Chaldean triads in neoplatonic exegesis: some reconsiderations

D, WOODS MALIERCkE à Antioch. John Malalas reports that in 335 the first comes Or DOS 1 name of Felicianus, established his headquarters in the Temple of the Muses at Antioch, but this does not necessarily mean that he had been thefirstimperial official to“do so (Mal Chron. 13.4). 1 suggest that he pulled ragk”and commancecred è CHALDEAN TRIADS IN NEOPLATONIC EXEGESIS: SOME RECONSIDERATIONS building which had long seen official use, probably as the headquarters of the governor of Syria, from as early as 326 even. Hence the fact Ammianus dates Constantine's bestowal of the nickname of Musonianus upon Strategius to the time of his alleged investigation of the Manichaeans reinforces my argument that this investigation took place at Antioch, and iS identifiable, in-fäct, with the council of Antioch in 327. It is my argument, therefore, that the Strategius mentioned in Eusebius’ Vita Constantini is identifiable as the Strategius Musonianus of Ammianus’ Res Gestae. Not only are their names-identical, bùt-both attended church councils on behalf of Constantine I and reported to him concerning the same, For Ammianus’ statement that Constantine appointed Strategius to investigat2 the Manichaeans and similar sects is not meunt-to be taken literally. Rather it is a derogatory characterization of church councils based on what Ammianus knew of them in the wesfby_the end of the fourth century when various episcopal factions were accustomed to mentees of anichaeism as a matter of routine almost even though this had little orhething to do with the real subjects of their disputes University College Cork DAVID WOODS d.woods@ucc.ie The role of the Chaldean Oracles’ as a sacred text in later Neoplatonism is well known. Unfortunately, the original text of the Oracles is not extant; only fragments remain, embedded in the writings of the various Neoplatonists. The largest number of fragments are found in the writings of Proclus, who has thoroughly integrated Chaldean verses and terminology into his various commentaries and other writings (notably the Plutonic Theology), Proclus also wrote an extensive Commentary on the Oracles following the earlier examples of Porphyry and Iamblichus® All these commentaries on the Oracles are lost (with the exception of a few extracts from Proclus’ commentary). Since there is no independent text of the Oracles to compare with the Neoplatonic utilization and interpretation of this material (and often what is quoted is a single line of verse, sometimes @ half-line or only a single word), reconstructing the original context and meaning of a given verse or verses {no less the meaning and intent of the Oracles as a whole) is difficult at best What can be done with more confidence, however, is a reconstruction of Neoplatonic interpretation of the Oracles. From Porphyry onward, a tradition of interpretation emerges whereby various Chaldean divine entities, beings, principles, and so on are equated or ‘harmonized’ with their perceived Platonic, Pythagorean, Orphic (and other) equivalents. This process is most systematically worked out in the writings Works frequently cited (by authors name and/or shortened title) Cremer, E des Places, È, Die Chuldälschen Orakel und Jamblich de mysteriis (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969), Oracles chaldaïques (Paris, 1971). Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., G. Madec, D. O'Brien (edd.) TOGHE MAIHTOPEE. Homage à Jean Pépin (Paris, 1992). Hadot, P Kroll, W Lewy, H. Moiercik,R. Parphyre et Victorinus, 2 vols (Paris, 1968) De oraculis chaldateis (Brestau, 1895: repr. Hildesheim, 1962; Chuldean Oracies and Theurgy, new oda by M. Tardieu (Paris, 1978), The Chaldeun Oracles: Text Translation and Commentary (Leiden, 1989). Romano, E and D. P Taormina (cdd.) Hyparxis e hypostasis nel Neoplatonisma (Fiorence, 1994). Theiler, W. Farschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1966). ' Citations from the Chuldean Oracles in this paper are from my edition, The Chaidoan Onactes (Leiden, 1989). The ordering of the fragments in my edition follows that of E. des Places, Oracles chaidaigues (Paris, 1971). des Places second edition of the Oracles (Paris, 1989) corrects various errors in the first edition, Those errors which occurred in the text and translation were already noted and corrected in my edition. Masercik, R[uth]. - Chaldean triads in Neoplatonic exegesis : some reconsiderations. CQ 2001 N. S. 51 (1) : 265-296. + The process whereby various Chaldean divine, entities and principles are harmonized with their perceived Platonic, 'orean, afd Orphic equivalents is perhaps most systematically worked out in, the writings of Proclus, who finds a Chaldean equivalent for every degree of his complex triadic structure of reality. By focusing on two triads (the « father », « power », and « intellect » ; and « once yee bg », « Hecate », « twice beyond ») we can determine some of the ways in which Proclus and other Neoplatonists ? See Marinus, Y Procli 26 Boissonade = 363 T Smith. According to Marinus, Proclus’ commentary was a massive compendium that took five years to complete; it included interpretations from the commentaries of his predecessors along with Proclus' own ‘considered judgement’ of the Chaldean ‘hypotheses’. In specific reference to Porphyry and Tamblichus, Marinus notes ‘countless’ commentaries on both the Oracles and ‘related writings of the Chaldeans’. Cf. Damascius, De Princ. $ 43: 2.1.7-8 W-C, who makes a reference to the ‘twenty-cighth book’ of lamblichus' ‘most perfect Chaldeun Theology’. Saffrey and Westerink estimate that Proclus’ commentary contained 1,120 pages! See their ‘Introduction’ to volume i of interpreted the Chaldean Oracles. While a triadic principle of some son informed the teaching of the Oracles, the precise nature and function of the Chaldean triads, Procius’ Platonic Theology, xx. apart from Neoplatonic exegesis, cannot be known. I The extracts from Proclus’ commentary cun be found in des Places's edition of the Oracles,

51.1 265-296(2001)Printedin GreatBritain ClassicalQuarterly CHALDEAN TRIADS IN NEOPLATONIC EXEGESIS: SOME RECONSIDERATIONS The role of the Chaldean Oracles' as a sacred text in later Neoplatonism is well known. Unfortunately, the original text of the Oracles is not extant; only fragments remain, embedded in the writings of the various Neoplatonists. The largest number of fragments are found in the writings of Proclus, who has thoroughly integrated Chaldean verses and terminology into his various commentaries and other writings (notably the Platonic Theology). Proclus also wrote an extensive Commentary on the Oracles following the earlier examples of Porphyry and lamblichus.2 All these commentaries on the Oracles are lost (with the exception of a few extracts from Proclus' commentary).3 Since there is no independent text of the Oracles to compare with the Neoplatonic utilization and interpretation of this material (and often what is quoted is a single line of verse, sometimes a half-line or only a single word), reconstructing the original context and meaning of a given verse or verses (no less the meaning and intent of the Oraclesas a whole) is difficult at best. What can be done with more confidence, however, is a reconstruction of Neoplatonic interpretation of the Oracles. From Porphyry onward, a tradition of interpretation emerges whereby various Chaldean divine entities, beings, principles, and so on are equated or 'harmonized' with their perceived Platonic, Pythagorean, Orphic (and other) equivalents. This process is most systematically worked out in the writings Worksfrequentlycited(byauthor'snameand/orshortenedtitle) Die Chalddischen OrakelundJamblichde mysteriis(Meisenheimam Glan, 1969). Cremer,F des Places,E. Oracleschaldai'ques (Paris,1971). Goulet-Caz6,M.-O.,G. Madec,D. O'Brien(edd.) 1OQIHE MAIHTOPEZ. Homagea JeanP6pin(Paris,1992). 2 vols (Paris,1968). Hadot,P. Porphyret Victorinus, De oraculischaldaicis(Breslau,1895;repr.Hildesheim,1962). Kroll,W. newedn by M. Tardieu(Paris,1978). ChaldeanOraclesandTheurgy, Lewy,H. andCommentary (Leiden,1989). Majercik,R. TheChaldeanOracles:TextTranslation Romano,F andD. P.Taormina(edd.) Hyparxise hypostasisnelNeoplatonismo (Florence,1994). zumNeuplatonismus Theiler,W. (Berlin,1966). Forschungen Citationsfromthe ChaldeanOraclesin thispaperarefrommyedition,TheChaldeanOracles (Leiden,1989).Theorderingof thefragmentsin myeditionfollowsthatof t. des Places,Oracles (Paris,1971).des Places'secondeditionof the Oracles(Paris,1989)correctsvarious chaldai'ques errorsin the firstedition.Thoseerrorswhichoccurredin the text and translationwerealready notedandcorrectedin my edition. 2 See Marinus,V Procli 26 Boissonade= 363 T Smith. Accordingto Marinus,Proclus' commentarywas a massive compendiumthat took five years to complete; it included fromthe commentariesof his predecessorsalongwith Proclus'own 'considered interpretations judgement'of the Chaldean'hypotheses'.In specificreferenceto Porphyryand Iamblichus, Marinusnotes 'countless'commentarieson both the Oraclesand 'relatedwritings of the Chaldeans'.Cf. Damascius,De Princ. ? 43; 2.1.7-8 W-C, who makes a referenceto the 'twenty-eighthbook' of Iamblichus'most perfectChaldeanTheology'.Saffreyand Westerink to volume1 of estimatethatProclus'commentarycontained1,120pages!Seetheir'Introduction' Proclus'PlatonicTheology,xx. can be foundin des Places'seditionof the Oracles, 3 The extractsfromProclus'commentary

of Proclus, who finds a Chaldean equivalent for every degree of his complex triadic structure of reality.4The purpose of this paper,then, is to examine some of the ways in which the Neoplatonists interpreted the Oracles by focusing on two triads-those of Father, Power, Intellect and Once Beyond, Hecate, Twice Beyond-since both play an important role in the later Neoplatonic construct of reality.In doing so, I first trace the tradition of interpretation of these triads in a variety of Neoplatonic writings and contexts and then consider the problem of their legitimacy as genuine triads of the Oracles. I. FATHER, POWER, INTELLECT Porphyry, it seems, was the first of the Neoplatonists to conceive the Chaldean 'Father' as constituted triadically in terms of Father, Power, Intellect. This triad, not attested as such in any extant verse of the Oracles, was elicited by Porphyry from an interpretive reading of the verses preserved in the following two fragments (fr. 3): 'the Father snatched himself away, and did not enclose his own fire in his intellectual power'(' rrair-)p prTaaUEv EavrdOv, 008' E6 v l 8vvdctE voEpa KAElaagIS8Lov ~^p); a 8 vates abv 'For is with him but intellect is from him' (4 (fr. 4): power ydp tLv In on the Parmenides his vovs 8' d'" EKELVw, (9.1-8 Hadot),5 TKELv'o). Commentary theseversesin thefollowing interprets Porphyry way: Others,althoughthey say thathe has snatchedhimselfawayfromall of the thingswithinhim, grant to him a power and an intellectthat are co-unifiedin his simplicity,and yet another 4 Proclus'particularmethod of 'harmonizing'the teachingsof various authoritieswas immediatelydependenton thatof his teacher,Syrianus,who is creditedwithwritinga 'Harmony of Orpheus,Pythagorasand Platowith the Oracles'.See H. D. Saffrey,'Accorderentreelles les traditionsthbologiques: unecharacteristique du N6oplatonismeAthenien',in E. P.Bos and P.A. Meijer (edd.), On Proclus and His Influence in Medieval Philosophy(Leiden, 1992), 35-50. Thereis stilldoubtamongsomescholarsconcerningHadot'sattributionof this'anonymous' RecentcriticsincludeAndrewSmith,'Porphyrian studiessince 1913', commentaryto Porphyry. in ANRW 2.36.2 (Berlin and New York, 1987), 738-41; id., and v"rap~tsin "Yrrdaratsr whohas editeda newedition Porphyry'in Hyparxise hypostasis,38-41 andAlessandroLinguiti, of the Anonymous Commentary in Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini. Parte iii: Commentari (Florence,1995),87-91. Both suggestthatthe authorwas laterthan Porphyryand perhapsdependenton him. M. J.Edwards,'Porphyryand the intelligibletriad',JHS 110(1990), 14-25and 'Being,life,mind:a briefinquiry',SyllectaClassica8 (1997),191-205,also questions Porphyry's authorshipby insistingthatthe triadicsequenceBeing,Life,Intellect,contraHadot, firstfindsits 'canonicalexpression'in lamblichus.Morerecently,othershavechallengedHadot's claims by arguing that the Commentary should be considered Middle Platonic or Neopythagorean,perhapsfrom the 'school' of Numeniusand Cronius;see G. Bechtle, The AnonymousCommentaryon Plato's <<Parmenides>> (Bern, Stuttgart,and Wien, 1999); K. middle Corrigan,'Platonismand gnosticism.The Anonymouscommentaryon the Parmenides, or Neoplatonic?',in J. D. Turnerand R. Majercik(edd.), Gnosticismand Later Platonism (Atlanta,2000).On the otherhand,JohnDillon,a previouscritic,now affirmsHadot'sposition and providesa numberof supportingarguments;see 'Porphyry'sdoctrine of the one' in de )O2 IHE MAIHTOPE?, 356-66.See,also,H. D. Saffrey,'Connaissancet inconnaisance Dieu: Porphyre et la Th6osophie de Tiibingen', in id., Recherches sur le Nioplatonisme apr&s Plotin(Paris,1990),11-30,whoalso supportsandstrengthensHadot'sposition.Last,S. Lilla,in a recentarticle,remarksthat Hadot has 'rightly'attributedthe AnonymousCommentaryto has incorporatedsome of its key ideas Porphyryand thendemonstrateshow Pseudo-Dionysius and terminologyin his treatiseson the DivineNamesand the MysticalTheology;see 'Pseudoet sapost&ritW Denysl'Arbopagite, Porphyreet Damascius'in Y de Andia,ed., DenysI'Ardopagite en orientet en occident(Paris,1997),esp. 117-35.In thisdebate,I am on the side of Porphyrian authorshipandpresentadditionalevidencein thispaperto supportthisview.

intellect,and althoughtheydo not removehim fromthe triad,theysee fit to abolishnumber,in that theyabsolutelyrefuseevento say thathe is one. ot e ap7rrTaaL tavnOv CK rcv-v Kaut vo^v COV-OV E•avroveTOVTEgS8valuv-rEacro StSaaL E'v T7TA1qo'7rt1p a't•roi auvr)vZoaLt EAYE'rr OvatpEd'PtOtkV dtotr KaL'AAov , rraAtv <v>oljv KaL 77r• rp aSos airovo0 K Ka't-r3 'v AEyEtvavrov Ecval rav"reA lrapaLtrE•aOat. The context of these comments occurs in a summary list (truncated) of various views on the nature of the First God. The 'others' (ol SE')of the passage is a reference to Julian pater and/or Julianfilius, the purported 'authors' or compilers of the Oracles.6 In citing this material, Porphyry does not quote the Oracles directly, but paraphrases and interprets the verses in the following way:7 First, he suppresses the Stoicizing reference in fr. 3 to the Father's 'fire'. Second, he conflates the language of frs. 3 and 4 so that the terms 'power' and 'intellect' are clearly understood in relation to the first term of the triad (which is not the case if fr. 3 is read alone; if fr. 4 is read alone, the actual subject of the fragment becomes ambiguous). Third, by clearly differentiating between Father, Power, and Intellect, Porphyry has formalized what is otherwise an implicit triad. Fourth, he adds a Neoplatonic tag by stating that power and intellect are 'co-unified in the simplicity' of the Father, wording that goes beyond the terminology of the fragments.8Fifth, the awkwardly placed phrase-'and yet another intellect'-is either an allusion to the 'second' or demiurgic intellect of fr. 7 ('For the Father perfected all things and handed them over to the second intellect, which you-the entire human race-call the first intellect') or to the 'paternal intellect' (rarptKL~9voOS)mentioned in several fragments.9 If the latter, then this 'other' or paternal intellect can be identified with the third term of the triad Father, Power, Paternal Intellect. This triadic variant-also a construct of Porphyry'stheorizing-is that which Augustine has in mind when he says that Porphyry placed a medium between the Father and paternum intellectum or paternam mentem of the Oracles.'o d'un commentairede Porphyre',REG74 (1961), 6 On this point, see P. Hadot, 'Fragments de Porphyre'in EntretiensHardt12 (Geneva,1965), 161-2;Porphyre 427-9; 'La m6taphysique 1.107-9, 2.93, n. 4. Saffrey(n. 5), 29, attemptsto link this interpretationof the Oraclesto a certain'Antoninus'mentionedby Proclusin his Commentary on the Timaeus,2.154.9,but his arguments,in myview,arenot convincing.In responseto Saffrey,seeR. Majercik,'TheChaldean Oraclesandthe schoolof Plotinus',in TheAncientWorld29 (1998),102-4. On thismaterial,cf. Hadot,Porphyre1.124-9;Saffrey(n. 5), 14-15. 8 Similarterminologyis foundin Porphyry's Historyof Philosophy(220 F Smith = fr. XV Nauck)wherehe notes thatthe name'One'is usedof the FirstPrinciplein the senseof ro '.•v 210(withreference Cf. Proclus, Exc. Chald.4 = desPlaces, aq'a(v6EL 7r v arT3v 7TAd'Tri-a. rrEpL to the vowrodv or intelligibleobjectof fr. 1): r7 r70 vo roO 3.3; iv6alaso - (in connectionwithhis doctrineof henads): rAd-droporo; 13.2-4 S-W P.T r v Tr 'rcv rrTdvrwv a'frov rpTEpL Vlavr OELOV aOvuV LSpuaaTO a/TdrT717. Karo7a G^avrot aUVViP)VUEV frs.22, 36, 37, 134. It is unclearfromthe fragments 9 See fr. 39, 49, 108, 109;voS rrarpo'S: whetherthe paternalintellectshould be identifiedwith the Fatheror consideredas an entity separateand distinctfrom the Father.The relationof the paternalintellectto the second or 'demiurgicintellect'of fr. 7 is also unclear.For variousdiscussionsof this problem,see Kroll, La rivilationd'HermesTrismigiste3 (Paris,1953),52-9; 14-15;Lewy,79, n. 48;A.-J.Festugibre, Hadot,Porphyre1.260-7. De RegressuAn.,fr.8 Bidez= 284 F Smith:'Dicitenimdeum 0oDe Civ.Dei 10.23= Porphyry, patremet deum filium, quem graeceappellatpaternumintellectumvel paternammentem;de spirituautem sancto aut nihil aut non apertealiquiddicit;quamvisquem aliumdicat horum medium,non intellego.'Cf. 10.29= fr. 9 Bidez= 284a F Smith:'Praedicaspatremet eius filium, quem vocaspaternumintellectumseu mentem,et horummedium';Damascius,De Princ.? 121; 3.153.23-4W-C: cSvKat iAAo Proclus, 3.24;85.21S-W:'poweris hidden 2786vaU1st; GIUov, betweenthe extremes';Synesius, H. 1(3)232-5: 'I worship the hiddenorder(KpvUq av 7r~tv) of

Last, Porphyry underscores the Father's transcendence by stressing that the Oracles, although connecting the Father to the triad, do not then call him 'one'. This means, in Porphyry'sview, that the Father cannot be numbered, that is he cannot be counted as one or first in relation to the other terms of the triad since he is 'snatched away' from all things." In this transcendent state, the triad is 'co-unifed' in the Father's 'simplicity', that is it exists within him without distinction. By arranging and reading the verses of frs. 3 and 4 in this manner, Porphyrycan argue that the Chaldean Father, although connected to the triad, can also be equated with the First God or First Principle in its absolute sense.12 Proclus' reading of these verses is clearly situated in this tradition of interpretation. In his Commentaryon the Parmenides,Proclus, like Porphyry,connects the Chaldean Father to the triad, but in criticism of Porphyry,he refuses to equate the Father with the First God or the One. Although Proclus does not mention Porphyry by name here (he alludes instead to 'certain experts in theology'), Porphyry'sidentity in connection with this opinion is elsewhere confirmed by Damascius.13 Proclus says (In Parm. 1070.15-1071.3): Weshall,therefore,be veryfarfrommakingthe FirstGod the summitof the intelligibleworld, as I observeto be the practiceof certainexpertsin theology,and makingthe Fatherof that realmthe sameas the Causeof all things.Forthisentityis a participatedhenad.Afterall, he is called an intelligibleFatherand the summitof the intelligibleworld, and even if he is the connectiveprincipleof the wholeintelligibleworld,yet it is as its Fatherthathe is so. The First voEpol;it makes room for a certainmedian(rt tkjdov)that cannot be classed'. For Synesius, 'Will' is the meantermbetweenthe Fatherand Son;cf. Porphyry, De RegressuAn., fr.7 Bidez= 291 F Smith: 'rra-ptKOV VOV, id est paternammentemsive intellectum, qui paternae est conscius voluntatis';fr. 37, verse 1: voi3j rarp8 vo-jaa d3Kt'8ltLovA6U. " The same idea is expressedby Synesiusin H. 1(3) 223-6: 'It is not rightto say thereis a secondfromyou;it is not rightto saythereis a thirdfromthefirst.' 12 Porphyry's readingof thesefragmentsreflectsa widerissueconcerningthe problemof how to resolvethe teachingof Parmenidesconcerning'theone' in Parm.137D:'If it has no parts,it can haveneitherbeginning,middlenor end'with that of the 'AthenianStranger'in Laws715E, who saysthatGod 'possessesthe beginning,endandmiddleof all things'.In his Commentary on the Parmenides, Procluspresentsa summaryof solutionsto this problemincludingthat of an unnamedcommentatorwho says that 'the FirstPrinciplepossessesbeginningand middleand end and does not possessthem;for it possessesthemin a hiddenmanner(KpvbLws;cf. Synesius, H. 1(3) 233: Kpuboav 7rav, cited above,n. 10) but does not possess them distinctly.For it possessesall thingsin itself in a mannerineffableand unknowableto us, but knowableto itself' (1114.2-5).The same opinionis expressedat an earlierpoint, but in connectionwith the triad Being, Life, Intellect(1107.9-17):'But othershavesaid that the First Principle,althoughthe Cause of all thingsand situatedbeyondLife,beyondIntellect,beyondBeingitself, somehow possessesthe causesof all thesethingsin a mannerineffableand unknowableand in the most to us <butknowableto itself:Moerbeke>.'Thesecommentsreflect unifiedway,andunknowable attestednot only in his arrangement and readingof theversesin frs.3 the opinionsof Porphyry, and 4, but also in the concept of 'learnedignorance',which is attested in his Parmenides (9.24-6, 25-9), in Sent.25 Lamberz,and is explicitlyattestedfor Porphyryby the Commentary Christianeditor of the TiibingenTheosophia(? 65 Erbse = 427 F Smith): 'Porphyrythe the Phoenician,the fellowstudentof Ameliusanddiscipleof Plotinus,speaksthus:"Concerning First Causewe know nothing;for he is the objectof neithersensiblecontact nor intellectual knowledge,butknowledgeof himis ignorance"'.Saffrey(n. 5), 26, arguesthatthe authorof the Theosophiadrewthis formula,eitherdirectlyor indirectly,fromthe AnonymousCommentary whose authorhe knewto be Porphyry.For Porphyryas the sourceof Proclus'comments,see Hadot, Porphyre1.357-9. '~ De Princ.? 43; 2.1.11-13W-C = 367 F Smith:'Ordo we say with Porphyrythatthe single principleof all thingsis the Fatherof the intelligibletriad?'Cf. Proclus,In Parm.1091.12-14, who mentionsa commentatorwho identifiesthe 'summit'of the intelligiblewiththe One.

God, however,whois celebratedin the firsthypothesis,is not evena Father,but is superiorto all paternaldivinity.The formerentityis set overagainstits Powerand Intellect,of whomit is said to be the Father,andwiththeseit makesup a singletriad.But the trulyFirstGod transcendsall contrastand coordinationwith anything,so afortiori,he is not an intelligibleFather.For he is not involvedwith anyentitysecondaryto him,nor is he participatedin anyway,fallingneither in the category of intellectual nor intelligibleessence, but he transcendsin unity all the participated henads, and is snatched away above (6mrEp'7praraarat)from all the processions of Being. (trans.Morrow-Dillon,modified) This is a clear statement of Proclus' position. The 'truly First God' or One is singular and distinct, uncoordinated with any lower principle and thus beyond all categories of noetic or noeric reality. As such, the One cannot be considered a Father (or paternal principle) and certainly not an intelligible Father who remains related in some sense to his Power and Intellect (as Porphyry would have it). Such an entity, according to Proclus, is properly situated at the summit or first rank of the intelligible realm but cannot be equated with the One. It is interesting to note that this line of argument leads Proclus to engage in a bit of terminological one-up-manship: if, in Chaldean terms, it is the Father who is 'snatched away', then the One, who in Proclus' thinking clearly transcends the Father, must be 'snatched away above' (6rrEpaprrc~w, a Proclan neologism)-an expression that is obviously intended to convey a sense of absolute transcendence. This same neologism is found in a fragment from Proclus' Commentary on the Oracles. In this instance, the immediate context of Proclus' remarks is a bit of commentary on the first verse of fr. 1: 'For there exists a certain intelligible, which you must perceive by the flower of intellect' (EuorTLyap TL vor7rdv, 0 XP7 UE In the course of interpreting this verse, Proclus brings the voEv vvoovaVOEL). of the fragment into relation with frs. 3 and 4 by identifying this Tr vo1qTdv 'intelligible'with the Fatheras the firsttermor summitof the intelligibletriad.As in the previouspassage,Proclusthen distinguishesthis 'intelligible'or 'First Father' from the One by again underscoring the absolute transcendence of the latter. (Exc. Chald. 4 = des Places, 210): For if the FirstFatheris said to snatchhimselfawayfromhis Intellectand Power,who then is the one who has no need of snatching himself away, but is snatched away above fromall thingsabsolutely(&7Arrw•c )andis praisedas god of all? (ceprcp7r7praac'vor) It is in thiscontexthatProcluswillthensaythattheOne,as thetrueFirstPrinciple, cannot be perceived by the 'flower of intellect' (as the Oracles maintain vis-a-vis cognizing the -r vop-rodv),but must be perceived by an even subtler organ of thought, the 'flower of our whole soul'. Fragment 3 itself is drawn from Psellus (Exegesis, P G 122, 1144 a = des Places, 180) on the Oracles.Psellusfirst cites the who, in turn, is utilizingProclus'Commentary versesand then, in his usual manner,attemptsto interpretthe fragmentin light of Christianteaching.He says: The meaningof the oracleis this:The god overall (6 E'7rrdtcvrwv OEo"),also called Father, makes himself incomprehensible (dKarTa WTrrrov) and inconceivable not only to (drrEplArIrpTov), the firstand secondnaturesand to our souls,butevento his veryown power.But the powerof the Fatheris the Son. For 'the Father,'it says,'has snatchedhimself away'fromeverynature. But this is not the orthodoxposition.In our view,the Fatheris decreedto be in the Son,just as the Son is in the Father.And thedefinitionof the Fatheris the Son andthe transcendent,divine Word. Of interest is Psellus' use of the terms dKarT A7Trrov and drr7Ep(Arlrrovas descriptive of the Father. These terms, of course, have a long history in the tradition of negative theology, both pagan and Christian, and are used frequently in various contexts in

Proclus' many writings.14 Unless he added them on his own, it is possible that Psellus already found these terms linked to fr. 3 somewhere in Proclus' Commentary on the w v eds-oalthough reminOracles. On the other hand, the expression 0d4Zl advrw' iscent of the well-known Porphyrian phrase 0 CLM rTaLv OEdS'-isprobably Christian in inspiration.15 As for fr. 4, this verse is drawn from Proclus' Commentaryon the Alcibiades (37 [84 Cr.] 14 Westerink = 1.69 [84 Cr.] 16-17 Segonds). Here, the immediate context is an interpretation of Socrates' remarks in Alc. 103A concerning why he, Socrates, has not spoken to Alcibiades in years: 'The cause of this has not been human', says Socrates, 'but a certain daimonic hindrance, whose power you will learn of later.'This statement provides an opportunity for Proclus to reflect on the nature of spirits or daimones in general. In doing so, he cites an opinion of lamblichus (= In Alc. Fr. 4 Dillon) to the effect that such beings are constituted triadically of essences (iradp6ELS)or substances a triad that Proclus then links to the and acts (vW'pyEcaL), (ovatla), powers (vvdCLetsL), Father,Power,Intellect triad in the following way: For poweris the medianbetweensubstanceand act, producedfrom substancebut generating act. For everywherepowerhas been assignedthe middleplace;and among the intelligiblesit connectsthe Fatherand Intellect:'Forpoweris withhim,but intellectis fromhim';and among intelligiblesit connects acts with substances,for act is a productof power and substance producespowersfromitself. In terms of the larger context, the oracular verse (and appended commentary) is clearly out of place. Although Proclus gamely attempts to tie the whole discussion together by explaining how all of this means that Socrates 'all but states clearly that true power exists among the spirits', this larger context can be safely ignored. The immediate context of the verse, however, is important, since it provides a good example of how Proclus can read this verse in connection with other triads, in this instance that of the 'Aristotelian' triad substance, power, act.16What these two triads have in common, from a Neoplatonic point of view, is their respective use of power or S6va(tie as a mean term, articulated by Proclus in terms of a general law or principle: 'For everywhere power has been assigned the middle place.'17 Of further interest is how Proclus, in his Platonic Theology, elicits the triad from a creative reading of certain passages in the Timaeus.In this context, Proclus' purpose is to demonstrate that the triad, on the authority of Plato, properly belongs to the demiurgic order. Thus, in PT 3.21; 76.4-77.2 S-W, he elicits the name Father from Tim. 41A7: 'Those works of which I am Demiurge and Father'; Power from Tim. 41C5-6: 'Imitating my power in your generation'; Intellect from Tim. 39E7-9: 'Therefore, as intellect perceives the ideas which exist in the living-in-itself, and sees how many and what kind they are, such and so many he decided that this All should have.'In PT 5.16, fr. 4 itself is slightly paraphrased (with reference to the Demiurge) at 58.11-13: 'And because he is Father,at the same there is within him both Power and Intellect' and at 59.7-8: 'Therefore, indeed, as we have said, the Father is in him and Power and *4Seee.g. E.T prop.93;In Parm.620.11,685.14,713.18,andpassim. '5 Cf. Eph. 4:6 and Ro. 9:5: 0 drrL radrwv OE6s.On this point, see Lewy, 510, n. 5; cf. De l'Abstinence 2 (Paris,1977),30-4. J.Bouffartigueand M. Patillon,Porphyre. 16 On this triad,whichis elicitedfromcertainpassagesin Aristotle'sDe Anima,see Festugibre (n. 9), 190,n. 1. thatproduces,producesby meansof its own '~ Cf. Proclus,PT 3.8;31.20-1S-W:'Everything power, which is a median between the producerand that which is produced.'This is an elaborationof E.T prop.7; see SaffreyandWesterink,notead loc.

Intellect'. In 6.8; 42.4-12, Proclus again connects the triad with the Demiurge: P.T. Timaeus surmises within him a paternal cause, a generativepower, and a royal 'Indeed, as with the 'theology' of the 'Athenian Stranger':19'For the paterwell intellect'l8-as nal is everywherebeginning, power is in the middle, and intellect finishes the end of the triad'-but in this instance, Proclus concludes by citing fr. 4 explicitly as its source or authority: ' "For power is with him but intellect is from him", according to the oracle.' This strategy is repeated by Proclus in other contexts (e.g. PT 3.21; 73.19-21 S-W, where the 'Chaldean' triad is linked with the 'Platonic' triad elicited from the Philebus 23C: '. . . in every intelligible triad, the term Limit is named Father, the term Unlimited, Power,and the term Mixed, Intellect') and becomes a regular feature of his exegetical method. In fact, Proclus' desire to harmonize and equate the teaching of the Oracles with that of Plato becomes so intense that at one point he actually attributes some verses of the Oraclesto Plato himself!20 Another verse the Neoplatonists linked with the Father,Power,Intellect triad was fr. 27: 'For in every world shines a triad which a monad rules.' This verse is drawn from Damascius, who cites it in two different contexts. In the first instance, Damascius' interpretation is dependent on a metaphysical problem he poses in his De Principiis ? 43; 2.1.4 ff. W-C, that is how many principles exist prior to the intelligible triad?21 Damascius first reviews the opinions of his predecessors on this problem, noting (i) that Iamblichus posited two principles before the triad ('that which is absolutely ineffable' and 'that which is uncoordinated with the triad'); (ii) that 'the majority' of philosophers after lamblichus posited one principle ('an ineffable and single cause') before the triad;22and (iii) that Porphyryidentified 'the Father of the intelligible triad' as 'the single principle of all' (a position that Damascius, like Proclus, explicitly rejects).23Damascius then goes on to make the following argument (2.11-3.2): But it is probablybetterto speakin themannerof Iamblichus.Whether,then,thereis a Monad, IndefiniteDyad and, after these, a Triad-as that which makesup the intelligibletriad as a whole,as the Pythagoreansay-before thesethreetherewouldbe the One,as thesenotedmen also say;24whetherthereis Limit,Unlimitedand Mixed,the One is againplacedbeforethese threeby Plato,who saysthat the Oneis the causeof the blendingin the mixed;whetherthereis Father,Powerand Intellect,therewouldbe that whichis beforethese three,the single Father beforethe triad:'Forin everyworldshinesa triadwhicha monadrules',saysthe oracle.And if it is so in the worlds,it is evenmoreso in the hypercosmicabyss,for it is least suitablefor that (order)to beginfromplurality.If, then,beforethe triadicthereis the unitary,and if beforethis thereis the absolutelyineffable,as we say it, the resultis obvious. 8 SeePhilebus30D2: vo0v. flaaLtALKv Ka 7rETVAEUTv Oeods) Kat( daGaTwV OV7TVdr7TrV7WV apX-wV r20PT 3.27;99.14-15S-W,whereProclusattributestwoversesfromfr. 34 to Plato. doctrineof the one'(n. 5); 2' On this material, cf. Hadot,Porphyre1.96-8;Dillon,'Porphyry's id., 'Iamblichusof Chalcis',in ANRW2.36.2(Berlinand New York,1987),880-5; A. Linguiti, 'Giamblico,Proclo,e Damasciosul principioanterioreall'Uno',Elenchos9 (1988),95-106. is Theodoreof Asine,Syrianus,Proclus.See 22 The sequenceof authoritiesafterIamblichus WesterinkandCombbs,note ad loc. 23 In his subsequent critiqueof Porphyry's positionin 2.1-10 (whichmirrorsthatof Proclusin his ParmenidesCommentary), Damasciusadds two interestingdetails:(i) the namingof the 'paternalintellect'as the thirdtermin the triad(cf. Augustine'scommentson Porphyry's triad); (ii) mentionof the expression'One-All'(v 7rrv-ra)whichis otherwiseattestedin Porphyry's on the Parmenides12.4 as a descriptiveterm for the 'One-Being'of the second Commentary hypothesisof the Parmenides. 24 See Westerinkand Comb6s,note ad loc., for a good overviewof Pythagoreandoctrine concerningthe relationbetweenthe one andthe monad. '9 Laws 715E8-716Al: (

In this context, Damascius utilizes fr. 27 to show that the monad of the verse can be equated with the single Father who functions here as a principle prior to the triad, an interpretive strategy that allows Damascius to bring Chaldean teaching about the First Principle into agreement with that of 'Plato' and 'the Pythagoreans'. On this point of interpretation, Damascius is following the example of Proclus.25In fact, the placement of the monad before the triad, in connection with an interpretive reading of fr. 27, may have been intended by Proclus (or his predecessors) as a corrective of Porphyry'sposition, who probably identified the monad of the verse with the Father as First Principle in terms of monad and triad or one and three, that is the Father as (Paternal) Monad containing within himself his Power and Intellect. This, of course, is the well-known thesis of Hadot, which is based on Lewy's reading of fr. 27.26Lewy, in turn, maintained that this principle was the actual teaching of the Oracles themselves (see further below). For Damascius, however, neither the position of Porphyry,nor that of Proclus, is sufficient. In the end, he is most sympathetic with the two principles position of lamblichus, which he articulates at the conclusion of the passage and then adds, 'the result is obvious' or, in the paraphrase of Westerink and Combbs, 'the thesis of Iamblichus is preferable'.27 In the second instance, Damascius utilizes fr. 27 to make a cosmogonic point. In his Commentary on the Parmenides, he links the fragment with the three worlds (empyrean, ethereal, material) of Chaldean cosmology and their respective rulers or as a way of explaining how these entities are able to produce a teletarchs (rEAer-dpXat) 'series' (actpd) or 'chain' of realities. He says (In Parm. ? 205; 2.33.11-18 W-C): As for the teletarchs,thereis a hebdomadicdescent whichadvances s Pfl8ota8•K1) teletarchproducing from himself (JO' through the seven firmaments,with the empyrean(droaaa•s an empyreantriad,the etherealteletarch,<three>etherealtriadsand, Eavrov rrpoflaAAo~zdvov) likewise,the materialteletarch,threematerialtriads:'Forin everyworldshinesa triadwhicha monadrules',accordingto the oracle. 25 See n. 22. 26 Porphyre 1.261,n. 1;2.93,n. 2. Porphyry's readingof thisversein connectionwith the First Principleappearsto be preservedin Damascius'descriptionof the firsttriadof the noeticorder, wherehe identifiesthe 'Father'termof the triadwith the 'paternalmonad'in the followingway (De Princ.? 119;3.145.10-18W-C): 'Wedivideeach monad of the intelligibletriad in three ways;forexample,the paternalmonadinto Father,Power,Intellect.Forthis entiresingleFather, in thathe is by himself,is Fatheralone;butin thatPoweris broughtinto relationwithhimandhe, withit, in a certainmannerhe becomesPower;and in thathe is Fatherof himself,communicates Intellectand Intellectpertainsto him,in thismannerhe becomesIntellect.Thus,althoughbeing single, he nevertheless signifies the triad of his own simplicity (4 alve -r'Iv rpLdSar-?j olKELag d7TrA6'-ros).'The last wordsof this statementecho the languageof Porphyryin In Parm.9.1-4, where he describes the 'power'and 'intellect' of the Father as 1v -yj Ardr~7t a-rot0 aLve (Cf. Hist. Phil. 220 F Smith = fr. XV Nauck: -r ivE"c -0T77v avv-qvcbrOlat. azrov Trep• 3 and 4 readingof frs. JdrArir77a,citedabove,n. 8). The passagealso combinesan interpretive that is similarlyreminiscentof Porphyry.Like Porphyry,Damasciusdescribesthe 'paternal monad'(= Father)as both 'singleand alone'(= fr. 3: 'theFathersnatchedhimselfaway')as well as 'broughtinto relationwith'his Power(= fr. 4: 'Forpoweris with him')and 'pertainingto' Intellect('Intellectpertainsto him'= fr. 4: 'intellectis fromhim').Damascius'referenceto 'the is also foundin Porphyry's Hist.Phil.223 singleFather'(c Et~ vrar4p)who is 'alone'(adv. o'dvov) F Smith= fr.XVIIINauck,wherePorphyryrefersto the'FirstGod'as 'singleandalone'(dE Ka tzdvoS).(The 0 Ets7rarT7pof Damascius'passagealso replicatesthe samein De Princ.? 43; 2.2.18 W-C, providinga link to fr. 27.) Last,the structureof Damascius'passage-which is an interpretivereadingof frs. 3 and 4 combinedwith the statementabout the Father's'simplicity'reflects that of Porphyryin his ParmenidesCommentary. On Damascius'structureof the orderas a whole,see below,n. 42. intelligible 27 See note ad

In this context, the monad of fr. 27 becomes a principle of singularity identified with each teletarch who rules a world; the triad, then, becomes a principle of plurality which is 'produced' or 'projected' by each teletarch, thus initiating a series or chain of descending realities. This process is then repeated by Damascius for the connectors (ovvoXE^S)and iynges (rvyyEs), other cosmic entities. He then goes on (34.3-35.4) to show that not only are there triads of teletarchs, iynges, and connectors, but a 'plurality' of each-notably seven each-one for each 'firmament' (citing, respectively, frs. 80, 81, 76, and 75 as authorities).28 In this instance, despite the Chaldean terminology, Damascius' line of argument follows a general law of Proclus based on Pythagorean arithmology and formally stated as prop. 21 of the Elements of Theology: Everyorderoriginatesfroma monadand proceedsinto a pluralitywhichis coordinatedwith the monad;and the pluralityof anyordermaybe broughtbackto a singlemonad. Proclus then elaborates on the principle in the following way: Forthe monad,havingthe statusof principle,generatesits ownplurality.Therefore,a seriesand an order are both single, in that an order as a whole derives from the monad its descent into plurality.Thus,in each orderthereis a singlemonadbeforethe plurality. ({rdf'aatv) The principle is restated in P T. 5.14; 45.3-7 S-W but in specific connection with the orders of gods. In this theogonic context, the principle is combined with a paraphrase of fr. 27 (as emphasized): But it is necessary that in each world-orderthe monad preexist before the triad and before all - ad KaL727rpr7 rpLdo~8Kat 7Tp0 mraV7-r plurality(Se 83~ 7TA7rOU ov ' Kaa-rw8GLaKdOaULW rTV ova'a rrpoirapXELv). For all the orders of gods originate from a monad, because each of all the world-ordersbecomeslikethe entireprocessionof the gods. Following this Proclan line of argument, Damascius' oblique statement in the first citation ('And if it is so in the worlds, it is even more so in the hypercosmic abyss, for it is least suitable for that order to originate from plurality') can now be readily explained. What Damascius is saying is this: If the principle that a monad is prior to a triad (or prior to plurality) is a law that applies to the 'worlds' (that is, the empyrean, ethereal, and material KOatLotof Chaldean cosmology), then this principle is even more applicable to the noetic order or 'hypercosmic abyss' (= fr. 18: 'hypercosmic paternal abyss'), since this order is the most unified of all and thus even less likely 'to originate from plurality'.29This seems a bit convoluted, but makes sense in the context of Neoplatonic logic. What remains to be decided is whether Damascius' citation of fr. 27 in either of these passages has any relation to its original context and meaning. Modem commentators, following Lewy, have all linked the fragment to the noetic triad (Father, 28 Fr.27 is also linkedto the threeworldsby Simplicius in In Phys.613.1-5,followingProclus' interpretation of the word 'light' (cd6os)found in verse 3 of fr. 51: 'For this is the "light"which is beyond the empyrean, since it is the monadbefore the triad of the empyrean, ethereal and material (worlds)'. Cf. 616.3-4: 'And perhaps this "light" is the monad of the triad of the worlds which Proclus,himself,admits'. 29 AlthoughDamascius(following Proclus)identifiesthe'hypercosmic paternalabyss'of fr. 18 ('You who know the hypercosmic paternal abyss by perceiving it') with the noetic order of Neoplatonic speculation, in its primitive sense, this expression may have been intended as a descriptive term for the Father and/or his dwelling place. See Lewy, 159-60 and n. 351; Theiler, 'Die chald~iischen Orakelunddie Hymnendes Synesios'in Forschungen,

Power, Intellect) of the first passage30while ignoring the cosmogonic context of the second citation, which actually links the fragment more closely to specific Chaldean material. But even in this second instance, the fragment is cited as an authority along with other fragments to affirm the truth of a general principle. Thus neither context may be relevant to its original situation. That fr. 27, itself, may reflect a general law of reality is, of course, possible, but without its original context this cannot be known with certainty. The most that can be said is that the later Neoplatonists cited it as though this were the fact to suit their own exegetical purposes. Fragment 27 may also be echoed in a line from one of Proclus' hymns (lost), but or Once Beyond (as reported by here in connection with the Chaldean rvrala irEdKEtva fr. John Lydus, De Mens. 23.9-12 Wuensch = Procli Hymni, II, Vogt): That the monad is conceivedin termsof a triad,one can learnfrom the book of hymns.For concerning the Once Beyond, Proclus speaks in this way: 'For seeing you as a monad, containinga triad,the worldhas honoredyou'. OL tiLovadre'vTPLLc 7TEKELVQa o 8uva ov 6K vv al/vapiwv Aapv. ,rps- yap Tv &,ral OEWpE••aL, OVlo 8a31 y p aE -ptovXv L8v 'L KO•a/09'. pOKAOSOvrw' ECUEld•aefaaTO If this verse is inspired by fr. 27,32 then Proclus has reinterpretedthe fragment so that the monad and triad are now clearly perceived as one and three and 'every world' becomes the cosmos as a whole praising or honoring a specific god. Although des Places has included this verse among his undoubted fragments (fr. 26), Lydus' attribution of the verse to Proclus makes its authenticity doubtful.33 This is further reinforced by Proclus' linking of the mrraiTr•iKELvawith the expression zovvcdsa rpLovXov.This poetic turn of phrase is not Chaldean in origin but Proclan; it is modelled on that of psovadsrpLa8LK1, a Proclan technical term designed to express the unity in triplicity of each triadic structure within a given order.34 Thus the Once Beyond, which Proclus situates at the summit of the first triad of the noeric order as its unifying or 'monadic' term, becomes a 'triadic monad'.35 It is in this particular context that Proclus most likely composed his hymn, with the phrase Cpovvcda If so, rpLovxovinvented on this occasion as a poetic substitute for juovds "rpLatC•L.36 then its relation to fr. 27 becomes problematic, as Proclus' own theorizing (OECpdErat) is sufficient enough for its inspiration. If this line of interpretation is correct, then evidence for a well-defined concept of a 0oLewy, 106 and n. 164;cf. 78-80; Hadot, Porphyre1.261and n. 1; 2.93, n. 2; des Places, Oracles chaldai'ques,12-13; Majercik, ChaldeanOracles, 7-8 and notes to frs. 4 and 27. ' It shouldbe notedthatWuensch's textof Lydus(Leipzig,1898;repr.Hildesheim,1967)has [tovcSa (and so E. Vogt, Procli Hymni [Wiesbaden, 1957] fr. II, 33) which does not scan; J. Bidez, Viede Porphyre (Leipzig,1913;repr.Hildesheim,1964),47, n. 1 wasthe firstto note andcorrect this error.Lewy, 106, n. 164 misplaces the accent: ttov'vasa;and so Hadot, Porphyre1.96, n. 2 but correctedon 261,n. 1. 32 This is Lewy'sopinion, 106, n. 164:'Thisversehas been imitatedby Proclus'.Cf. Hadot, 1.294and n. 2. Porphyre 3 Fr.26* is considereddoubtfulin my edition(indicatedby the asterisk).Seenotesad loc. 14 See e.g. PT 3.14;51.11S-W: sova'&S-rpta8uKat; cf. 3.22;81.6;Damascius,In Parm.? 265; 2.132.4-5 Ruelle: 7-ptaS&K8t)ovds; cf. ? 192; 2.4.14-15; 61.12 W-C. as See PT 5.2; 10.19-11.15S-W. wasperhapsmodelledon the samefroma verseof the Pythagorean 36 Proclus'poeticCtovvd8Sa o VO0 EK (or Orphic) 'Hymn to Number' ...) which he cites in (touvd80os KEVO/•r dKrPTprov various contexts: In Tim. 1.316.21-4, 2.53.3-4, 3.107.14-17; In Rem p. 2.169.24-27. See Kern, H. The Texts the Period (Abo, 1965), 173; E. Hellenistic O.F 315; Thesleff, Pythagorean Delatte, Etudes sur la litttraturepythagoricienne(Geneve, 1974), 208-27.

triadicmonadin the Oraclesremainselusive.AlthoughDamasciussometimesuses the expression'triple-barbedmonad'(-rptyAd.XLt 3tov~d)37 to expressthis idea-he also mentions the 'triple-barbed god' (TPLyAdXL~ 0Eds)38-this usage reflects a creative applicationof the term'triple-barbed strength'(&AK'17ptLyAWtLS)drawnfromfr. 2." This was a common enough practiceamong the later Neoplatonists,who found it necessaryto isolate a given term or expressionfrom certainfragments-and then hypostatizeit as a distinctentity-as a way of filling out an increasinglycomplex structure of reality.The hypostatization of the term •3wTEwKWS, drawn from fr. 6, is an excellent example of this strategy.Once extractedfrom the fragmentthis entity becomes situated at the lowest level of the noeric order. But like the 5rrae of r•rKEtva thisorder,this 'diaphragm' also becomesa 'triadicmonad'.40 As for otherverses, triads are mentionedin a generalsense (frs.23, 28, 29, 31) as well as a 'paternalmonad' (fr. 11), but no extant versespeaksexplicitlyof a 'triadicmonad'(or 'triple-barbed or cosmologicalsense.Thissuggeststhattheprinciple monad')in eithera metaphysical wasderivedfromNeoplatonicspeculationindependentof the Oracles,butwas applied to the Oracles,as to the Orphicaand otherauthorities,as the situationand context demanded. This is trueof anotherprinciple,that of implicationand predominance, whichwas to the Intellect triad as other well as to Father,Power, applied intelligibletriadsof and is Life, Neoplatonicspeculation(e.g.Being, Intellect) formallystatedas prop.103 of Proclus'Elementsof Theology:'Allthingsarein all things,but in each accordingto its propernature.'In terms of this principle,the 'Chaldean'triad is schematizedas an enneadof threetriadswith predominatingterms,that is Father,Power,Intellect; Father,Power,Intellect;Father,Power,Intellect.Such a schemais attestedfor both Proclus41and Damascius,althoughDamasciusintroducescertaincomplexities,for exampleintroducingthe PaternalIntellectas the firsttermof the thirdtriadand then structuringhis enneadoverallin terms of threemonads (paternal,potential,intellective)as well as monad,dyad,triad.42In eithercase,it is an enneadof threetriads monad' 37 See In Parm.? 214;2.47.19-20W-C whereDamasciusidentifiesthe 'triple-barbed withthe intelligibleintellect. 38 See In Parm.? 187; 1.100.1-2W-C and De Princ.? 98; 3.58.1-3 W-C, whereDamascius identifiesthe 'triple-barbed god' with the 'intellectof the Father'(= intelligibleintellect)drawn fromverse1 of fr.22. r The entirefragmentis citedby Damasciusin XLVLvo'ov ivyX•vO' 39 &AK orwAtlav-ra. De Princ.?TP•YA was evidentlythe first to isolatethis expression;cf. 70; 2.106.6-9 W-C. Porphyry Synesius,H. 9(1) 65-6: 'an ineffablemonad pouringforth containsa triple-bloomed strength On the primitivesenseof the fragment,see Lewy,192-5,who thinksthe (rpLKodpU4flov iaAKCV)'. oracleshouldbe understoodin connectionwith the theurgicalelevationof the soul. Cf. S. Iles Johnston,HekateSoteira(Atlanta,1990),128-30fora similaranalysisbutin specificconnection with Hecate;id., 'Ridersin the sky:cavaliergods and theurgicsalvationin the secondcentury is originallyHomeric;e.g. 'triple-barbed A.D.', CPh87 (1992),303-21andesp.316-21. TPLYAdoXL~ arrow'11.5.393. 40 Damascius, In Parm. ? 265; 2.132.4-5 Ruelle: 'But it is necessary to know that the 7TTe4SWK o is a triadic monad. For Proclus, himself, says this'. For Proclus, the is the •r•VEWKOr5 and the 'distinguishing'or 'separativecause' of the noeric order.See PT 5.2; 10.20-11.11 commentsof SaffreyandWesterinkin their'Introduction' to this volume,p. xv. 41 See e.g. PT 3.9 and 13 and Psellus'varioussummariesof the Chaldeansystemin des Places's edition of the Oracles,189-201; Psellus' summariesare dependent on Proclus' on the Oracles. Commentary 42 See De Princ.? 119;3.145.10-146.2W-C wherethe enneadis schematized'vertically'as threemonads(paternal,potential,intellective)and 'horizontally'as threetriads(Father,Power, Intellect;Father,Power,Intellect;PaternalIntellect,IntellectivePower,Intellect).In terms of monad, dyad, triad, the first triad representsthe 'paternalmonad' in a state of unity or

which makes up the noetic or intelligible world of Neoplatonic speculation, understood in Chaldean terms as the 'paternal abyss' (= Damascius' 'hypercosmic abyss' = fr. 18, 'hypercosmicpaternal abyss'). In addition, Damascius elsewhere links this schema more closely to specific Chaldean teaching (De Princ. ? 111; 3.109.4-5 W-C): 'For the theurgists hand down to us that there are three triads there, having been instructed by the gods themselves.' Proclus, in his Commentaryon the Parmenides, 1090.25-8, also mentions a doctrine of three triads in connection with the Oracles('It is necessary to keep in mind that among the intelligibles there are many orders, and as praised by the theologians, there are three triads among them'), but neither Proclus nor Damascius, to my knowedge, ever cites a specific verse or verses in which three triads are explicitly mentioned. One might suppose that an authority for these triads could be found in fr. 22, which is cited in whole or part in a variety of contexts by both Proclus and Damascius. The fragment reads: 'For the intellect of the Father said for all things to divide into three, governing all things by the intellect <of the very first> eternal <Father>. He nodded his assent to this and immediately all things were divided'. However, in none of the contexts in which this oracle is cited (the first verse is the preferredauthority) is there ever mention of three triads.43 An ennead of three triads is also attested for Porphyry in connection with the Oracles by John Lydus (De Mens. 159.5-8 Wuensch = 366 F Smith: 'Divine is the number of the ennead completed by three triads and, as Porphyry says, maintained as the summits of the theology according to the Chaldean philosophy') but without further elaboration. Hadot has theorized that this Porphyrian ennead would have consisted of Father, Power, Paternal Intellect (with predominating terms), basing his analysis on the bit of Chaldean exegesis preserved in Porphyry's Commentaryon the Parmenides9.1-8 plus the testimony from Augustine.44Damascius also introduces the Paternal Intellect as a term in his schema, but his enneadic structure overall is more developed than that which Hadot has in mind. What remains to be decided, however, is whether an ennead of first principles'simplicity'(cf. above,n. 26); the second triad representsthe 'potentialmonad'as hiddenor 'remainingwithinitself'betweenthe dyador 'twoextremes'of Fatherand Intellect(cf. above,n. or 'noericmonad'as a distincttriadin whicheach 10);the thirdtriadrepresentsthe 'intellective' momentbecomesan 'intellect'in turn:PaternalIntellect,IntellectivePower,Intellect.It should also be notedthatDamascius'enneadis furtherstructuredaccordingto a principleby whichthe last termof a triadundergoesa processof 'threereversions' in relationto the othertermsof the triad and itself. On this complication,see De Princ. ?? 78-9; 2.135.1-139.10W-C, where Damasciusdiscussesthe theoryat lengthin connectionwith the triadBeing, Life, Intellect.S. Gersh,lamblichusto Eriugena(Leiden,1978),143-51,hasa good discussionof this principle. 43 See Proclus,In Tim.3.243.16-21wherehe citesverses1 and2 for the the specificpurposeof e~r' fromTim.41D4;In Parm.1091.6-9where comparingthe termEirEfromverse1 with-rai-' he cites verses1 and 3 in connectionwith his analysisof Parm.137C;In RemP. 2.201.17-21 wherehe paraphrasesverse 1 ('The Oracles,as usual,havedividedthe All into three')in connectionwith Chaldeancosmology,i.e. 'the summit'is 'fire','themedian'is 'ether','the third'is 'worlds';Damascius,In Parm.? 184;1.96.14-20W-C who linksverses1 and 3 with the workof the 'first world-creator' (= the Paradigm)as creator'of everydiacosmos-material and immaterial,noericand noetic';? 187;1.99.21-100.2wherehe cites verse 1 and then connectsthe expression'intellectof the Father'withthe 'triple-barbed god';thesameidentificationis madein connectionwithverse1 in De Princ.? 98;3.58.1-3W-C;In Parm.? 201;2.28.25-29.2W-C where Damasciusparaphrases verse1 in the followingway:'andif a certainintelligiblefatheris said to divide all things into three,he has divided all things accordingto a triad which cannot be numbered'.On thislast,cf. Porphyry, In Parm.9.5-8. Hadot,Porphyre1.266-7.

apart from Neoplatonic speculation-was, in fact, a teaching of the Oracles. Lewy45 attempted to reconstruct such a schema by creatively piecing together an interpretive reading of various fragments so as to arrive at the following sequence of three triads: (i) a Paternal Monad or Father constituted of Intellect, Will, Power; (ii) a triad of universal or 'primordial' Ideas; (iii) a triad of particular or 'divided' Ideas. But in making this reconstruction, Lewy admits that it is hypothetical and ultimately prefers to remain undecided on the issue.46 But even if an ennead could be positively affirmed for the Oracles, Lewy's reconstruction is problematic. First, in his schematization of the first triad as Intellect, Will, and Power, Lewy, in effect, has utilized the exegetical method of the Neoplatonists by eliciting the triad from a creative reading of several select fragments, including (illegitimately) several verses from oracles in the TiibingenTheosophia.47Like the triad Father, Power, Intellect, a schematized (and hypostatized) triad of Intellect, Will, Power is nowhere attested in any undoubted fragment. For Lewy further to link this triad with the paternal monad of fr. 11 and the monad of fr. 27 in a triadic monad sense is similarly unjustified, and again reflects the influence of Neoplatonic strategy. In contrast, a reading of the fragments independentof Neoplatonic triadic concerns reveals that the Father (and equivalent entities) is associated with several qualities, for example will,48 power,49 intellect,50perfection,51 strength,52love53--all of which are mentioned in various contexts, but none of which are triadically conceived. In addition, in those fragments in which the term triad does appear, surprisingly,no triad of any kind is specifically named.54The one exception is the triad 'faith, truth and love' found in a truncated verse cited by Proclus (fr. 46 = In Tim. 1.212.21), but even this triad may be illegitimate, as elsewhere these terms are linked with a fourth term, 'hope'.55 As for the two triads of Ideas, a basic distinction between universal and particular can be claimed for the Ideas from a reading of fr. 37,56but their further triadization is speculative, based again on the linking of several disparate fragments. The evidence, then, for an ennead of first principles in the Oracles, especially as reconstructed by Lewy, is weak. In the end, one gets the sense that an enneadic construct was imposed 45 Lewy, pp. 105-17. 46 Ibid. 117, n. 197. 47See 78-81 and esp. 79, n. 49 on 'Will'.Scholarsand commentatorsince Lewyhaveall rejectedhis claim that certainof these'theosophical'oraclesshouldbe consideredamong the undoubtedfragments;see E. R. Dodds,'New lighton the "ChaldeanOracles"',HTR 54 (1961), 265-6; repr.in Lewy,695; des Places,55-6; Majercik,46. A numberof these 'theosophical' oracles(includingno. 13,whichLewyidentifiesas Chaldean)derivefromoraclesitesat Didyma andClaros;see L. Robert,'Troisoraclesde la Th6osophiet un proph6ted'Apollon'in ComptesRendusde l'acadimiedes inscriptions et belleslettres(Paris,1968),568-99; 'Un oraclegrav6& Oinoanda'in ibid.(Paris,1971),597-619. 48 OU v .: frs. 37, 77, 81, 107;-r~ 0tAEw:fr. 22; fr. 44, but this term is disputed;see vep/Ca: Majercik,note ad loc. 49 vapgs:frs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 136. o voOs:frs.4, 5, 7, 22, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 49, 108,109, 134. 52 aAKs: frs. 1,49, 82. fr.37. SrT'AOS,avrorEA7s: frs. See frs.2 (cj.),23, 27, 28, 29, 31. 44. gS: 39, 42, 54 p3 55 It should be noted that the term 'triad'is linkedto these termsonly as part of Proclus' commentary;it is not found in the fragmentitself.Cf. Iamblichus,D.M. 5.26, who mentions divinelove,good hope and faith;Porphyry,Marc.24: 'Mayfourelements(a-rotXe^a) especially strengthenyou with respectto God: faith,truth,love,hope.'Cf. fr. 47: 'Mayfire-bearinghope nourishyou'. 56The fragmentspeakspoeticallyof 'primordial'ideas which'leap forth','whirr'or 'spout forth'fromthe Fatheras 'intellect'or 'paternalsource'andthenare'divided'by the 'noericfire'.

on the Oraclesin lightof the Pythagoreaninterestsof the laterNeoplatonists.Sucha and construct,of course,wasimposedon Plotinus'writings(theEnneads)by Porphyry, it is quitelikelythathe did the samewith the Oracles. II.VrapVs• It shouldalso be noted thatthe term ('existence')is often substitutedfor the Vrap••s Chaldean'Father'in Neoplatonicexegesis. Again, this substitutionapparentlygoes back to Porphyryand subsequentlybecomes a virtual technical term in later Neoplatonism.The evidencefrom Porphyryhas been treatedat length by Hadot.57 More recently,the originand historyof the termhavebeenanalyzedin a numberof papers published in the volume Hyparxis e hypostasis nel Neoplatonismo (Florence, 1994).Of particularinterestis Proclus'mentionof Vtrapftsas a name for the First Principlein a list preservedin his Platonic Theology3.7; 30.3-6 S-W: 'Source of divinity','King of all things','Henad of all henads','Goodness,motherof truth', 'Existencewhichtranscendsall things','Causebeyondall causes'.58A similarlist is found in the EmperorJulian'sHymn to KingHelios. In this list, 'Idea of Being(s)' appearsas one of the namesfor the First Principle(132CD):'King of all things', 'Thatwhichtranscendsintellect','Ideaof Being','One','theGood'. In thislist, Julian glosses 'Ideaof Being'in the the followingway:'Ideaof Being,and by BeingI mean the intelligible as a whole' (18av rcOv 'v-rwv,; 8~ y77L /7 vo-qrv (etrav). The sourcethatI knowof in which'Ideaof Being'appearsas a onlyotherNeoplatonic namefor the FirstPrincipleis Porphyry'sCommentary on theParmenides.In 12.31-3, Porphyrysays of the One that it is 'beyondBeing,Being(edvaL)in the absolutesense S roi and, as it were, Idea of Being' (cDarep 18a vrooS).Julian's gloss, which explains 'Being'as 'the intelligibleas a whole',also links this expressionto Porphyry.This is attestedby Procluswho, in his summaryof Porphyry'sdivisionof the hypothesesof the Parmenides (In Parm. 1053.37-1054.10), exactly identifies his second hypothesis (= One-Being) with 'the intelligible plane' (" SEvre'pa rept~70o 7TArovsu).59 vorqro3shore To the best of this evidencefrom Julian,which would the my knowledge up claim that the Anonymous Commentaryis Porphyrian,has been overlookedby scholars,includingHadot. What remainsunclear,however,is whetherProclus'list and that of Julianderive from the same source.In the case of Julian,he explictlyindicateshis dependenceon lamblichus(146AB,150D,157CD).If so, thenwe haveto supposethatlamblichus,in s7 Hadot,Porphyre1.267-72,488-90. s8 See Saffreyand Westerink,note ad loc., who givea summaryof sourcesfromwhichthese namesderive.RegardingAVap•ts, they note:'It is not impossiblethat the word Arap~tl was a nameforgod in the Chaldean Oracles andaccording to Porphyry.' On thispointtheyfollow for 'Father'in the Oracles Hadot, who was the first to suggestthe substitutionof trap~Ls earlierscholarseithermentionthe themselves;see Porphyre1.267andn. 7. Hadotnotesherethat substitutionin passing(Kroll,Theiler)or ignoreit (Lewy).des Placesthinksthe substitution 'seemslater'than the Oracles;see 'Les oracleschaldaiques'in ANRW2.17.4 (Berlinand New York,1984),2325;cf. belown. 86. 5 The same identificationin connectionwith Porphyryis also foundin Simplicius,In Phys. 230.37-231.1,where'the second One' (in connectionwith Simplicius'reportof Porphyryon ~ V KaL Moderatus' teaching) is glossed by Porphyry as r6 uvrws Cf. Proclus, In Tim. vo•pr'v. who 'call trulybeing the 1.233.2-3, who refersto 'certainancients'(= Porphyry;see 322.23) at r voro7v7rA KaAoO intelligibleplane'('vrwg A3V dro). Both Simpliciusand Proclusthenuse the same term, rd olvxXKdv, to describethe level of Soul. See Hadot, Porphyre1.148and 166; SaffreyandWesterink,PT 1, lxxxi,n. 1.

one of his works, has preserved a few names from a Porphyrianlist of First Principles, a list that would include not only 'Idea of Being' but 'King of all things' as well. This last is drawn from Ps.-Plato's Second Letter 312E, a point noted by Saffrey and Westerink in their excellent overview of the history of the interpretation of the Second Letter in the 'Introduction' to Volume 2 of Proclus' Platonic Theology. They note that Julian, who otherwise presents himself as a 'faithful disciple of Iamblichus', follows what they term the 'Roman' rather than 'Syrian' school in this matter, a fact these editors rightly find 'surprising'.60As they describe it, the 'Syrian' school (Amelius, Theodore, lamblichus) identified the three kings of the Second Letter with three demiurges or three intellects conceived as subordinate to the One; in contrast, the 'Roman' school (Plotinus, Porphyry) identified the first king (or 'King of all things') with the One.61Julian'slist follows this Plotinian-Porphyrian order. This is also true of Proclus, who likewise identifies the 'King of all things' with the First Principle. Thus in both lists, we find three Idea of Being, King of all things--each of names-Joapest, which can be linked with Porphyry's teaching. Proclus, then, like Julian, may have utilized the same or a similar list. In the case of Julian, this list was apparently mediated through a work of lamblichus, perhaps his On the Gods.62 Proclus was also familiar with this work and this may have been his source as well.63What remains to be decided, however,is whether the name Vtrapf•r-like Idea of Being-was derived from Porphyry'smetaphysical speculations or was borrowed, instead, from the Oracles. The evidence here is ambiguous, since none of the later Neoplatonists cites a verse or verses in which this term occurs. On the other hand, Damascius, in several instances, seems to suggest that he did find it in the Oracles. The first example is found in De Princ. ? 38; 1.118.11-15 W-C. The wider context of Damascius' remarks is a lengthy consideration of the various ways in which 'the One' (= the first term of Damascius' intelligible triad the One, the Many, the Unified), as absolutely undetermined, relates to its effects. One possibility, says Damascius, is to say that the things after the One are in relation to it by a 'certain distinction'. He says that this 'distinction' would be 'the very first of all distinctions': I mean the very first of all distinctions,that which would be absorbed,more or less, by the undetermined,so thatthe secondprincipleseemsto be the powerof the first,a powerwhichhas been conflatedwith existence,as certainauthorsof sacredtexts alreadyhint at (8ivaltV vtlapEL aVPL7TE7T7]Yvtav, wg ve ]? T871r a vWrITrov-rat). EpoAOYOL 7o.7"o Ty- As Westerink and Comb6s point out in their note to this passage, Damascius' comments allude to fr. 4 of the Oracles: 'For power is with him but intellect is from him.' In this instance, Damascius has substituted frfap~s~for Father as the implied subject of the verse and then interprets the verse, in part, by saying that 'power' is 'with' 7rrape~rin the sense of being 'conflated with' it. He then notes that certain hierologoi (= the Juliani) 'hint at' this meaning, that is, it is suggested by the verse but not explicitly stated as such. The use of the verb (lit. 'speak in riddles') in alvw'-rrotal 6' Ibid. lix. 2, Iviii. 6 See 62 SeeJ. P.T Dillon,lamblichiChalcidensis Fragmenta (Leiden,1973),23. Iamblichusmentionsthis workin D.M. 8.8. 63 PT 1.11; 52.3-4 S-W; cf. Damascius,De Princ. ? 61; 2.71.26-72.1 W-C. As for the Porphyriansourcein whichlamblichusfoundthesenames,it is possiblethathe borrowedthem directly from Porphyry's Commentaryon the Parmenides. If not, at the very least, the source utilizedwouldhaveto be post-Plotinian,as thenames'Ideaof Being'and'Kingof all things'-as descriptivetermsfor the One or FirstPrinciple-are reflectiveof this laterstageof Porphyry's thinking.

this connection is of some interest. This verb is often used by the Neoplatonists when invoking a textual authority to confirm the truth of their own point of view.64 Although a given text is often quoted directly,it is sometimes paraphrased with its new meaning, for example Porphyry'sparaphrase of Rep. 509B ('the Good is beyond being in eminence and transcending power') in In Parm. 12.22-4: 'See, then, if Plato does not 'OKEV): the One which is beyond seem to speak in riddles (jen substance is this method that Damascius has in mind when he and being', and so on.65 It atwLa9wooEdvw paraphrasespart of fr. 4 ('power is with him' becomes 'a power which is conflated with and then suggests that this new meaning was already 'hinted at' by the iraptes') 'authors' of the Oracles.That fr. 4 is invoked in this regard underscores its significance in Neoplatonic interpretation as a textual authority for the Father, Power, Intellect triad, a triad that is then equated by the Neoplatonists with that of Existence, Power, Act. That Damascius substitutes iri7ap6tSfor Father in this context reflects this equation. (The triad Existence, Power, Act is not explicitly mentioned here, but is drawn into Damascius' discussion at an earlier point; see ? 37; 1.114.14ff.) In the following passages, the relation of this particular triad to the Oracles is made explicit. The first citation is from De Princ. ? 61; 2.71.1-4 W-C: Now the first principleis conceivedaccordingto Existence,as in the Oracles,the second accordingto Power,and is calledthis explicitly;the third,then,will also includeAct. OKOtV Kaa 7'8) S weEpa a 6)ge E'V AoYoLS^ , Ka7Tr- q7)v V7TapwLV 0EWPEL-L, /I 6 7TP7r7pqr cipX' ~EV T7)Yv Stvatuv aawc9 oirw CKatAE'yETaL*7e J rTp&'vpa rpoaAj'EraL KaLtT'V EbvcpyEtLV. The second example is found in In Parm. ? 221; 2.57.11-14 W-C: And then,to speakin the Chaldeanmanner,Intellectis establishedmoreoveraccordingto Act, Lifeaccordingto Power,Beingaccordingto the Existenceof the Father. EITELKat, d XatASaiSac lTrW7v, 01"iEv voO Ka7l-ar v EEvpyeLav i'Tara& uixAAov, 7qSE4C'O 7Tarp0. uiapev. SmvaliMv, Ka~aTr7V 71SEoVcnaKara T)V T-OV Although these examples can be construed to mean that Damascius did, indeed, find the term J7rap~Lsin the Oracles,66a third example links this line of interpretation with the theorizing of lamblichus. This evidence is found in De Princ. ? 120; 3.148.8-19 W-C: And thesearethe principlesthatotherphilosopherswishedto expressthroughothernames;for example,the Pythagoreansby Monad, Dyad and Triad,or Plato by Unlimited,Limited,and Mixed,or whichwe earlierexpressedby the One,the Manyandthe Unified,thatthe Oraclesof the gods (ol XPlrO9aoL OECv) express by Existence, Power and Act. For he explicitly names -Jv r o4yv the Father, Existence (r-v E'v 0 a rarTepaaVkra lrapeLv vojdOEL), but as for Power, he hands down (7rapaSlSwoLv)no other name. But if the Father is Existence (6rap~ts) and Power the medianprinciple,wouldnot the thirdbe Act and be calledAct?At anyrate,it is in this way that the great lamblichus conceives (OEwpE)tthis. Although at first glance, ol Xprnitot' appears to be the subject of the verbs dvoa'?.EL 64 See e.g. Plotinus, Enn. 6.2.22.13: 1H-Ad'tv and passim. For a good overview alvtTrr•'pEVOr on the use of this verb and related terms in connection with the Neoplatonic exegesis of myths, see R. Lamberton, Homer Neoplatonist Allegorical Readingand the Growthof the Epic Tradition (Berkeley,1989). 65 Cf. Hist. Philos. 222 F Smith = fr. XVII Nauck: ' Sto a'3Ts H-opOVPtogr EPp IHAdorwvoSg iv a"7Topp7)'ot1 rTE•pL kr7 Too'TCLov aLvLTTO/IEvOvr K'A. 66 This is the opinion of Westerinkand Combbs;see note ad loc. to second passageand "' et chez Damascius' in Hyparxis e hypostasis, 131-2. This is also J. Comb6s, YvraptLr iro'daramls the view of Hadot, cited above n. 58.

and 7rapa8tswatv, this does not make grammatical sense. One would expect the verbs to be plural. This grammatical anomaly has led the editors of the De Principiis, Westerink and Combes, to surmise that Damascius, in writing o" really had XP7Ua•Lot, first two as Since in mind Damascius' citations the neuter evidence). (citing AoymLa dplural can take a singular verb, they translate Damascius' words as though rd Ado'yLa, in fact, was the subject ('ils nomment clairement', etc.).67 But in making this judgement, Westerink and Comb6s oddly ignore the larger context of this material, which identifies the 'he' in question with lamblichus. It is in a work of lamblichus, then, that Damascius found this bit of commentary on the Oracles with its explicit substitution of Existence or VraptgS for Father (as well as Act for Intellect), a method of that is also reflected in the two examples cited interpretation or theorizing above. (This substitution was(O•wpEi) noted earlier in connection with lamblichus' teaching in is substituted for oiutiat; a Proclus' Commentary on the Alcibiades, where T7CdpELSt similar substitution of terms is found in Iamblichus' De Mysteriis.)68 That this substitution of terms was already made by Porphyry,however, is suggested by Proclus. In his Commentaryon the Parmenides1167.15-36, Proclus takes issue with a commentator who attributes 'act' to the First Principle.69Proclus argues that act should not be ranked prior to substance nor should it be attributed to the One. If act is attributed to the One, he argues, then power can be attributed to it as well, with the result that multiplicity will be introduced into the One ('the One will no longer be one'). He then adds that, in his opinion, there is something immediately following the One which is 'superior'to power and act. He identifies this 'something' with in the following way: 'For if the Vtapt~e of the first triad of intelligibles Jloaptg~ is beyond (IrEKEtva) all power and all act, how much more so is the One, which rising above all inrapetg (ro irdaav Vraptvw t-rfpatpov), we affirm as superior to act.' This statement reflects the same kind of argument Proclus makes against Porphyry concerning the ontological status of the One vis-ac-visthe Chaldean Father in connection with their respective interpretations of frs. 3 and 4, but with a substitution of terms: The triad Existence, Power,Act for that of Father,Power,Intellect, 'beyond' for 'snatched away', 'rising above' for 'snatched away above'. The argument, however, remains the same. In a word-from Proclus' point of view-whether named irap~ls or Father, the first term of the intelligible triad-although perceived as 'beyond' or 'snatched away' from all things--cannot then be equated with the One (Porphyry'sview), since the One-as Proclus sees it-'rises above' or is 'snatched away above' from all things absolutely, be it VrapLgs or Father,Power,Act or Intellect. In this context, Proclus' description of the One as 'rising above all Vtrap~ts'is close in sense to a descriptive term for the First Principle, `rkEp1raptgs,found in Ps.-Dionysius, D.N 1.5; 117.6 Suchla-an expression that may have originally been coined by Proclus in connection with his exegesis of these fragments. This noun is of the same form as Proclus' verb, r Epaprri/ww.As with this term, Proclus again engages in a bit of terminological one-upmanship: if Porphyry can denominate the One, rVapetgs,then he, Proclus, will go one better and name him errp6vrapts-or that which 'rises above' or is 'snatched away above' absolutely. Although 'repirrap6tg is not attested in any of Proclus' extant works, the 67 Seenote ad loc.;repeatedin Combes,ibid. T 68 See D. M. 1.5: E'v EVatl 7rEKat8&vaaOatKat •EvpyELV;D. M. 1.6: 'v 7Tq•jXrp LVKaL lV 7T KaL VepyEfv. Cf. Damascius, De Princ., ? 61; 2.71.25-72.1 W-C, who notes a 8ivaaOal T 7O' distinction between ro vTadPXELvand ro Evat 'made by the philosophers (sc. Syrianus and Proclus)andIamblichus,himself,in" his treatise"Onthe Gods"andin manyotherplaces'. 69 On this passage, cf. C. Steel,' Yrrapetrchez Proclus' in Hyparxis e hypostasis, 92-4.

quality of absolute transcendence associated with this term is suggested in PT 2.11; 65.13-14 S-W where Proclus praises 'the Ineffable' as 'more unknowable than all In addition, the fact that Proclus specifically isolates 'act' as a quality of the One-as the view of his opponent-also points to Porphyry,who exactly equates the One with 'act' or 'pure act' in his Commentaryon the Parmenides 12.25-6.70 It is in this section of the commentary (lines 32-3) that Porphyry also refers to the One as 'absolute Being' and 'Idea of Being'. Porphyrythen goes on (14.5-34) to link the One with the triad existence, life, intellection (0r&ap4tgs,wcw, vo7aLgs--conceived as a sequence of 'acts') by arguing, in the manner of his exegesis of frs. 3 and 4, that the One, when it is 'in itself' and 'by itself'-and thus 'one and simple'--can be viewed as transcending the triad, but when deployed as the triad-and thus no longer 'neither one nor simple'-becomes multiple, and thus is identified with Intellect or the OneBeing of the second hypothesis. At this level, the One becomes equated with V"raptgsas the first term of the intelligible triad. Although Porphyrydoes not explicitly name the One itraptgs here (he speaks instead of two states or moments of Intellect) his line of argument clearly leads to this conclusion."1This is confirmed by Proclus, who exactly equates One, act and VWap?tgin a refutation of this same type of Porphyrian argument. A third example is found in a fragment from Porphyry'sHistory of Philosophy (223 F Smith = fr. XVIII Nauck). Here, Porphyry states that the First God, who is 'single and alone', can neither be 'conumerated'with the things after him nor can their 'worth' be 'coordinated' with his This is the same point that Porphyry makes in 'tirapt6~'.72 connection with the Chaldean Father in In Parm. 9.1-8: That the Father, when 'snatched away' from all things-and thus single and alone-cannot be 'numbered' with his power and intellect. Rather,in this transcendentstate, the triad is 'co-unified in his simplicity,'that is it exists within him in a state of pure unity and indetermination. But this is precisely the sense in which "ITraptgS is used by the later Neoplatonists and which Hadot has traced back to the speculations of Porphyry.Hadot, however,has not realized the significance of this sense-in this passage from the History of Trrapt•--in Philosophy." In this passage, Vrrapets, in effect, is equivalent to Porphyry's use of 'simplicity' in his ParmenidesCommentary.74 70 On whatfollows,see Hadot,Porphyre 1.129-39. 71 On thispoint,see ibid. 133. The passagecomparesthe FirstGod with Intellectin the followingway:'Justas the First God is alwayssingle and alone (Efs KaL Ldovog; cf. above,n. 26), even if (Kalv)all thingsare withthesethingsnorcan theirworth(rTvd~lav)be generatedby him,he cannotbe conumerated coordinatedwiththeexistence(7raip4esL) of thatgod ('KE&OU); SOIntellectis also eternallyalone, sinceit subsistsboth outsideof timeand is itself the timeof thingswithintime,whileremaining in the samenessof its own eternal hypostasis are rrapetscand v7rrdaTaaus 6.20 wherePorphyry,in referenceto the First perhapsintendedas synonymshere;cf. In Parm.('7rroaordoEws)'. natureof his own hypostasis Certainstylistic God, speaksof 'theincomparable (n"roaurda•ws)'. tics in this passagearealso attestedin Porphyry's Parmenides (see Hadot,Porphyre Commentary 2: Index IV), notablythe frequentuse (some nineteentimes) of the demonstrativepronoun (five times)for the phrase (•KELVOs)in referenceto the First God or the One and a preference 'evenif' (Kav).Thesetermsare typicalof Porphyry,e.g. Letterto Marcella(&KEEvOS, five times with referenceto God; Ka'V,four times);see E. des Places,Porphyre:Lettreai Marcella(Paris, 1982):IndexVerborum.The construction'justas ... so' (caonEp... oirws) is also typicalof Porphyry;cf. e.g. In Parm.13.23-14.4.On Porphyry'suse of cala as equivalentto -rdas see undAugustin'in Forschungen, 182-3. Theiler,'Porphyrios '' in Porphyry'in Hyparxise 7 See Porphyre1.121;Cf. A. Smith, Ydoaraatsand v"rap6g5 hypostasis,39. is equatedwith'simplicity' 74 Cf. Damascius,De Princ.? 121;3.153.8-11W-C, whereir"apLts

Whether 6raptgs, in turn, was also a term of the Oracles is more problematic. As noted above, there is no verse extant in which irraptgs appears, either in its existential sense or in the more technical usages of the later Neoplatonists. This is itself significant, given the widespread use of this word among the later Neoplatonists. Indeed, if anyone, we would expect Proclus to preservea verse in which this term was used, but he does not. On the other hand, Proclus provides us with an interesting example of how he linked Graptgs to Chaldean teaching by including it in the frame material of fr. 84. The fragment, as it stands, is a single line of verse drawn from Book 4 of Proclus' Platonic Theology (4.21; 64.11-12 S-W): 'For connecting all things he, himself, exists 'w The larger context entirely outside' (rrv7a' yap auvv4wv ar3-S sia i I•'dcPXEL). of the fragment is a bit of commentary on the Phaedrus 247BC concerning Plato's of heaven and then description of the 'immortal souls' who reach the 'summit' (1KpOV) pass 'outside' (•~w) and 'stand on the back of the sky'. After citing the passage, Proclus then 'harmonizes' it with the Oracles by claiming that Plato's expressions 'summit' and 'outside' are 'attributes of the first of the connectors' (7ro0IpTrov rdov avvoxEwv), a Chaldean entity that then becomes the subject of fr. 84: 'For connectingall things'in the singlesummitof his own existence,accordingto the Oracle, 'he, himself,existsentirelyoutside'. 7TcLVTarg aKpo'r'qL, KcL-c r~ Aoywv,av-ro yap UavEXCwvT /7 EEItTU /LLrg77raVrC~PSEWr ar EcoW vidPXEL75 Although 'summit' (dKpo'r~q)and 'existence' (6rapet.) have become part of the frame material here, 'summit'-unlike 'existence'-is a legitimate term of the Oracles. It is attested twice: in fr. 76, it is connected with the role of the iynges who are said to 'stand upon' the 'three summits' of the 'worlds'; in fr. 82, the 'summits' are said to receive the 'lightning-bolt' protection of the 'connectors' ('He has given the summits the protection of his lightning-bolts, having mixed his own force of strength among the connectors'). That Proclus makes 'the first of the connectors' the subject of fr. 84 underscores its connection with this cosmogonic material. (Damascius, in fact, cites part of fr. 84 in his introductory comments to fr. 82.)76 In addition, Proclus also connects this material with his interpretation of fr. 3. This is confirmed by his remarks in the passage cited at the beginning of this paper (In Parm.-1070.15ff.). Here (as cited above), Proclus makes the following comments about the Father: 'After all, he is called an intelligible Father and the summit (dKpd7'r7) of the intelligible world, as 'paternal';Synesius,H. 9(1) 60-1, where God is describedas 'unitingthe simplicitiesof a is a term of the Oracles and is summits' (&arr"dr7T'as lKpOTr7TWVvvlaaca). 'Summit' (d&Kp6'-1S) regularly equated in Neoplatonic exegesis with r7TapLts (see discussion below). 'Simplicity' (= ~Irap7e) is borrowed from Porphyry(e.g. In Parm. 9.4) as is the term E'v~(w(e.g. Sent. 11 and 36 Lamberz; Marc. 10). Cf., also, Marius Victorinus, Adv. Ar. 1.55.19-21, who refers to the 'Father' as the 'existence-source (fontana exsistentia = rr-yala rapets-)situated at the summit (verticem= bKpd7'r-7a)'. have felt authorized to introduce in the frame material here based on 7 Proclus may vrrapetr the use of the verbal form found in the verse. The verbal form also appears in frs. I and 20. In fr. that 'exists outside intellect' (vdov •?w 1, verse 10, it is the intelligible object or -t vor-qo'v Although Proclus' commentary on his verse is not preserved, it is probably echoed in wTrrapXLt). that of Psellus (Exegesis, PG 122, 1148d = des Places, 185), who explains that the intelligible 'exists outside intellect' in terms of its 'intelligible transcendence and the particularity of its Cf. e.g. E. T prop. 77: Ka7d 7rvv existence' (re)v prop. 1'868r7Ta ir-S avuroO3to'rrl7ra; 120: Ev 7~ av'rot 6r6dpLt.t57irdpoEwS). 76 In Parm. ? 257; 2.97.23-98.1 W-C: 'Most of all, the function of guarding has been assigned to the connectors, inasmuch as they encompass and connect all things within themselves'.

and even if he is the connective principle (aVVEKrtKoJS = UvVOxE1S)77 Of the whole it as its that is so.' In is Father he this the world, instance, yet intelligible cosmogonic language of fr. 84 has been transposed by Proclus into a metaphysical reflection concerning the First Principle. Since frs. 3 and 84 are conceptually the same-each fragment describes a principle or entity that is separated from all things-one wonders if the cosmogonic context of fr. 84 was the original setting for both fragments, and the 'Father' of fr. 3 was, in fact, 'the first of the connectors'.78 If so, then it is this cosmogonic father who is 'snatched away' or 'exists outside' all things, not a separate and distinct metaphysical principle in the Neoplatonic sense. In any event, whatever the original setting of these verses, the terms 'summit' and 'existence' (ir7Tap~s)--closely linked in the frame material of fr. 84(dIKpd'rTS) are elsewhere virtual equivalents for Proclus. Of note is his mention of the terms 'one', 'divinity', and 'existence' as equivalent terms for the 'summit' of the intelligible triad in PT 3.12; 46.2-3 S-W and his mention of the intelligible gods (also called 'fathers') as defined by their 'existences'and 'summits' in PT 4.39; 112.27-8. That this equivalency derived, in part, from Proclus' reading of fr. 8279 is confirmed by Psellus, who gives an interpretive paraphrase of the verses and, in doing so, exactly substitutes 'existences' for 'summits' in the following way (Hypotyp. 10 = des Places, p. 199): The implacables,receivingthe lightning-boltpowerof the connectors,protectthe existences fromthe fatherson highandguardtheirimmaculatesourceacts. 8E 7Trq 7T77rLpOV rowV UVOXWV dtEtALKTOL, sVva/v, qpovpovUt 7rdg 7•TV W vepyetag &Xpavovg g aVWOEV L-rcpCOV c7TTo8E6.~EvoL IrCLP ELS r7rflyalas' Ka't ,-rv kvAcrrovau-v. ai-rv o0 In this reading, Psellus not only substitutes 'existences' for summits but adds the words 'power' and 'acts' in a subtle allusion to the triad existence(s), powers(s), act(s). The fragment is further reworked by introducing the expressions and dtelAtK•-Osand terms which are drawn from in other verses frs. 35, 36, fragments (see 42) rrnyala, take on a life of their own in Neoplatonic exegesis. aXpav-os, on the other hand, is a Proclan term, used with reference to his dXpdavot OEoLas the equivalent of the ol The mentionof 'fatherson high'can be comparedto Proclus'remarksin dLpEALKToL. PT 3.12 (above), where the term 'fathers' is equated with the intelligible gods. Why 6rrapts~ for 'summit' in this and other instances? Because 'rraptgs, in Neoplatonic speculation, was also understood precisely in this sense, that is as the summit, high point, or first of something."8This is evidenced by the substitution of v7Tap6~sor 'existence'for the First Principleas well as the first term or 'summit'of various triads. Procluseven equates this term-in an anagogic context-with the Chaldean'flowerof intellect',understoodas the fine pointor summitof the mind.Of particularinterestin thisregardarehis remarksin P T 1.3;15.1-6S-W,wherehe states 77 Cf. Proclus, PT 4.39; 111.12-13 S-W: 'Why, among the three connectors (rTCv rpdCJ 17: rot•CavvoxoaLtv. is the firstempyrean,the secondethereal,the thirdmaterial?'; CUVVEKTLKO~v), 78 It is possiblethat frs.3 and 84 mayhaveoriginallyfollowedone anotherin a singleoracle: 'the Fathersnatchedhimselfawayand did not enclosehis own fire in his intellectualpower.For connectingall things,he, himself,existsentirelyoutside'(see belown. 116).Psellussuggeststhat the 'Connectorof all'wastheprincipledeityin Chaldeanspeculationwhenhe reportsthatJulian pater,beforeconceivinghis son, JuliantheTheurgist,entreatedthe'Connectorof all'to givehim 'the soul of an archangel'. See De aurea catena in C. Sathas, Annuairepour l'encouragementdes &tudesgrecques en France (1875), 215-17; cited in Lewy, 224, n. 195. are also foundin Synesiusand MariusVictorinus(see above,n. 7 Since theseequivalencies 74), Porphyrymusthavebeenthefirstto readfr.82 (andprobablyfr.84) in thismanner. De Princ.? 121;3.152.19-24;cf. J. Rist, 'Mysticismand transcendence 80 See esp.Damascius, in laterNeoplatonism',Hermes92 (1964),213-25.

that union with the henads (alt'vESEs) and, through them, union with the primal invwat~('the hidden Unity of all the divine henads') is accomplished through 'the summit (-rqv dKp67-r7-a)of intellect and, as they say (cos qaat), flower (-r7 &vOos),and existence (ri)v V7Tapew)'.Here, the indirect quotation alludes only to the 'flower of intellect'as attestedin fr. 1; 2Iapts-,unattested,is then linkedto this termas part of Proclus' exegesis.8sSimilar language is used in 2.8; 56.8-14, where 'all divine things' are said to be united to the First Principle through 'their highest unities (ra-s &Kporc7ra"as ivaEaw Eeav^)v),superessentialfires ( repoveloLs rvpaoL^)and first existences (ralS 7arrdpeEtarats rrpcdraLs)'.In the case of the human soul, this is achieved by first 'arousing its own existence' (-rv "rhapwtv7ri)v avrnS dvEyElpovaav), that is its summit or flower.82In these instances, vOogs83 and rrvpads84 are terms of the Oracles;vrap6ts, and are terms of Neoplatonic speculation; dKpo'-r7"is a term Eavs, Evoact, 7rrTpovcrosg of the Oraclesand Neoplatonic speculation; the expression 'arousing its own existence' is a combination of later Neoplatonic (irWapets)and Plotinian terminology (cf. Enn. ~ /iUTVET g E 4.8.1.1 rroAAadKts IYELpdo.LEVO • K ro GaroTsj70). This method of freely combining isolated terms and expressions from a variety of sources is a hallmark of later Neoplatonic exegesis, reaching its zenith in the 'harmonizing' strategies of the Athenian School. That J7Tapt-g-as the 'first' of somethingbecomes linked to this material derives from this tradition of interpretation. As such, it can be traced back to the metaphysical speculations of Porphyry,for whom 7rTap~ts was viewed as a foundational principle, that is the first apX- of things. This understanding of Vtraptgsstems from what Hadots5 calls a 'metaphysical transposition of Stoicism', that is a method of transposingStoic concepts of the real-applied to physicalsubstance-into a Platonizingmetaphysicsof transcendentrealities.This method,alreadydevelopedto some extentin MiddlePlatonism(Plotinusutilizedit) becomes,in Hadot'swords,'systematicand conscious'in Porphyry'sthinking.In the case of Vrrapts~, this means that this concept-which denotes a sense of 'quasi-reality' in Stoic ontology-becomes 'transposed', in Porphyry's thinking, into a (neo-) Platonizing principle denoting pure, undetermined being, that is the pure unity or 'one' of things. Thus, V'raptgs,in Neoplatonic exegesis, becomes identified with the pure unity (= simplicity) of the First Principle, the first (= summit) or unifying term of certain triads and the summit, 'flower', or unifying element of intellect. That the authors of the Oracles, in turn, had already come to this understanding (either independently or drawing on some lost tradition of Middle Platonism)-and then made the appropriate substitution of terms-cannot be demonstrated by the extant evidence. Porphyry,then, was the first to make some of these substitutions as well as to 81 Cf. similarlyIn Parm.1044.28-9:'/"rapets and, so to speak(otov), flower';1049.36-7:'For thesehenadsare superessential and, as someonesays(<ls07at rts), flowersand summits';De Mal. Sub. 2.11; 3.43.31-32 Isaac: 'summitateset velut flores et supersubstantialialumina'; Ps-Dionysius,D.N.2.7; 132.2-3Suchla:otov Ka9 a L rrEpoVaLa ck7ra; Synesius,H. 1(3)140: avO•v avOEa bwro/'r. 82 Cf. In Alc. 114 [247Cr.]7-11; [248Cr.]3-4 Westerink = 2.294 [247Cr.]8-14 and 295 [248 Cr.]3-4 Segonds,whereProclussimilarlyrefersto 'arousingthe verysummit,the vzrap~tsof the soul' which he then equateswith the 'flowerof our being'and 'flowerof intellect'.On these de l'ameet la fleurde l'intellectdans la mystagogiede distinctions,see C. Gu~rard,'L'hyparxis Proclus'in J. Pepin and H.D. Saffrey(edd.), Proclus.Lecteuret interpritedes anciens(Paris, 1987),335-49;cf. C. Steel(n. 69), 97-100. 83 &vosr:frs. 1, 49 ('flowerof intellect);frs.34, 35, 37, 42 ('flowerof fire');fr. 130('flowerof fieryfruits'). frs. 126, 130. 85On theseideas,see Porphyre1, esp.485-90. 84 rUvpuos:

elicit and equate some of the triads; lamblichus put the method on a broader basis with the Athenian School integrating it into every aspect of their exegetical program.86 III. ONCE BEYOND, HECATE, TWICE BEYOND Another triad that the Neoplatonists elicited from their reading of the Oracles was that of Once Beyond (arrae E'7TEKELVa), Hecate, Twice Beyond (8~s E'rEKEwva). This triad, not attested in any of the extant fragments, was drawn in part from an interpretation of this enigmatic verse: fr. 50 = Damascius, In Parm. ? 293; 2.164.19 Ruelle: 'The center of Hecate is carried in the middle of the fathers' (aE'aUov my3V KEVT7OV 7rEop?7Oat).Now Hecate plays a dual role in the rraripwov'EK7c Oracles:she functionsas a goddess in the traditionalsense (and, specifically,as a goddesswho can be evokedin the contextof variousChaldeantheurgicrites);87she alsofunctionsas a cosmicprinciple withthePlatonicWorldSoul.88 closelyidentified Thislatterassociation wasdeveloped, in part,bya metaphysical readingof Hecate's cultstatue,wherein variousattributes of thegoddess(hair,hips,loins,girdle,torches) weregivencosmicsignificance.89 The generalimageis that of a powerfulife-givingor zoogonicgoddess who mediates between the intelligiblerealm of ideas and the sensiblerealmof nature. OnceBeyondandTwiceBeyond,it is unclearwhetherthese As fortheexpressions termsderivefromthe Oraclesor froma proseworkof the Juliani.90 Thereis no verse extant in which these terms are included, although des Places has isolated the in a truncated hexameter as thefinalhemistich expression (fr. 169= 5&ra••TE{KEwva Proclus,In Crat. 59.20). In doing so, however,des Places admits the difficultyof in themetricalschemaof the Oracles.91 Theuse of placingeithertermcomfortably 40-1. It shouldalso be noted thatthe term 86 This point is especiallyemphasizedby Cremer, v•raptLsappearsas a namefor the FirstPrincipleas wellas the firsttermof the triadexistence, life, intellect in the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts Allogenes, Zostrianos, and The Three Steles of Seth.I havearguedelsewherethatthesetexts,in theirpresentform,cannotbe the sameas those mentionedby Porphyryin VP 16sincethe useof thisandrelatedtriads(e.g.essentiality,vitality, mentality)can only be paralleledin the writingsof the later Neoplatonistsand figureslike Marius Victorinus.See R. Majercik,'The existence-life-intellect triad in gnosticism and Neoplatonism', CQ 42 (1992), 475-88. In response, see M. Tardieu, Recherchessur laformation de l'Apocalypsede Zostrien et les sourcesde Marius Victorinusand P. Hadot, 'Porphyreet Victorinus'. Questions et hypotheses, Res Orientales 9 (Bures-sur-Yvette, 1996), esp. 112-13, where Tardieu speculates that the common materialin Zostrianusand Marius Victorinusderives from Numeniusand 124-5, whereHadotsuggestsa gnosticor Christianintermediary of the original Greeksource. 87 Frs. 2(?),72, 146-8; see Johnston(n. 39), 111-33. 88 Frs. 32, 35, 38, 50(?), 51-56, 96; see Johnston (n. 39), 49-70, 153-63. 89 See Kroll,28-30; Lewy,88-98. 9 This was the opinionof Kroll, 17, followedby Theiler,'Die chaldiischenOrakelund die Hymnen des Synesios' in Forschungen,258. Lewy, 77, n. 43, followed by Hadot, Porphyre 1.262 andnn. 2-3, considersthemtermsof the Oracles.Ontheproseworksof theJuliani,the Suda(no. 433) attributes to Julian pater a work in four books On Demons; to Julianfilius, 'the Theurgist' (no. 434), works on Theourgika and Telestika as well as 'Oracles in verse'. Proclus (In Tim. 3.124.33) and Damascius (In Parm. ? 341; 2.203.29-30 Ruelle) both mention Julian the Theurgist's Hyphegetika (Damascius, Hyphegematika);Proclus (In Tim. 3.27.10) also mentions a book On Zones. See Cremer,88; Lewy, 123, n. 220. Cremer,following Lewy, identifies the book On Zones with the Hyphegetika, understanding the latter as a descriptive term for the former, that is as a book of 'instructions' or 'directions'; cf. Proclus, In Tim. 3.247.28: ra~s rcv OEoAodywv SSee note adloc.,p. 9~' See note ad loc., p. 147.

on the Oracles,92 thesetermscan be tracedbackto Porphyrywho,in his Commentary identified the Twice Beyond with the 'universalDemiurge'whom, he says, 'the Chaldean'called 'the second from the Once Beyond'.In makingthese distinctions, Porphyryalso identifiesthe TwiceBeyondwiththe 'god of the Jews',the OnceBeyond with 'the Good'. The identificationof the TwiceBeyondwith the Demiurgeis also foundin Damascius'De Principiis,who notes that 'the Chaldeans'or 'the theurgists' dividedthe 'universalDemiurge'into a hebdomadof sevendemiurges,with each of the seven called &sg~TE'KE4ta or, simply, Sls.93These expressions are also alluded to in Proclus' Commentaryon the Parmenidesin the form of the names 'Ad' and 'Adad' (= SyrianHadad).94Proclusnotes in this connectionthat the 'truetheologians'referto the FirstPrinciplein theirown languageas 'Ad',whichProclussays is theirwordfor one, and then 'doubleit in orderto namethe demiurgicintellectof the world,which theycall Adad,worthyof all praise'.Thus'Ad'= one,'Ad+ Ad' = two.Theequivalent Latinexpressions,'unus'and'unusunus',areotherwisefoundin the LatinNeoplatonic traditiondependenton Porphyry.95 This Latin tradition also attests to the linking of these names with Hecate. Martianus Capella, for example, in his The Marriageof Philology and Mercury(2.205), saysthatPhilology,in herascentthroughthe spheres,'praysto a certainvirginsource (fontanamvirginem)and, also, followingthe mysteriesof Plato,96to the powersOnce T and Twice Beyond (&rae Kat &! EIIEKELVa potestates)'. The expression 'virgin source' is an allusionto Hecate,derivedfroman interpretive readingof fr. 52:'In the left flank of Hecateexiststhe sourceof virtue,whichremainsentirelywithinand does not give up its virginity.'An analogous expression, 'soul source' (animafons, animafontana), and FavoniusEulogius;98the latter also preserves is found in MariusVictorinus97 whichis otherwiseattestedin Proclus(7rnyala iovX)99and the Greekterm, mrryala, This particularexpressionreflectsan interpretive Damascius(7r-jyala'EK&7rT).l?? readingof fr. 52 in combinationwith fr. 51 ('Aroundthe hollow of her rightflank a greatfount of theprimalsoul gushesforthin abundance,totallyensoulinglight, fire, ether,worlds').'0'The specificexpressions7rinyalaI/vXi and 7rrlyala 'EK-r77 are modelledon that of 7r'qyatisKpar-•p,whichis drawnfromfr.42. Theseverses,then, providea basisforteachingaboutHecate.Thenextstepwasto bringthismaterialinto relationwith fr. 50 for the purposeof constructinga triadof principles,that is Once Beyond,Hecate(= soul source),TwiceBeyond.Thistriad,however,is clearlyforced:it takesa certainleapof imaginationto linkup the unnamed'fathers'of fr. 50 with the two curiousabstractionsOnceBeyondand TwiceBeyond-a problemcomplicatedby ApudJohnLydus,De Mens.110.18-22Wuensch= 365 F Smith. 9 De Princ.? 94; 3.30.13-16W-C and note ad loc.; 31.8;? 96; 3.36.12-13;In Parm.? 160; 1.67.23-68.10W-C. 94 In Parm.60.1-9Klibansky-Labowsky = 512.98-107Steel. 92 95 For example, Macrobius, Sat. 1.23.17; Marius Victorinus, Adv. Ar. 1.50.22; 51.1; cited and discussedin Hadot,Porphyre1.274andn. 10;275andn. 1. alludesto a commentaryon the Oracles;see S. Gersh,MiddlePlatonismand 96 Thisexpression theLatintradition2 (NotreDame,1986),610. Neoplatonism: 97Adv.Ar.4.5.10-11;11.13;cf.fontanaexsistentia,aboven. 74. 98 In Somn.Scip. 19.37.3-5vanWeddingen. 99In Tim.1.318.12;2.117.29;275.2= Theodoreof Asine,Test.6; 32.19Deuse. '00InFarm.? 182;1.94.17W-C. commentsto fr.51 (In RemP, 2.201.12),Proclusmakes'thesourceof 10' In his introductory i = 7r-souls' ( " WJv OvXwJv rr7yaL'asIvxi3, line 22) the subjectof the fragment;cf 7q7y7 In Phys.613.2,615.36,617.4,who repeatedlysubstitutes7rr-yala/vrx as subjectin Simplicius, connectionwithhiscitationsandexegesisof verse3.

the fact that these terms may be extraneous to the Oracles in the strict sense. That Proclus further identifes the triad as constituted of three 'source fathers' further underscores its illegitimacy.102 The term Once Beyond, however,is close in sense to an expression that does appear in an oracular fragment, that of First Fire Beyond. This Stoicizing expression is found in fr. 5, a fragment which has not been properly understood in relation to this material.1I3The fragment reads: For the First Fire Beyond (llOp E'rr'KELva 7r6 rpwrov) does not enclose its own power in matter by means of works, but by Intellect. For Intellectderivedfrom Intellect(voO voos) is the Craftsman of the fiery cosmos (0 KdaOULO7TEXVLT 7, rr0p1OV). Fragment 5 (in whole or part) is cited several times by both Proclus and Damascius in a variety of contexts.104In one instance, Damascius, in his introductory material to the fragment, indicates that the first verse refers specifically to the Once Beyond,5os suggesting that this expression was probably substituted in Neoplatonic exegesis for the Stoicizing First Fire Beyond. To the best of my knowledge, First Fire Beyond, unlike that of Once Beyond, is never found in any Neoplatonic text independent of the verse in which it occurs. Since Porphyry apparently refrained from incorporating the Stoicizing terminology of the Oracles in his interpretations of various verses, he may have been the first to make this substitution. This suggestion is given further weight by reflections of Proclus and Damascius on the Orphic figure, Kronos, an entity that is regularly identified in later Neoplatonic exegesis with the Chaldean Once Beyond. In making this identification, Proclus and Damascius regularly identify Kronos (= Once Beyond) with the First Fire Beyond of fr. 5. The 'Intellect derived from Intellect' of the fragment is then equated with the 'universal Demiurge' (= Zeus = Twice Beyond). What lies behind these equations is a long history of Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato, Crat. 396B, where Plato derives the name Kronos as 'pure intellect' from KdpoS(= KaOapdS ) and voi and then identifies Zeus as 'the offspring of a great intellect'. In his extended commentary on this passage (In Crat. 56.24ff.), Proclus accepts Plato's etymology (he even coins the word KOpovovs as expressive of Plato's combination of words)'06 while rejecting as 'hubristic' those explanations that understand Ko'posas meaning either 'fullness' or 'child'.'07He then goes on to approve the explanation (57.2-4) that 'praises' Kronos as 102 This point is emphasized by Lewy, 142, n. 283. Kroll, 17, notesa possiblerelationin passing;Cremer,48, is affirmativeand identifiesthe era E'7rKEtva withthe 'FirstFireBeyond'as wellas withthe 'onefire'of fr. 10:'all thingshave been generatedfrom one fire'.Cf. MichaelItalicus,Letter17 = des Places,214: 'The Father 103 himself is praised by them as a "sacredfire".' "04Like other verses from the Oracles, the context determines the interpretation. Thus, when commenting on the Timaeus,Proclus, In Tim. 2.57.9-58.11, cites the fragment in connection with Plato's demiurgy and the three worlds of Chaldean cosmology in the context of a long analysis of Tim. 32C5-8. Proclus' comment at the end is telling: 'It is necessary to examine these things again, for there are many difficulties on how to make all of this agree with Plato.' When commenting on the Cratylus, Proclus connects the fragment with Kronos and Zeus in an elaborate interpretation of Crat. 396B (see below). When commenting on the Parmenides, Damascius, In Parm. ? 270; 2.136.4-26 Ruelle, brings the fragment into relation with the Parmenidean attributes'in itself'and'inanother'. o05 In Parm. ? 362; 2.218.2-7 Ruelle. '" In Crat. 59.5; cf. PT 5.10; 35.5 S-W and note ad loc.; Damascius, In Parm. ? 267; 2.134.19-20 Ruelle. LSJ s.v. incorrectly identify Damascius, rather than Proclus, as the source of this neologism. '07 This criticism is probably directed at Plotinus; see e.g. Enn. 3.8.11.37-8: 'Who is it who has

'sated with purity and immaculate perception and leader of implacable life'. In this string of praises, the word 'purity' is drawn from Plato's discussion, 'immaculate' (&Xpav-o-) is a Proclan substitute for Plato's term 'undefiled' (dK&iparos),108 'implacable' (dC~e/ALKTOS)is drawn from the Oracles.109 This link with the Oraclesbecomes more explicit when Proclus subsequently equates Kronos with the First Fire Beyond of fr. 5. In doing so, Proclus also describes Kronos, in Neoplatonic terms, as an Intellect which reverts or 'turns back to himself'. He also identifies Kronos with the summit of the noeric order in connection with the three orders of Neoplatonic ontology (noetic, noetic-noeric, noeric), makes an allusion to the Kronos of Hesiod's genealogical myth ('he has turned back and enfolded within himself the things which have emerged from him') and even identifies Kronos with the separable intellect of Aristotle (57.4-22): For King Kronosis Intellectand sustainerof all noericlife, but an Intellectwhichtranscends the orderof sense perceptiblesince he is both immaterial(avAor)and separable He, himself, is turned back toward himself els 4avrbv the (Xwpto•ard). one who, at ~reTarpajtzpvos), (at-3s himselfthe things which,in turn,haveemerged any rate,has turnedbackand enfoldedwithin from him, and he is the one who is establishedfirmlywithin himself (v "awV74 a•raGepjS '8pvaev).110On the other hand, the universalDemiurge,even thoughhe is a divine Intellect, neverthelessorderssenseperceptiblesandprovidesforthingsthatarein need.But theverygreat Kronosis essentialized in the separableand pre-eminentperceptionsof the whole: (o•3'dwral) 'For the First Fire Beyond does not enclose"' his own powerin matter',says the oracle.But the Demiurgeis dependenton that one and proceedsfrom him, since he is an Intellectwho subsistsaroundthe immaterialIntellectand is activearoundhimas an intelligibleand causesto appearthatwhichis hiddenwithinhim.'ForIntellectderivedfromIntellect'is the creatorof the cosmos.And it appearsto me that Kronosis the summit(dKporaros) of whatwe specifically call the noericgods. This line of interpretation-especially the language of reversion--was also applied to the Once Beyond. This is attested by John Lydus (De Mens. 21.15-18 Wuensch): 'For, as the mystical teaching says, the Once Beyond is a substantial intellect (vot3 otaXto8-r), remaining in his own substance and turned back toward himself (7rpos 7TE Ka E•avov avv •peaCpatLEvos ) while abiding and remaining to attribute this to(ara•S the Oracles LdvWov)'.Since Lydus appears ('the mystical teaching directly teaching'), some have suggested that this passage may be a paraphrase of a lost verse or verses.112 But this is not the case. What has happened here is that the language of reversion traditionally associated with Kronos as Intellect has simply become attached to the Once Beyond, Kronos' Chaldean equivalent."3 In this connection, producedsucha childas intellect,the beautifulchildwho is also fullness';5.1.4.9-10:'trulythe lifeof Kronos,a god whois fullnessandintellect'.(CitationsfromPlotinusin thispaperaretaken fromHenryand Schwyzer,editiominor.)In the Cratylusitself (396B),Platoconsiders'hubristic' whichconsidersKronos(= icpos) as 'child'. only thatinterpretation o08Crat. 396B6-7: 'the pure and undefiled ('dK~ tpaTov) nature of his intellect'. Cf. Proclus, PT 5.39;145.8-10S-W TE KEpavvot; fr. 36: 09 Fr.35:ad/LeALKrToL pLELtAlKToU rUvpo/. 1"0 Thelocusclassicus of thisexpressionis Plato, Theat.176A8:Ev OEo^sgSpiupOa0;cf. Plotinus, Enn. 4.8.1.5: 'v a'-r (sc. 7T- OE1lw)18pO~Es. "' Here I read fr. 3) for KaTaKAL'VEL ('Cenclose'; cf. KAdLaaS, ('inclines downward'). Ka-aKAE• The latter is a copying error repeatedin Proclus,PT 5.39; 145.12 S-W; see note ad loc. KaraKAEL't is otherwise attested by both Proclus and Damascius in all other citations of this verse. 112 Thisis the opinionof Hadot,Porphyre1.293andn. 2; cf. des Places (n. 58), 2326-7. "3 Cf. Damascius,In Parm.? 268;2.135.10-11Ruelle:'The noetic substanceis essentialized to (otoiwTrat) according - remaining,the noetic and noericaccordingto procession,the noeric according to reversion(7 E'rLarpE'OLv)'.

allegorical readings of Hesiod's genealogical myth also come into play, since the Kronos-Intellect of Crat. 396B is also associated in Neoplatonic exegesis with the Kronos of the myth. This association begins with Plotinus who, as Hadot has demonstrated,"l4 was the first to interpret the mythic themes connected with Kronos' activity-mutilation, swallowing, binding-as different ways of understanding Intellect's true nature, that is as a principle which reverts or turns back to itself while remaining in a state of immobility or rest. It is this mythic connection that Proclus has in mind when he says that Kronos 'has turned back and enfolded within himself the things which have emerged from him'.115It is this tradition of interpretation, then, originally connected with Kronos, that the later Neoplatonists utilized when describing the Once Beyond. Thus the Once Beyond, like Kronos, becomes an Intellect which reverts or 'turns back to himself'. Further,since this theme of reversionis linked to an interpretivereading of fr. 5, this suggests that this fragment must have served as the principle oracular authority for teaching about the Once Beyond. If so, then the 'mystical teaching' mentioned by Lydus would refer to the Neoplatonic reading of this fragment, with the Once Beyond substituted for the First Fire Beyond and the 'theological' language of the fragment ('the First Fire Beyond does not enclose his own power in matter') interpreted 'metaphysically' to mean that the Once Beyond (= Kronos = substantial intellect) reverts or 'turns back to himself'."16 As such, the Once Beyond or Kronos can also be described as a principle that is 'established firmly within himself' (= 'remaining in his own substance' = 'abiding and remaining')."7 The Twice Beyond (= Zeus) could then readily be equated with the 'Intellect derived from Intellect' (= 'Craftsman of the fiery 114 P. Hadot, 'Ouranos,Kronosand Zeus in Plotinus'treatiseagainstthe gnostics',in H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus (edd.), Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought (London, 1981),124-37. "'1 Cf. Damascius,In Parm.? 277;2.149.8-10Ruelle(in connectionwith an exegesisof Parm. 145E):'in that the partsare turnedbackto the whole,he producesthe partsfromhimself.For Kronoshimselfvomitshis ownoffspring.' "'6Proclusalso linksthis terminologyto his readingof frs.84 and 152.In In Crat.59.1-4, he = fr. 152;cf. Damascius,In Parm. ? refersto Kronos(= OnceBeyond)as 'uncut' (dt•jt-r•'AAevro O'eoi Se &ra 206; 2.37.21-3 W-C: oL avvlvootv; lamblichus, D.M. 2.4: 8•v "da/.'LTr)AAEv•rov" of all' 48) and'Connector (= fr.84):'Forhe [= Kronos= OnceBeyond]is, as riripdr7-ov;Cremer, the oraclesays,"uncut",simple,indivisibleand"Connectorof all"thesources,turningall things back to himself,sincehe is unifiedand separatedfromall thingspurely'.On the previouspage (58.7-9),he connectsKronos(= OnceBeyond)withfr.3:'ButKronosis establishedfirmlywithin himselfand "snatcheshimselfaway"fromthewholeof secondarythings.'Althoughnothingcan be saidwithcertaintyaboutthe originalcontextof thesefragments,the factthatProcluslinksall three-in additionto fr. 5-to this samecomplexof ideas,suggeststhat the variousentitiesof thesefragmentsmayhaveoriginallybeenone and the same:Father= FirstFireBeyond(= Once Beyond)= Connectorof all. If so, thenthe principledeityof the Oracles(as suggestedabove,n. 78; cf. n. 103)was probablythis fiery,cosmogonic'Father'and not the metaphysical'Father'of Neoplatonic "' The speculation. of and Parm. is Platonic, 7TE concept 'abiding remaining' e.g. tpvwv) KacL 145E7-8: ro cv &-rdval (see Proclus, Tim. 42E5-6: the Demiurge 5.38; (ara•142.1; 22: ^ I 5.39; CUr•so•); 145.18-19; here, Proclus links this ELEVEV iv eavo Ka-7d -7pdOV P.T 7jOEl (see P.T 396Band fr. 5). Cf. Iamblichus,D.M. 1.7: terminologyfromthe Timaeusto his exegesisof Crat. 'Intellect,then, is leaderand king of beingsand the demiurgicartisanof the universe,and he foreverstandsby the gods,perfectlyand self-sufficiently andwithoutneed,accordingto a single act which abidespurely in himself rv Kalapcjs); 7.2: 'God himself is established (Carw••av within himself (L"puVwat and holy, beyond simple and KaO' EauvTov), augustea-lTf (lrrtEp•7rTAwcpvos) Plato's language in remainingin himself((ptvwv &vCavrcZ)';Plotinus, Enn. 5.3.12.33-4, who links Tim.42E5-6 withthe Oneas thatwhich'remainsin itself'.On Plotinus'use of this terminology, see Hadot,Porphyre1.320,n. 4.

cosmos') as Demiurge. Once interpreted in this manner, fr. 5 could then be brought into relation with fr. 50 as a way of identifying the unnamed 'fathers'of the verse with the ?rrae and 3& ~6E'TKEtva. Hecate, then, would become the 'median'or 'center' between these two entities. That the later Neoplatonists did not simply invent these names is suggested by both Porphyry and Damascius, who mention 'the Chaldean(s)' or 'the theurgists'as a source (indicating a prose work if the Oraclesare ruled out), but perhaps in the simpler forms of arrae and Sts".118If 7TEIKEELvawas not originally linked with these terms by the Juliani (suggested by Proclus in his comments on the names 'Ad'and Adad' and by the Latin equivalents, 'unus'and 'unus unus'), then it must have been added by the Neoplatonists when they brought and t's into relation with fr. &rrna 5. The further linking of these names with Kronos and Zeus would then have occurred in the context of the harmonizing strategies of the Athenian school-as would their placement in the noeric order. Porphyry,in contrast, may have simply equated the 'two beyonds' of fr. 5 with the 'two intellects' of fr. 7 as First Principles. If so, then Hecate as 'soul source' would rank third in order after the 'two beyonds' or 'two intellects', a placement that is suggested by Porphyrianmaterial in Arnobius' AdversusNationes119 as well as in Martianus Capella's description of Philology's ascent. In this ranking, which follows the Plotinian order of principles,120 Chaldean authority would be based on interpretive readings of frs. 5 and 7 in combination with fr. 53: 'after the paternal thoughts I, the Soul, am situated, animating the All with my heat'. Now, in the same way that Kronos and Zeus become equated with the Once Beyond and Twice Beyond in Neoplatonic exegesis, so the Orphic Rhea becomes identified with Hecate. As such, Rhea, like Hecate, becomes the mean term between 'two fathers' (Kronos and Zeus) in connection with a reading of fr. 50. Of particular interest is the following description of Rhea found in Proclus' Platonic Theology 5.11; 36.12-20 S-W: This goddess is the mediancenter(r7 KEV7pOV)of the paternalnoeric triad and the of •udGov the generativepowerwhichis in Kronos.On the one receptivewomb(d ?K8dXLOSKdO'Aros) with noeticand fecundpowerfromthe fatherwho is priorto hand,she is filled (rrArpovpE'•Vr) fills (7rA-tpoiaa) withlife-givingabundance(?woyOVLKqr lTEpLovalar)the her;on the other,she demiurgeand fatherwho subsistsfromher. Although Proclus cites this passage as though it belonged to the Orphic tradition (Brisson identifies it as such),'21 all the descriptive terms he applies to Rhea "' See above n. 93 and cf. Damascius, In Parm. ? 343; 2.205.24 Ruelle, who refers to the Demiurge or 'dyad' as 'twice the once', the 'archic gods' as 'twice the twice'. "' AdversusNationes 2.25; 95.10-14 Marchesi2:'Is this that learned soul of which you speak, immortal, perfect, divine, holding fourth place after God, the principle of the universe, and after the two intellects, and flowing forth from living mixing bowls?' It is unclear whether this schema of four principles (= Father, Paternal Intellect, Demiurgic Intellect, Soul) is Arnobius' own or derives from his source. In either case, it reflects an attempt to sort out the otherwise ambiguous relationin the Oraclesbetweenthe Fatherand the 'twointellects'(see above,n. 9). On Porphyry as the source of Arnobius, see P. Courcelle, 'Les sages de Porphyreet les "viri novi" d'Arnobe', REL 31 (1953), 257-71; M. Bland Simmons,Arnobiusof Sicca (Oxford,1995), 216-42 and passim; P. Mastrandea, Un Neoplatonico Latino: Cornelio Labeo (Leiden, 1979), 127-34 and 193-8, who argues that this Porphyrian material in Arnobius was mediated through Cornelius circlein Rome. Labeo,a memberof Porphyry's "20 Cf. Porphyry apudLydus(n. 92) wherethe 'TwiceBeyond'or Demiurgeis mentionedas 'second'fromthe 'OnceBeyond'or 'theGood';Hist.Philos.221 F Smith= fr.XVI Nauck,where 'the Good', 'Demiurge',and 'Soulof the universe'areschematized,respectively, as 'the highest god,''second'and 'third'. L. Brisson, 'Proclus et l'Orphisme'in Proclus. Lecteur et interpretedes anciens (n. 82), 76-7.

('median', 'center', 'life-giving', 'receptive womb', 'fullness') are drawn from descriptions of Hecate in the Oracles.'22 This is confirmed in a subsequent line (37.1) when Proclus explicitly refers to Rhea, in the language of fr. 50, as 'the median between the two fathers' ovaa -rcv 86o rrarE'pov).The substitution of Rhea for Hecate, in is determined by Proclus' context, as Book 5 of the Platonic Theology is this instance,(/P'arq organized and arranged on the authority of the Orphic not Chaldean tradition. Another example of this conflation of Rhea and Hecate is found in Proclus' commentary on the Cratylus402AB, where Socrates reflects on the name Rhea as 'stream'. In this context, Proclus attributes to the Oraclesseveral verses which have Rhea as the subject (In Crat. 81.2-8): Concerning Rhea, the zoogonicsource, from whom all divine life-noeric, psychic and encosmic-is generated,the Oraclesspeakin this way:'TrulyRhea (•irl) is the source(7Tf7y7Y) and stream ('o') of blessed noeric realities (voepcZv). For she, first in power, receiving wombs,poursit forthon theAll (SeaCcdrV) thebirthof allthings(rrv-rwov)inherinexpressible as it runsits course'. Proclus' attribution of these lines to the Oracles has resulted in a vigorous scholarly debate about the possible role of Rhea as a legitimate Chaldean deity. des Places, for example, includes these verses as an undoubted fragment (fr. 56) in his edition of the Oracles, arguing for a single goddess, Rhea-Hecate, as part of the Chaldean system.'23 Lewy, however, argues that Rhea was not part of the 'Chaldean pantheon', and prefers to read 'IWrin the first verse not as the epic equivalent for the more and thus common' Pca, but as an adjectival variant for the Homeric AEda(= -aS&w's), constructs verse 1 to mean: 'The source and stream of the spiritual blessed ones is easy-flowing' (with source and stream referring to the Chaldean Father as 'paternal intellect' or 'paternal source'). Lewy thinks that this verse is modelled on the Homeric line, 0EoL AEa w5OVTre, which Proclus cites at 81.14.124 Hadot accepts Lewy's analysis of this verse, but then misreads Lewy when he identifies source and stream with Hecate rather than with the F4ther as 'paternal source'.125Festugiere thinks that the problem lies not with the term Pedr-which he accepts as an undoubted reference to the goddess-but with Proclus' confusing some Orphic verses with those from the Oracles.126 Kroll127is similarly suspicious, but he conjectures that the versesalthough Chaldean in origin-were interpolated at some point to bring them into conformity with lamblichean doctrine. Iamblichus (on the testimony of Damascius) distinguished between noeric, psychic and encosmic gods, each with their own 'source'. As further evidence, Kroll points out that similar distinctions are also made by the Emperor Julian in his Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, 166AB (cf. 179D), where he describes the 'Mother of the Gods' as 'the source of the noeric and demiurgic gods' and then paraphrases fr. 56 in the following manner: 'For receiving (SEcadzv1r) in herself the causes of all (miivrwv) the gods, both noetic and hypercosmic, she became source (grqy4) for the noeric (voEpots) gods'. In paraphrasing these verses, Julian clearly follows lamblichus in identifying the voEpol of the fragment with a class of gods (the fragment itself is ambiguous), but in doing so, 122 The terms'median'and 'center'derivefromfr. 50; 'life-giving'and 'fullness'fromfr. 32; 'receptivewomb'fromfr.35. 123 See note ad loc., 134. Cf. Majercik,165, whereI discusssome of the problemswith this fragment. 124 See Lewy,84, n. 65; 159and n. 350. 125Porphyre1.396, n. 2. 126A.-J.Festugibre, surle Time 5 (Paris,1968),117,n. 1. Proclus:Commentaire SeeKroll,30-1.

Julian makes no allusion to the Great Mother as 'stream'; rather, she is referred to only as 'source'.128 This is also the case in a lengthy passage from Proclus' Commentaryon the Timaeus (2.127.26-130.29) in connection with his analysis of Tim. 35A1-4. The specific point in question concerns why Plato considers the Soul a 'median'. In the course of his comments (129.25-29) on this question, Proclus first appeals to the authority of 'the gods' and 'the theologians' by paraphrasing frs. 50 and 51: 'the Goddess who is the cause of Soul is the bond between twofathers and from herflanks proceeds the life of soul'. Proclus then refers to the Goddess as 'the soul principle' (T-nv IVXLK7JV &pX qV), an expression analagous to that of 'soul source' in Neoplatonic exegesis.129Towardthe end of his discussion (130.23-9), Proclus describes Soul in the following way: 'she is visible on both sides (adJtkbajs) and faces both ways (d ti7rrpdo'wroros ) and she holds the rudder of the universe, receiving in her wombs KdOAroLS) ({)7ro8ExopC'vbr roothe processions from the intelligibles;on the one hand, she is filled 3avr-'js from (rAqpov6d'vir) noeric life, on the other, she produces the channels (7ro0s XEETo1S)of corporeal life, and she contains the center (rT KE'v7pOV)of the procession of all beings within herself'. This description of Soul contains a litany of allusions to Hecate (= soul source) in the Oracles,130 including a paraphrase of fr. 56 (emphasized). This suggests that it was Hecate, not Rhea, who was the original subject of the fragment. In fact, Proclus' formulaic expression 'median center and receptive womb' was undoubtedly drawn from his reading of this fragment in combination with frs. 50 and 35 (Zrp-qerqpo8'6xot The introduction of 'Rhea' as 'stream' in line 1, then, must have KdAr7ot'EK•'TrS). occurred in the specific context of commenting on Crat. 402AB. This, in fact, is confirmed by Proclus in his Platonic Theology. In PT 5.11; 37.7-10, just following his description of Rhea in Chaldean terms ('median center and receptive womb'), Proclus refers explicitly to Crat. 402AB: 'This is why Plato likens her fecund abundance to 128Julian(166A)also refersto the 'Motherof the Gods'as 'the Mistressof all life'(q rrda?7S an expressionthatis probablymodelledon thatof jco 8earr?ro'Tt foundin fr.96. In this fragment,'Soul'is the subject,describedas a 'radiantfire'which'possessesfullmeasures of the manywombs<of the world>'.Thisimagerylinksfr.96 to the descriptionof Hecatein fr. 32 ('fillingthe life-givingwombsof Hecate')andthatof 'Rhea'(= Hecate)in fr. 56 ('receivingin herinexpressible wombs'). withapX'iin an exegesisof frs.51 and '29 Cf.In Crat.94.29-95.4whereProclusreplaces mrryvr with the 'Father' (frs. 13, 37) and 52. a&pXand irnyr5are both terms of the Oracles, associated c4sw), Kvpla various noetic and cosmic entities (frs. 30, 40, 49, 73, 74, 168). In connection with Soul, JpXq and 7rTy7'ultimately derive from Plato, Phaedrus 245C. 'Principles' and 'sources' can also be distinguished, e.g. Psellus, Expos., PG 122, 1152b = des Places, 189-190, who distinguishes 'principles' from 'sources' on the basis that the latter are 'more primordial'. Based on this doctrine, the 'zoogonicprinciples'of 'Hecate', 'the archic soul' and 'archic virtue' (drawn from frs. 51 and 52) are situated beneath various 'sources', including the 'source fathers' Once Beyond, Hecate, Twice Beyond. 13oThe terms dk0L a, dLforrpdoawrroo, and adtuTrojos- are all used as descriptive of Soul by Proclus; e.g. In Tim. 2.130.23; 246.19; 293.23. Cf. Damascius, De Princ. ? 122; 3.158.4 W-C and In Parm. ? 281; 2.152.23 Ruelle: -q dtqLy4a 'EKfrr). Following des Places, I only cite (= fr. 189) as a term of the Oracles(see Kroll, 30, n. 1) in my edition, but I now dPLpoupdowrosr think that the three terms, as well as the expression dtZ lajs 'EKrT'q, probably derive from lost verses. See Lewy, 93, n. 111, who refers to the three terms as 'epithets' of the Oracles;Westerink and Combbs, note ad loc. to Damascius, De Princ. ? 122; 3.158.4, who refer to 'EK'7rT qdp.toa*S as 'a literalcitation'fromthe Oracles.As for Proclus'otherexpressions,that of Soul as 'filled fromnoericlife'derivesfroma readingof fr. 32; Soul as thatwhich'producesthe channelsof corporeal life' from a reading of fr. 65; Soul as 'center'from fr. 50. Lewy, 93, n. 111 and 97, n. 132, thinks the expression 'holds the rudder of the universe' may also be Chaldean; Kroll (30, n. 1), however, suggests a possible allusion to Orph.Hymn 58.8.

streams (AE1paawv;402B4), as Socrates says in the Cratylus,and demonstrates that this goddess is a certainflux' ('o'v; 402A9). This 'harmonizing' of Platonic and Chaldean material is also apparent in Proclus' comments above concerning 'the Goddess' in his Timaeus Commentary. In his allusion to fr. 50, Proclus refers to the Goddess (= Hecate) not as 'median', but as 'bond' (auvaywyds), utilizing Plato's term from Tim. 36E; in paraphrasing fr. 56 he uses the term V7roS8Xo1Lywrv-rather than 8e4a.'rv-utilizing Plato's language for the Recep8 tacle (i68roox'7i)in Tim. 49A and 51A (cf. 53A: -d It is this method, EtaeaeEv?). r~-as 'stream' then, that is applied to fr. 56, with the Orphic Rhea becoming identified with the Chaldean Hecate as 'source';in this instance, however,the desire for harmony has resulted in the alteration of a verse."' Whether Proclus himself or, perhaps, a predecessor (Syrianus?) was responsible for this development cannot be known with certainty. At the very least, given Julian's evidence, the reworking of the verse must have been post-Iamblichean. The fragment, then, pace Festugiere, is Chaldean, not Orphic, in origin.132 Kroll was correct on this point, although wrong in overemphasizing lamblichean influence on the actual verses themselves. As for Lewy, his reading of the fragment is much too strained to be credible; the adjectival variant he suggests would be a virtual hapax legomenon. Lewy is correct, however, in rejecting Rhea as a legitimate deity of the Oracles. The final witness is Psellus. In his various summaries of the Chaldean system (which depend on Proclus), Psellus never once names Rhea among the Chaldean deities; rather, it is Hecate who is repeatedly mentioned in various contexts, both independently"33and in relation with the Once Beyond and Twice Beyond.134 It is Hecate, then, not Rhea or Rhea-Hecate, who is the singular Goddess of the Oracles. Now it is in Damascius' Commentary on the Parmenides that we find the most extensive treatment of the triad Once Beyond, Hecate, Twice Beyond, discussed both independently and in conjunction with the Orphic triad Kronos, Rhea, Zeus. In the context of this commentary, the triads are brought into a complex relation with the Parmenidean attributes (constructed as a 'triad' of pairs) 'in itself' and 'in another' (= Kronos = Once Beyond), 'in repose' and 'in movement' (= Rhea = Hecate), 'same' and 'other' (= Zeus = Twice Beyond).'35 The following passages illustrate some of these relations: If it is said by the gods that 'the centerof Hecateis carriedin the middleof the fathers'(= fr. 50), then in termsof centershe is in repose,but in termsof beingcarriedshe is moved.And if 131 An approximatehexameterversecan be constructedwith Hecate(= Soul) as subjectand p Cf.fr.49: describedas 'source'and 'principle':' '"EKTI voEpwV 7y TE Ka PX7'. paaptpwv mriya. rTEKaL apXaL9. In Parm.? 422;2.277.7Ruelle:iv -ros0 KOAOtrroL 132 Cf. Damascius, ' W0 47rotLE "Pag, Thisis a paraphrase of fr.56, verse2 withRheaas subject;thusDamasciusattributesit 'OpEcvS6. (falsely)to Orpheus.Proclusalso mentions'womb'in connectionwithRheain In Tim.1.47.1-2: 'Thisgoddessis the wombof everypowerof Kronos',but this is a restatementof whathe says about'Rhea'(= Hecate)in P.T 5.11;36.13-14S-W, i.e. that she is 'the receptivewombof the generativepowerwhichis in Kronos'.Apartfromthesetwo passagesand a referenceto Kroll's citationof our fr. 56 (= Kroll,30), Kern,0. F 132,citesno otherevidencefor Rheaas 'womb'. This lack of independentevidenceconfirmsthat this languagebecamefalselyassociatedwith Rheaas a resultof the 'harmonizing' strategiesof the laterNeoplatonists. 1' See Expos., 122, 1152b= des Places,190:Hecate Trioditis,HecateKomos,Hecate Ekkluste. P.G. 1~4Seeesp.Hypotyp.??6-9 = des Places,198-9. 135For an analysisof these relations,see J. Combes,'Symboliquede l'intellectdans l'In Parmenidem de Damascius'in ZOQ)IHE MAIHTOPE,,

the GreatRheaembracesin herselfHestiaand Hera,thenaccordingto Herashe is moved,but accordingto Hestiashe is in repose.Andif she is in Zeus,accordingto restshedesiresto remain separatedwithinherself,but accordingto movement,she desiresand bringsorderto the All. (In Parm.? 293;2.164.18-23Ruelle) For Rhea is the stream (Po ) of all things accordingto Socratesin the Cratylus,and she establishesall thingsin themselvesand calls them back to herself.The Great Hecate,on the other hand, is the 'center(K'V7pOV)who is carriedtowardeach of the fathers',and she sends and she is coordinatedwith the OnceBeyond forth a life-giving whirr (4woyodvov 'o•lsqtCa),136 by means of a singular,immobile union, and advancestoward all things with the Twice (InParm.? 282;2.154.15-20Ruelle) (Beyond). For Zeus,by meansof Rhea, and the TwiceBeyondby meansof Hecate,who shineson both areattached,respectively, to Kronosand the OnceBeyond. sides (a'•pboao3r'EKcrrjr),137 (In Parm.? 281;2.152.22-24Ruelle) In these examples, Damascius is careful to separate Rhea and Hecate: Rhea is 'stream' (following the Cratylus), Hecate is 'center' (following the Oracles). This provides further evidence that the two goddesses were regarded by the Neoplatonists as separate and distinct, with any conflation of the two-as in 5.11; 36.12-20 P.T demands of a where Rhea is described as 'center'-deriving from the exegetical specific context. As for Hecate's role as the 'median' or 'center' between the 'fathers', it should be noted that Lewy rejects the Neoplatonic reading of this verse in favor of a cosmological interpretation.'8"In his view, fr. 50 alludes to a sequence of planetary spheres and their ruling 'fathers', with Hecate named instead of the moon (her celestial dwelling-place) and the term 'center' (KE'rpov)identified with the median or central position of the sun. In order to arrive at this interpretation, Lewy has to bring this fragment into a complex relation with several others (which deal strictly with sequences of material elements and/or various celestial spheres but with no mythic figure introduced as in fr. 50), a 'harmonizing' strategy that, in this instance, is as problematic as that of the Neoplatonists. Although a cosmological rather than metaphysical interpretation of this fragment is quite possible (as is the case with other fragments), without the original context of the verse, neither Lewy's interpretation nor that of the Neoplatonists is entirely satisfactory.The verse remains an enigma. In any event, the Chaldean triad (as the Orphic triad), was then situated by Proclus at the summit of the noeric order, the noeric order as a whole constituted as a hebdomad made up of 'Seven Sources' or 'Source Fathers': 1. 2. 3. Once Beyond, Hecate, Twice Beyond Three Implacables (rpes cdLEhALK-rot) The Diaphragm (0 tlTrECWKCS) The origin of this hebdomadic structure needs some explanation. As noted above, Proclus structured the noetic order as an ennead of three triads, that is the Father, Power, Intellect triad repeating itself with different predominating terms. He also conceived the noetic-noeric order as an ennead: in this case, composed of a triad of Teletarchs, a triad of Connectors, and a triad of lynges. The last order, however, the noeric, was conceived as a hebdomad (in the manner noted above). The origin of this On ('whirr'),cf. Aotouw,fr. 37, verse 1: 'The '36Cf. fr. 32: cpuoyovov KoAr7TOV. 'EKa-",7r `oit4Tqa intellect of the Father whirred ideas'; Proclus, In Tim. 1.318.13-14: 'The forth the multiformed Oracles hand down that the multitude of ideas whirrforth in the soul source.' '37See above, n. 130. 38 Lewy,142-4.

hebdomadhas long puzzledscholars;Lewy,for example,thought that it probably derivedfroma readingof a lost fragment.'39 The recenteditorsof the PlatonicTheology,Saffreyand Westerink,'40havenow demonstratedhow it was probablyelicited by Proclusfroma creativereadingof fr. 35 (= Damascius,In Parm.? 266; 2.133.3-6 Ruelle): Forimplacable wombsof theshiningrayof thunders leapfromhimandthelightning-receiving fromthe Father.Fromhimleapthegirdlingflowerof fireandthe Hecate,whois generated breathsituatedbeyondthefierypoles. powerful By carefullyanalyzingthe commentsof Damasciusand Procluswith respectto these versesin a numberof contexts,both Orphicand Chaldean,Saffreyand Westerink come up with the following:(1-3) 'Fromhim' = Kronos= Once Beyond;Hecate = Rhea;'powerfulbreath'= Zeus = TwiceBeyond;(4-6) 'implacablethunders'= Three Implacables;(7) 'girdlingflowerof fire'= The Diaphragm.'41Onceelicitedfromthe Oracles,Proclus could then bring this hebdomadicstructureinto harmonywith Pythagoreanand Platonicteachingas a way of provingthat 'seven'is the number properto the noericgods.To whatextentthis hebdomadicstructurewas developedin Neoplatonismbefore Proclusand Syrianus,however,is unclear,but there is some suggestion that it may have gone back in some form at least to Iamblichus.'42 Damascius'evidenceis also suggestivehere,in that he equatesthe s81t iErK~wva with the hebdomadicstructureof the universalDemiurge.It is perhapson the basisof this demiurgichebdomad,drawnfrom a prosework of the Juliani,that the later Neoplatonistsalso foundauthorityfor the structureof theirnoericorder. CONCLUDINGREMARKS The triadicstructuresdiscussedin this paperall derivefrom the theoreticalspeculationsof the laterNeoplatonists.Althoughfrequentappealis madeto the Chaldean Oraclesin variousways as the sourceof these triads,what is clearlyintendedis an appeal to the traditionof interpretationof this materialand not to the Oracles themselves.In fact, the triadicstructureof realityas gleanedfrom the Oraclesis a confusingone.As notedearlier,'triads'areoftenmentionedin a generalsense(e.g.fr. 27: 'For in everyworldshinesa triadwhicha monadrules';fr. 28: 'Forin the womb of this triadall thingsare sown';fr. 29: 'Forin this triadthe Fatherhas mixedevery breath')but thereis no verseextantin whicha specifictriadis actuallynamed(save, perhaps,that of 'faith,truth,love').The existence,then, of schematictriadssuch as Father,Power,Intellectand Once Beyond,Hecate,TwiceBeyondare even less likely to havebeenpart of primitiveChaldeanspeculation.Thata triadicprincipleof some sort informedthe teaching of the Oraclesis evident. But the precise natureand function of the 'Chaldean'triads-apart from Neoplatonicexegesis--cannot,with confidence,be known. SantaBarbara R. MAJERCIK rmajercik@earthlink.net '39 Ibid. 136, n. 266. 5, ix-xxxiii. '40 See = flower of fire' (t eCOwKOS P.T 141 In Neoplatonic exegesis, the 'girdling 3rvp3O &vOos)of fr. 35 the 'diaphragm' or 'membrane' of fr. 6: 'For like a diaphragm (6rrE~w;Kwr), a kind of noeric membrane(6/Yv)separatesthe firstfireand otherfirewhichhastento mingle'.See Damascius, In Parm. ? 265; 2.131.29 Ruelle; Saffrey and Westerink, ibid., xx, who translate EreCwoKO' 7rvpOf Mvo0sas 'la fleur du feu, qui diaphragme'. 142 See Proclus, In Tim. 1.308.17-23; Festugiere, Proclus: Commentairesur le Timbe2 (Paris, 1967), 164, n. 3; cf. Dillon (n. 62), 417-19: appendix C.