic deity Aphrodite is joined in Proclus besides Hephaestus and Ares as well to Dionysus. In the Cratylus commentary Proclus says that Plato celebrates Dionysus and Aphrodite as the divinities who are makers of benevolence, literally sweet-mindness ( 65) in opposition to the deities which perfects souls by revenge, fear and punishment. These delightful divinities are fond of joking and favors it as a mean to strengthen the weak nature and uplifting difficult corporeal life. Because of this, cultic objects represent these gods laughing, relaxed and dancing, in contrast to some others who are represented in a way that they upset by fear. The cultic representation of the each god corresponds to nature of the god's cosmic domain. Hephaestus and Ares on they part love Aphrodite but Aphrodite loves Dionysus 66 and because of this love she molds divine Adonis as an image of Dionysus. But Dionysus is not in any sense equal to Aphrodite and love of

24 Aphrodite for Dionysus is providential, love of superior deity towards inferior.67 Until now we have been considering Aphrodite among the hypercosmic-encosmic gods in her actions oriented "downward" i.e. as a demiurgic power. Proclus' symbolic interpretation of the goddess' magical girdle () belongs too, however, to inquiry of the Aphrodite as an cosmic divinity, and here we find stuff which refers to "upward", to the monads of the goddess' series among the noetic-noeric gods. Proclus builds here68 his theological speculations upon the story of Iliad of the intercourse of Zeus and Hera on Mount Ida. Proclus explains symbolically all the ornaments of Hera with which she prepares for the event. One of the most important items among them is the girdle borrowed from Aphrodite. Proclus says that these symbols transform Hera to a likeness of Rhea. At the same time Zeus falling asleep renders himself likeness of the transcendent Cronus. Divinities are not functioning any more at their own level as cosmic deities but are returning to their own transcendental causes. "It is quite right", says Proclus, "that Hera's ornaments resembles the universal Rhea ( ), because Zeus is behaving like Cronus ( ), and because of this similarity (between Zeus and Cronus) Zeus prefers intercourse at the Mount Ida to such a one which go towards world. At the same way magical girdle and the aid of Aphrodite renders Hera even more a likeness of Rhea ( )". Here Proclus indicates the highest location where we can see Aphrodite already as an articulated deity, with primordial identity, albeit yet without her own name, preexisting in her first cause. In my opinion Proclus is referring to the gods in the second term of the noetic-noeric class. There, according to the words of Proclus, "preexists the monad of this goddess who maintains Uranus, who makes her procession through the domain of Cronus and illuminates whole intellective life with the light of beauty (

25 , ).69 Locating Aphrodite's first monad into second term of the noetic-noeric triad which naturally articulates itself again to subtriads, is very consistent as we remember, what is mentioned earlier, that the divine love, the first Eros is the third term of this great triad.70 Proclus analyzes furthermore Aphrodite's and Hera's different modes to bear the girdle. Aphrodite "holds it in her bosom in such a manner that she keeps its powers exposed. ( ) Hera instead of this hides it in her chest, because she adopts a different mode of existence, even if she too has a magical girdle as far as she is filled by the all qualities of Aphrodite ( ). She does not evoke the power, by which she unites with the demiurge, by some external thing, but she has enclosed this power in herself".71 Common opinions also reveal the connection between the goddesses, according to Proclus, as they respect Hera as a mistress of the union of consorts and protectress of marriage. She unites with the demiurge by the aid of the magical girdle which is in herself and because that she brings off also other reciprocal connections in the legitimate bindings of marriage. Apparently Proclus wants to say that the girdle is in Hera more secret, more linked to the transcendence and joins to insolvable demiurgic union, and otherwise with Aphrodite the girdle is the mode of the demiurgy of the younger gods and is exposed to the cosmos. This is the formulation in the language of the theology of love for the metaphysical principle which is very common in Proclus and which says that every principle has two different mode of existence, its own, according to its appropriate level and higher where it preexists in its causes. Proclus' language brings to mind also an image of the more secretive, marital love appropriate to Hera, opposed to the other genres -- as well

26 legitimate as illegitimate -- which belongs to the domain of Aphrodite.

Hypercosmic Aphrodite

The last level of the theology of Aphrodite to be considered is order where the goddess reveals herself as a hypercosmic divinity. At this level Proclus presents his theory of the origins and names of the goddess which also resolves the question of the "two Aphrodites". In the Platonic Theology Proclus reflects on the subject what the mythological talk about the "births" of the gods means for the philosophy. Plato also speaks with the form of myth on the "births of the gods" ... "as for example in the myth of Diotima, where Aphrodite's and Eros' births are celebrated ... but it should not be forgotten how this kind of stories are presented, that they are composed with the aim of symbolic allusion and this is the reason why they, hiding the ineffable manifestation proceeding from the primordial causes, call it with the word birth".72 Proclus' opinion is that Plato develops himself such stories when he tells myths, but his normal way is to use dialectical and intellectual methods, describing divine properties with the concepts of science. In the commentary on Cratylus (In Crat. 183) Proclus says that it is possible to "get to be inspired" () also starting from the jokes regarding gods and to go thence to the concepts of understanding. In the Plato's thought difference between the two goddesses was without doubt difference between the level of intelligible world of the forms and sensible level. Since Proclus has rich Neoplatonic theory on the primordial principles and the henads behind or over the two levels in classical Platonism, he is forced to rise the opposition between the two goddess of love to higher metaphysical order. For Proclus they are hypercosmic and hypercosmic-encosmic divinities. Proclus' exegesis of the Cratylus is the

27 summit of his theology of Aphrodite and it is so effective and precise that I would like to cite it at its entirety. "According to the materialistic views of majority Aphrodite has been born from foam and this foam is shedding of the sperm ( ) and every where when these terrestrial unions happens in an ejaculation its pleasure is Aphrodite ( , ). But who is so simpleminded that does not see, before these extreme and corrupt things, the first and eternal causes? Indeed Socrates sets Hesiod to stand for testimony for us, and ignore explanations which have been distributed after him. Where is this divine, it should be told. It is said that the first Aphrodite has been born from two causes: efficient and generative cause ( , ). Indeed it has been said that Cronus acts as coordinated cause in her procession, he calls the fertile power of his father and mediates it to the intellective levels and Uranus is the producer and the cause revealing this goddess starting from his own generative abundance. What other causes needs such a hypostasis, which unify different kinds, acting on the basis of the one and same pursuit of beauty, what other if not gathering power of Uranus? Thus Uranus generates her departing from the foam of his fertile organs when they have been thrown down to sea, as Orpheus says (Orph. fr. 127):

And the genitals fell from high to the sea and around them as they were floating sparked white foam and after the skies completed their annual cycle, the year gave to world a splendid maiden, who was taken jointly in their arms, at her birth, by Envy and Betrayal the first

28

And Zeus produces the second Aphrodite departing form his own generative forces and together with him she is produced also by Dione. Nevertheless Aphrodite the second flows into being from foam at the same way as the first, and same theologian (i.e. Orpheus) says about her (Orph. fr.183):

There he was conquered by the great desire and the lofty father threw foam of semen and the sea received the sperm of the grand Zeus, and completed the cycle of time in the season of the beautiful flowers was Aphrodite born, she who causes the movement of laugh, born from foam

Thus the two goddess are different for their causes, order and powers. She who is born from Uranus is hypercosmic and uplifting to the intelligible beauty and the distributor of the pure life. Other one, who is born from Dione rules all the connected series, which are in the world of Uranus and in the earth, she joins things together and perfects generative processions by unification in harmony. And they are unified among themselves for the similarity of their hypostases, since from the generative powers are processing on the one hand, the gathering power, and on the other, the demiurgic power. And sea means extended and unlimited life and its depth, which overlaps everything and the foam signifies the most pure, light-filled and fertile power and much more than anything else it express the whole life and it is like its flower or the summit of life. This is how Aphrodite is revealed; as the most uniform and purest life."

29

Conclusion

Let us try to summarize main steps in the procession of the Aphrodite according to Proclean theory. In the first level of the noetic-noeric triad, in the supercelestial place, the feminine quality of divine reveals first time herself. In the second term of the noetic-noeric triad is the depth of sky, where is situated the maintaining class of the gods, Uranus and his powers, among them the first monad for Rhea and Aphrodite. The third term of the noetic-noeric triad is in the language of the Phaedrus subcelestial vault. Nowhere Proclus offers exhaustive descriptions of gods belonging to this level, gods which he calls perfective and guardians. But this third triad in its totality is the love conducting to the intelligible beauty i.e., the triad is the first divine Eros. Noeric gods are arranged to hebdomad composed by the two triads and demiurgic monad. At the first level Rhea manifests herself as identified deity mediating Cronus and Zeus. One of the operation of the demiurge is the castration of the previous fathers, which is the symbol for the birth of the internally differentiated world of forms. Besides this operation Aphrodite is born as a hypercosmic and hypercosmicencosmic principle of demiurgy and providence. In her procession, the goddess who preexists in her monads at the higher levels, get the articulated identity and reveals herself as a divinity whose task is to harmonize and recuperate unity. For Proclus Aphrodite is greater than love, love is the power in life, and Aphrodite is the most uniform and purest life at the hypercosmic level, Uranic summit in Aphrodite being the flower of life. The theory of the divine series enables Proclus to defend Aphrodite in the all forms of her traditional cult against "great confusion". It is possible to pray and celebrate Aphrodite from the popular, even vulgar, viewpoint as the protectress of the earthly love. But a Neoplatonic

30 sage, who has attained Plato's mystical vision, connects the worship of the goddess to the philosopher's pursuit to identify to the One present in the human soul, and because of this she or he asks and deserves from the immaculate Erototokos even better gifts as those desired by the Trojan prince.

31 Appendices 1. Exegesis of theomachy (In Tim. I 79.1-23, In Remp. 1 95.23ff) Zeus the Demiurge Poseidon totally Hera intellect Athena reason Hermes cognition understanding Hephaestus actively Apollo particularly Artemis physical Ares passion Leto vitality will Xanthus passively the demiurgy of the whole producers of life causes of opposites powers for soul's perfection producers of bodily order

Aphrodite giver of unity and harmony

2. Exegesis of Ares-Aphrodite affair Two pairs of demiurgy Hephaestus hypercosmic insoluble "chains" celestial releasable "chains" marriage adultery sublunar Ares encosmic

32 3. The divine scope of Aphrodite Area out of scope (by super-excellence) One and the Henads Intelligible gods / noetic triad: good, wisdom, beauty Area of pre-existence Intelligible-intellective gods / noetic-noeric triad / First noetic-noeric triad hyperuranios topos / faith is also place of the first feminine quality of divine Second noetic-noeric triad / truth "depth of sky" = place of the first monad for Aphrodite Third noetic-noeric triad / subcelestial vault /primordial Eros Noeric gods noeric triad separative monad: foam as a flower of life Area of existence Hypercosmic gods: Aphrodite I Hypercoscmic-encosmic gods fourth triad, second term: Aphrodite II Encosmic gods second triad, second term Aphrodite III Sublunar "gods" (demons) Aphrodite as a demon Area of Aphrodisiac illumination Aphrodite present as a mystical sign in souls, nature, body and elements Out of scope (by privation) pure matter

1 Marinus, Vita Procli. 19: , . 2 Proclus, Theologia Platonica I 9,8-19.: , , - [], , , . 3 How to deal with the theological myths in Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus: Proclus, In Remp. I 71,18-86,23, especially 82,21-83,7. and Theol. Plat. V 17, 10-18, 28, especially 17.25-18.1: , . 4 Theol. Plat. I 114,5-116,3. 5 Theol. Plat. I 119.9-14: , , . ; , , . 6 todo (different types of henads) 7 Proclus refers explicitly to this dictum in De sacrificio et magia 149, 26: , , , . 8 Theol. Plat. I 115,14-21: , , , , , , , , . 9 An example how to understand different stages of the series of Apollo: In Remp. I 147, 6-15: , , , , , , , , ( ;) . 10 Brisson Luc, How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology, (Chicago 2004) p. 98 11 Proclus, In Tmaeum, I 209.9-11: , . 12 Proclus, In Parmenidem, 617. I am using here Glenn R. Morrow's and John M. Dillon's translation, Proclus. Commentary on Plato's Parmenides (Princeton 1987). Proclus starts his treatment as well in the Parmenides Commentary as in the Platonic Theology with pray to the gods and praise to his master Syrianus. 13 Theol. Plat. III 4-8: , , , , , . 14 todo: Note on studies on Proclus' hymns.

15 Hymni 2, lines 1 and 13. 16 todo: echo of Christian terminolgy? Erlerl's and van den Berg's recent studies. 17 In Remp. I 101,1-109,7. 18 todo: theory of epiphany 19 In Remp. I, 108.20-22: , , . 20 Marinus, Vita Procli 30, see also 6 ,9 ,15, and 29.'horrible disorder in religion under present condition, In Remp. I, 74.8-9: ... ... . 21 In Remp. I 108.23-109.1: . , , . 22 In Remp. I 109.1-3: . 23 On this salvific role of love see also, for example, De sacrificio et magia 148,1-3; Theol. Plat. I 25.113.4-10. 24 In Remp. I 109.3-7: , . 25 In Remp. I 254,29-255.28. 26 In Crat. 188, 1-26. 27 In Tim. III 154.27-30: (= ... TL) , . 28 In Tim. II 264.9ff.; III 63.5.ff;. In remp II 222.9. 29 In Tim. III 64.16ff. 30 In Tim. III 65.20-22: , ... 31 In Tim. III 65.30-66.2.: . 32 In Tim. III 66.2.-5: ... 33 In Remp. II 59.1: ... ... 34 In Tim. III 65.5-8: , . , . Proclus associates hermaphroditic traits only with Hermes, although we know that Aphrodite was sometimes represented in cultic statues with masculine attributes as a barbed goddess. 35 In Tim. III 67.2ff. 36 In Tim. III 66.13-24: , , , , , , , ... . 37 In Tim. III 69.5-69.14.

38In Tim. III 69.15-27. 39 In Alc. 196.2-19. 40 In Tim. III 354.29-355.20. 41 In Tim. II 48.15.-49.12. 42 In Remp. II 62.6 ff 43 In Tim. I 34.15ff 44 In Remp. II 58.20. 45 Theol. Plat. VI 85.25ff. 46 Treatise on the twelve gods, Theol. Plat. VI (chapter 22) 97.1-99.21. 47 Theol. Plat. VI 97.16-17. 48 In Tim. I 333.3ff. 49 Theol. Plat. VI 98.15-17. 50 Theol. Plat. VI 98.18-21: , . 51 Theol. Plat. VI 98.21-24. 52 Theol. Plat. I 113.4-10. 53 In Remp. I 141.1-143.16 54 In Remp. I 141.27-142.7: , . . , . 55 In Remp. I 142.171-19 ... . 56 In Remp. I 143.8-10: ... , , 57 In Tim. 2 27.18ff. 58 In Remp. I 126.5-128.4. 59 In Remp. I 128.4-5. 60 In Tim. I 79.12ff. 61 In Tim. I 79.16-19. 62 In Parm. 768.8. 63 In Remp. I 95.18-95.30. 64 In Remp. I 95.22-26: , , , , . 65 In Crat. 181.15. 66 In Crat. 184. 67 In Crat. 180. 68 In Remp. I 138.28ff. 69 In Remp. I 139.3-5. 70 The common monad for all goddesses' situates itself higher, in the first level of the noetic noeric triad. Theol. Plat. IV 16, 48.19 22, also 89: and 92.2. 71 In Remp. I 139.6-13. 72 Theol. Plat. 1 121.1ff.