Symbolic Poetry , Inspired Myths and Salvific Function of Allegoresis in Proclus ’ Commentary on the Republic

The present article is concerned with Proclus’ highly original and profoundly influential account of the symbolic function of poetry, the pedagogic as well as the hieratic value of myths and the soteriological power of allegorical interpretation. Thus, the paper begins with a brief discussion of Plato’s dismissal of poetry as μέγιστον ψeῦδος. Subsequently, Proclus’ theory of three kinds of poetry is examined, upon which attention is paid to his revolutionary idea that σύμβολα rather than μιμήματα are the tools of the highest kind of poetry. Then, Proclus’ views on the difference between Plato’s and Homer’s μυθοποιΐα are considered. While the article concludes with an analysis of Proclus’ conviction about the functional similarity of symbols in myths and those in magic rites, allegoresis is shown to have the same salvational role that Proclus ascribes to theurgy.

received substantial scholarly attention, the present paper will briefly consider Proclus' fascinating views on the symbolic function of poetry, the pedagogic as well as the hieratic value of myths and the salvational role of allegorical interpretation. 2The article will be organized in the following way: firstly, Plato's onslaught on mimetic art will be touched upon; then, attention will be paid to the major assumptions of Proclus' hermeneutics, subsequently, Proclus' theory of three kinds of poetry will be discussed, upon which his account of the difference between the myths of Homer and those of Plato will be dealt with; finally, Proclus' conviction about the soteriological power of allegoresis will be examined.The ensuing considerations will focus primarily on Proclus' Commentary on the Republic.3

Plato's dismissal of poetry as μέγιστον ψεῦδος
Proclus develops his original theory of symbolic poetry in direct response to Plato's unsparing criticism of mimetic art.Whilst Plato argues that that poetic mimesis has no value whatsoever, the philosopher levels two fundamental charges (Resp.603 a 11-b 2) against it: imitative art is far from (πόρρω) all truth (ἀληθείας) and all reason (φρονήσεως).These accusations reflect Plato's epistemological and ethical concerns, respectively.
Plato perceives (Tim.39 d 8-e 2) the world of phenomena as merely an "imitation of the everlasting nature" (τῆς διαιωνίας μίμησις φύσεως).Thus, by describing the sensible world, the poets reach solely the secondary reflections of the true reality (i.e., the intelligible world).Their mimetic art produces, thereby, exclusively false appearances, as it fabricates copies of the copies.It is for that reason that Plato repeatedly insists that deceptive phantoms (εἴδωλα) are the only thing that imitative poetry has to offer (cf.e.g.Resp.598 b 6-8, 599 a 7, 599 d 3, 600 e 4-6, 601 b 9-10, 605 b 7-c 4).As mimetic poetry conjures up barely illusions, it has to be exiled from the ideal state.
Yet, there is another reason for the banishment of poetry.False and deceptive as the poets' phantasms are, they, nonetheless, exert a powerful impact on the minds of people.Plato famously differentiates between intellect (νοῦς) and opinion (δόξα).According to the philosopher (Tim.51 e 2-6), the former results from teaching, is always supported by a true reasoning, remains impervious to persuasion and is, therefore, ascribed to the fondimenti teorici e storiografici per lo studioso del pensiero neoplatonico".In a somewhat similar vein, Struck  (2004: 238-239) hails Proclus as the author of "the first surviving systematically formulated alternative to the notion that literature is an imitation of the world".For a discussion of Proclus' impact on later theories of symbol and poetry, see e.g.Struck (2004: 254-277 and 2010: 69-70); cf. also the collection of essays in Gersh (2014).
gods and only to very few individuals; the latter, on the other hand, arises from persuasion, is contrary to reason, remains open to persuasion, upon which it is attributed to every man.The aforementioned dichotomy underlies Plato's notorious diagnosis (Resp.607 b 5-6) that there is "an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry" (παλαιὰ μέν τις διαφορὰ φιλοσοφίᾳ τε καὶ ποιητικῇ).The feud between philosophy and poetry is due to the fact that the latter appeals to our emotions rather than to reason.Thus, Plato recognizes (601 b 1) that "a certain great charm" (μεγάλη τὶς κήλησις) is characteristic of all poetry, upon which he makes it clear (605 b 3-5) that the mimetic poet invariably "stirs up, fosters and strengthens this part of the soul that destroys the rational part" (τοῦτο ἐγείρει τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τρέφει καὶ ἰσχυρὸν ποιῶν ἀπόλλυσι τὸ λογιστικόν).As the poet kowtows, then, to the unintelligent component of the soul, his art demoralizes and depraves men.
Hence, the deceptive and irrational nature of poetic mimesis compels Plato to dismiss (Resp.377 e 6-7) the myths of Homer and Hesiod as "the greatest lie" (τὸ μέγιστον […] ψεῦδος).When rejecting the myths of the poets, Plato repudiates not only the literal sense of these narratives but also any attempts at interpreting them allegorically.When denouncing such myths as the binding of Hera, the hurling of Hephaestus and all "such battles of the gods" (θεομαχίας ὅσας), Plato puts it in no uncertain terms (Resp.378 d 3-8) that such tales "must not be admitted into the State" (οὐ παραδεκτέον εἰς τὴν πόλιν), regardless of "whether they have any hidden meanings or not" (οὔτ' ἐν ὑπονοίαις πεποιημένας οὔτε ἄνευ ὑπονοιῶν), since "a young person cannot judge what is an allegorical sense and what is not" (νέος οὐχ οἷός τε κρίνειν ὅτι τε ὑπόνοια καὶ ὃ μή). 4 Plato's repudiation of allegoresis is a consequence of his rejection of poetry: given the deceptive and irrational nature of poetic mimesis, any reading of the poets (whether allegorical or literal) is bound to be misguided.5

Proclus' dilemma: μέγιστον ψεῦδος or ἔνθεος ποίησις?
Plato's repudiation of poetry is hardly palatable for Proclus, who takes the poetry of Homer to be neither delusive nor demoralizing, but rather divinely inspired (cf.e.g. In rem I 110, 7: … τὴν ῾Ομήρου διάνοιαν ἔνθεον οὖσαν … I 112, 2-3: … ὁ ποιητὴς … ἐνθέως … φησιν or I 120, 6: … ἡ ἔνθεος ποίησις …). 6hus, the above discussed Platonic onslaught on the poetry of Homer has left Proclus with the following dilemma.If Plato's disparagement of Homer is right, then the entire traditional paideia that builds on the sacred authority of the poet has to be repudiated.If, on the other hand, Plato's censure of Homer is wrong, then the whole Neoplatonic tradition that builds on the infallible authority of the philosopher needs to be called into question. 7As things stand, then, it seems impossible to preserve the intact authority of both Homer and Plato, for one is clearly caught between the devil of discarding the poet and the deep blue sea of doubting the philosopher.
When trying to steer clear between the Scylla of rejecting Homer and the Charybdis of betraying Plato, Proclus makes two important assumptions.Firstly, he is willing to acquiesce (In rem I 80, 4-5) that "the Homeric myths do not imitate the divinity well" (τοὺς ῾Ομηρικοὺς μύθους οὐκ εὖ μεμιμῆσθαι […] τὸ θεῖον), whilst, at the same time, he argues (In rem I 198, 14) that apart from the mimetic poetry that Plato quite rightly condemns there is also a higher form of poetry which "explains the divine matters through symbols" (διὰ συμβόλων τὰ θεῖα ἀφερμηνεύουσα).Secondly and relatedly, Proclus makes the following assumption: It seems to me that the grim, monstrous, and unnatural character of poetic fictions moves the listener in every way to a search for the truth, and draws him toward the secret knowledge; it does not allow him, as would be the case with something that possessed a surface probability, to remain with the thoughts placed before him.It compels him, instead, to enter into the interior of the myths and to busy himself with the thought which has been concealed, out of sight by the makers of myth and to ponder what kinds of natures and what great powers they introduced into the meaning of the myths and communicated to posterity by means of symbols such as these.δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ τὸ τῶν ποιητικῶν πλασμάτων τραγικὸν καὶ τὸ τερατῶδες καὶ τὸ παρὰ φύσιν κινεῖν τοὺς ἀκούοντας παντοδαπῶς εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ζήτησιν καὶ εἶναι πρὸς τὴν ἀπόρρητον γνῶσιν ὁλκὸν καὶ μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν ἡμῖν διὰ τὴν φαινομένην πιθανότητα μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν προβεβλημένων ἐννοιῶν, ἀλλ' ἀναγκάζειν εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς τῶν μύθων διαβάλλειν καὶ τὸν κεκρυμμένον ἐν ἀφανεῖ τῶν μυθοπλαστῶν περιεργάζεσθαι νοῦν, καὶ θεωρεῖν ὁποίας μὲν φύσεις, ἡλίκας δὲ δυνάμεις ἐκεῖνοι λαβόντες εἰς τὴν αὐτῶν διάνοιαν τοῖσδε τοῖς συμβόλοις αὐτὰς τοῖς μεθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἐσήμηναν. 8ese two assumptions constitute the cornerstone of Proclus' hermeneutics: on the one hand, poetry is much more than just a mimesis and, on the other hand, poetry has to be read appropriately (i.e., allegorically) so that the poet's art could perform its salvific function.In other words, Proclus argues that it is only when a poet is reduced to a mere "imitator" that his poetry rightly repels us as crude, naïve and even blasphemous.More often than not, however, such poetry transpires to be divinely inspired and truly transformative, when the poet is taken symbolically.

New tools of poetry: σύμβολα in lieu of μιμήματα
As noted above, Plato rejects mimetic art on the grounds that it makes an abortive and manipulative attempt at imitating the phenomenal world: since poetry mimics the lowest level of reality, it deludes and debases the souls that are exposed to its pernicious spell.In response to the Platonic attack on poetic mimesis, Proclus diagnoses that it is only one type of art that deserves to be condemned as such a false imitation.Thus, Proclus famously distinguishes (In rem I 177, 4-196, 13) between three kinds of poetry that correspond to particular "states" (ἕξεις) of the soul from the lowest to the highest; these types of poetry being the mimetic, the didactic and the inspired one.9When presenting his theory of the three psychic conditions and the related poetic modes, Proclus specifically insists that there is a type of poetry that is perfectly capable of reaching the true reality (the intelligible world).When contrasting the imitative and the symbolic mode of poetic composition, Proclus argues that while the former is not suitable for theology, the latter is its indispensable tool.
The lowest type of poetry corresponds to the lowest life of the soul that is characterized (In rem I 178, 3-4) by "inferior powers" (καταδεεστέραις δυνάμεσιν) and "imaginations as well as irrational sensations" (φαντασίαις τε καὶ αἰσθήσεσιν ἀλόγοις).Whilst this is the life that people lead when they immerse themselves in the sensible world and renounce philosophy altogether, the poetry that reflects this state of the soul is described by Proclus (In rem I 179, 16-17) as "mixed together with opinions and imagina-tions" (δόξαις καὶ φαντασίαις συμμιγνυμένη), "filled up with imitation" (διὰ μιμήσεως συμπληρουμένη) and, thereby, "nothing else than mimetic" (οὐδὲν ἀλλ' ἢ μιμητική).
The lowest type of poetry is obviously mimetic, as it aims to imitate the sensible world.However, mimetic poetry can imitate the world of phenomena correctly or incorrectly.In the former case, it is labeled as eikastic, whereas in the latter -it is characterized as phantastic.Thus, Proclus clarifies (In rem I 179, 29-32) that the former "produces images" (εἰκαστικόν) and "strains for the correctness of its imitation" (πρὸς τὴν ὀρθότητα τοῦ μιμήματος ἀνατείνεται), whilst the latter "produces phantasms" (φανταστικόν) and "offers solely apparent imitation" (φαινομένην μόνον τὴν μίμησιν παρεχόμενον).10While mimetic poetry might, then, attempt to adequately imitate the truth or forsake it entirely in favor of fabrications, Proclus suggests that Plato's criticism of Homer is valid with regard to the latter type of poetry.Needless to say, however, it is only sporadically that Homer is guilty of such imitative poetry that incorrectly mimics the sensible world. 11he second type of poetry is ascribed to the life of the soul that can reach "the being of the beings" (τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν ὄντων),12 upon which this poetry is characterized by Proclus as: full of advice and the best counsel and packed with intelligent moderation: it offers participation in prudence and the other virtues to those so inclined by nature.νουθεσίας καὶ συμβουλῶν ἀρίστων πλήρη καὶ νοερᾶς εὐμετρίας ἀνάμεστα φρονήσεώς τε καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς προτείνοντα τὴν μετουσίαν τοῖς εὖ πεφυκόσιν. 13ile this kind of poetry has been labeled as "didactic" 14 or "scientific", 15 it treats of such issues as the making of the universe, the nature of the soul or the individual's moral duties.Hence, its primary fields of investigation fall within the scope of physics and ethics rather than theology.Proclus stresses (In rem I 198, 21) that a distinctive feature of this type of poetry is that it characterizes a life which departs from deceptive imitation and proceeds towards knowledge or science (ἐπιστήμη).Importantly, however, this life of the soul and the corresponding poetry aim to know the truth rather than unite with it.
The highest life of the soul takes the form of a union with the divine (i.e., the One and/ or the gods). 16In this state, the soul is said (In rem I 177, 16) to be "connected with the gods" (συνάπτεται τοῖς θεοῖς), whilst the poetry that reflects this state of the soul is defined (In rem I 178, 24-25) as "madness superior to moderation" (μανία […] σωφροσύνης κρείττων).Undoubtedly, the most noteworthy characteristic of the highest kind of poetry is that it conveys its message through "symbols" (σύμβολα) or "tokens" (συνθήματα), rather than through "images" (εἰκόνες). 17Consequently, its defining feature is that it is not mimetic sensu stricto, since there is no mirror-like similarity between the poetic portrayal of an event and the theological truth that is cloaked in this fictive world.
Although this symbolic poetry is still characterized as "mimetic", Proclus significantly reinterprets the concept of "imitation", as he asserts (In rem I 198, 15-16) that "symbols are not imitations of those things which they are symbols of" (τὰ γὰρ σύμβολα τούτων, ὧν ἐστι σύμβολα, μιμήματα οὐκ ἔστιν).When describing the specificity of this symbolic "imitation", Proclus further elucidates (In rem I 198, 16-18) that symbols can actually be the very "opposite" (ἐναντία) of their referents, such as, for example: "the shameful of the beautiful and that which is contrary to nature of that which is in accord with nature" (τοῦ καλοῦ τὸ αἰσχρόν, καὶ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τὸ παρὰ φύσιν).The assumption that symbols can be the opposite of what they stand for makes it possible for Proclus to answer three important and interrelated questions: 1) What is the difference between Plato's and Homer's myth-making?2) Why can the highest kind of poetry be represented by various horrifying and abominable deeds of the deities?3) How should such outrageous passages be read if this divinely inspired poetry is to fulfil its soteriological function?

Plato's and Homer's μυθοποιΐα: the παιδευτική and ἐνθεαστική division
By Proclus' time, terms such as "myth" and "symbol" came to be frequently used interchangeably with reference to any allegorical sense, since myths were typically perceived as symbolic of higher truths. 18Proclus' commentary to the Timaeus provides us with an example, when the philosopher famously observes (I 30, 14-15) that "myths usually indicate things through symbols" (οἱ μῦθοι τὰ πολλὰ διὰ τῶν συμβόλων εἰώθασι τὰ πράγματα ἐνδείκνυσθαι).Proclus makes this remark in connection with his argument (I 30, 11-14) that the summary of the Republic explains the making of the universe "through images" (εἰκονικῶς), whilst the narrative about Atlantis does the same "through symbols" (συμβολικῶς). 19What is interesting about this observation is that it suggests a willingness on Proclus' part to allegorically interpret any myth. 20If, however, all myths can be regarded as allegories of higher truths, then this raises the question about the difference between the myths of Plato and those of Homer.
Proclus provides us with an answer to the question somewhat earlier (In Tim.I 30, 4-10) when he refers to the Pythagorean custom (ἔθος) of teaching first with likenesses (τῶν ὁμοίων), then with images (τῶν εἰκόνων) and finally with symbols (τῶν συμβόλων).This means that although all myths can be examined with respect to their allegorical sense, some are merely preparatory, whereas others address individuals who have attained a certain level of initiation.Thus, Proclus famously assumes (In rem I 76, 17-86, 23) that a myth can be either παιδευτικός ("educational", "pedagogic") or ἐνθεαστικός ("inspirational", "divinely inspired").According to this dichotomy, paideutic myths are designed as an introductory guidance for those individuals who are still under training, whereas entheastic myths are for those few who have progressed in their training sufficiently to be able to reach the Intellect, the gods and the true reality. 21he implication of this dichotomy is that the myths of Plato are primarily paideutic, whilst those of Homer are predominantly entheastic. 22The former are, then, labeled (In rem I 79, 12-14) as "more philosophical" (φιλοσοφώτεροι) and the latter are characterized as "belonging to the sacred rites" (τοῖς ἱερατικοῖς θεσμοῖς προσήκοντες).Hence, although all myths can be treated as allegories of higher truths, the difference between the myths of Plato and those of Homer consists in that the former serve the function of preparing young minds for the latter.Education must, therefore, begin with philosophical myths and culminate in hieratic myths.In this way, the student moves from the human towards the divine, since the former enable him to reach the intelligible realm, whereas the latter make it possible for him to unite with the gods. 23hat is precisely why paideutic myths use "images" (εἰκόνες) that are "imitations" (μιμήματα) which seek to resemble their models as accurately as possible, whereas entheastic myths employ "symbols" (σύμβολα) that do not imitate, but rather hint at their referents through analogy (ἀναλογία). 24While entheastic myths are, thus, symbolic, 25 Proclus explains that the creators of such myths: indicate some things by means of others, but not as using images in order to signify their models; rather, they use symbols that are in sympathy with their referents by means of analogy.ἄλλα ἐξ ἄλλων ἐνδείκνυται, καὶ οὐ τὰ μὲν εἰκόνες, τὰ δὲ παραδείγματα, ὅσα διὰ τούτων σημαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν σύμβολα, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀναλογίας ἔχει τὴν πρὸς ταῦτα συμπάθειαν. 26 inspirational myths employ symbols rather than images, they make no pretensions to accurately imitate their referents.As these symbolic myths signify their referents through analogy rather than mimesis, Proclus can say (In rem I 198, 18-19) that "the symbolic mode indicates the nature of things even through what is most opposite to them" (ἡ δὲ συμβολικὴ θεωρία καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐνδείκνυται φύσιν). 27Naturally, Proclus insists that the relationship between the symbol and its referent can never be reduced to a mirror image or reflection so as to demonstrate that Plato's criticism of mimetic art does not apply to the entheastic (symbolic) myths.
This becomes clear when Proclus contrasts the myths of Homer with those created by Plato. 28According to Proclus, Plato was very careful not to portray the gods in an outrageous and blasphemous way: when coining his pedagogical myths, Plato employed images so as to educate about the divine matters.Hence, his myths imitate the gods without depraving and/or deluding young minds.Thus, Proclus stresses (In rem I 73, 16-22) that Plato "mystically explains the divine matters through certain images" (διά τινων εἰκόνων τὰ θεῖα μυστικῶς ἀναδιδάσκει) in such a manner that his "portrayals" (ἀπεικασμένα) and "likenesses" (ὁμοιώματα) are very much "like visible statues" (οἷον ἀγάλματα ἐμφανῆ). 29his means that Plato's myths imitate the gods in the same way as the statues of the gods imitate them, i.e., in both cases the imitation builds on an easily recognizable resemblance, albeit it always remains only an approximate rendition of the divine.Coining paideutic myths is similar to carving statues in that both these activities strive for some similarity when exploiting the visible (ὕλη) to represent the invisible (τὰ θεῖα)the difference being naturally that a mythmaker uses words, whereas a sculptor uses stones.This explains why Plato's paideutic myths are free from any shocking and horrifying motifs that Homer's entheastic myths abound in: when presenting his hidden doctrines about the gods, Plato employed images (εἰκόνες / ἀπεικασμένα) and likenesses (ὁμοιώματα), upon which his portrayals of the deities are never opposite or contrary to the nature of the gods, but rather these depictions of the deities retain the similarity of the statues (οἷον ἀγάλματα).
Things look quite different, though, with the entheastic (symbolic) myths.While here the mythmaker must also have recourse to words, he is not bound by the requirement that his portrayal resemble the gods.That is why the authors of entheastic myths use the crude language of anthropomorphism.They employ that which is inferior to somehow represent that which is so superior that it cannot be rendered mimetically, but rather symbolically: The fathers of myth observed that nature was creating images of nonmaterial and noetic Forms and embellishing this cosmos with these imitations, depicting the indivisible by means of fragmented things, the eternal by means of things that proceed through time, the noetic through that which the senses can grasp, and portraying the nonmaterial materially, the nonspatial spatially 27 van den Berg (2001: 120-125) has excellently shown though that symbols do not have to be absolutely opposed to their referents.See also Chlup (2012: 189).Cf. infra, n. 36. 28Cf.e.g.van den Berg (2001: 122 and 131) and Chlup (2012: 188).
29 Coulter (1976: 48) suggests (ad loc.) that Proclus might be alluding here to the celestial myth of the Phaedrus.While Sheppard (1980: 149) rightly stresses that the term μυστικῶς is used here in the sense of both allegoresis and mysteries, Müri (1976: 31) provides a very good explanation for this fact: "Mysterien und Allegorese haben ein gemeinsames Merkmal: die Scheidung zwischen Eingeweihten und Außenstehenden".and depicting through things subject to change that which is eternally the same.When they saw this, in line with the nature and the procession of those things which have only apparent and imagelike existence, they themselves fabricated images of the divine in the medium of language, expressing the transcendent power of the models by those things most opposite to them and furthest removed from them: that which is beyond nature is represented by things contrary to nature; that which is more divine than all reason, by the irrational; that which transcends in simplicity all fragmented beauty, by things that are considered ugly and obscene.κατιδόντες γὰρ οἱ τῆς μυθοποιΐας πατέρες, ὅτι καὶ ἡ φύσις εἰκόνας δημιουργοῦσα τῶν ἀΰλων καὶ νοητῶν εἰδῶν καὶ τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ποικίλλουσα τοῖς τούτων μιμήμασιν τὰ μὲν ἀμέριστα μεριστῶς ἀπεικονίζεται, τὰ δὲ αἰώνια διὰ τῶν κατὰ χρόνον προϊόντων, τὰ δὲ νοητὰ διὰ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἐνύλως τε τὸ ἄϋλον ἀποτυποῦται καὶ διαστατῶς τὸ ἀδιάστατον καὶ διὰ μεταβολῆς τὸ μονίμως ἱδρυμένον, ἑπομένως τῇ τε φύσει καὶ τῇ προόδῳ τῶν φαινομένως ὄντων καὶ εἰδωλικῶς, εἰκόνας καὶ αὐτοὶ πλάττοντες ἐν λόγοις φερομένας τῶν θείων τοῖς ἐναντιωτάτοις καὶ πλεῖστον ἀφεστηκόσιν τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν τῶν παραδειγμάτων ἀπομιμοῦνται δύναμιν, καὶ τοῖς μὲν παρὰ φύσιν τὸ ὑπὲρ φύσιν αὐτῶν ἐνδείκνυνται, τοῖς δὲ παραλόγοις τὸ παντὸς λόγου θειότερον, τοῖς δὲ φανταζομένοις ὡς αἰσχροῖς τὸ παντὸς μεριστοῦ κάλλους ὑπερηπλωμένον. 30 this beautiful passage, Proclus stresses that it was the nature of the things that has inspired the poets to write symbolically.Just as that which is eternal must be portrayed through that which is transient and that which is intelligible through that which is sensible, so the creators of entheastic myths have to depict the transcendence of the gods through what is, in fact, most contradictory to them: thus, they describe that which surpasses nature through that which is unnatural, whereas that which surpasses all reason through that which is irrational.Hence, whenever Homeric myths strike us as grotesque and bizarre to the point of blasphemous, it has to be borne in mind that these anthropomorphic formulations are the only means for communicating the divine.Importantly, Proclus puts it in no uncertain terms that mythmakers employ this symbolism precisely to make us aware of the "transcending superiority" (ἐξῃρημένη ὑπεροχή) of the gods. 31This means that the authors of entheastic myths coin these stories in such a way that these disgraceful portrayals of the gods make men conscious of the unbridgeable chasm separating humans from gods, while at the same time leaving no doubt that the narratives must be taken allegorically.
Everything that has been said so far makes it possible to see how Proclus perceives the difference between Homer and Plato.The philosopher characterizes (In rem I 159, 1) the former as "divinely inspired" (ἐνθουσιάζων) and "driven to Bacchic frenzy" (ἀναβακχευόμενος), stressing, at the same time though (In rem I 159, 3-4), that Plato provides us with the same truth, which he merely "bound fast with the irrefutable methods of knowledge" (ταῖς ἀνελέγκτοις τῆς ἐπιστήμης μεθόδοις κατεδήσατο).This means that the difference between Homer and Plato resides in the form rather than in the content: the poet and the philosopher present the same truth, but the former speaks from revelation, whereas the latter speaks from reason. 32That is why the narratives of the poet require a special exegetical approach.

Allegorical approach to Homer's παραπέτασμα
Evidently, then, one has to apply allegorical interpretation to entheastic myths so as to properly identify the connection between the symbol and its referent.Thus, allegoresis makes us aware of the fact that it is only when we read Homer mimetically that his poetry seems crude and offensive, but when we read the poet symbolically, his poetry transpires to be theology κατ' ἐξοχήν.Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish (In rem I 140, 11-13) between the "ineffable wisdom" (ἀπόρρητος θεωρία) concealed in the Homeric poems and their "apparent meaning" (τὸ φαινόμενον).33While Homer's epics must not be reduced to their surface meaning, Proclus frequently characterizes this meaning as παραπέτασμα (i.e., "cover", "veil" or "screen") to indicate that beneath this veneer a deeper (i.e., symbolic) sense has been hidden. 34In other words, this παραπέτασμα hints enigmatically at a latent meaning that has to be retrieved through allegorical interpretation if the Iliad and the Odyssey are to be fully understood and appreciated.
Proclus provides us with a spectacular example of this kind of exegesis, when he famously interprets the hurling of Hephaestus as "the procession of the divine from above down to the lowest creations in the realm of the senses" (ἡ ἄνωθεν ἄχρι τῶν τελευταίων ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς δημιουργημάτων τοῦ θείου πρόοδος), the binding of Kronos -as "the union of the whole of creation with the noetic and paternal transcendence of Kronos" (ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ὅλης δημιουργίας πρὸς τὴν νοερὰν τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ πατρικὴν ὑπεροχήν), and the castration of Ouranos -as "the separation of the Titanic chain from the order that maintains the universe" (ἡ διάκρισις τῆς Τιτανικῆς σειρᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς συνεκτικῆς διακοσμήσεως). 35his piece of allegorical interpretation shows that the symbols which appear in entheastic myths are not absolutely opposed to their referents. 36Obviously, we have here no copy-like images (εἰκόνες / ἀπεικασμένα) or accurate likenesses (ὁμοιώματα) and these symbolic portrayals of the deities are not like (οἷον) their physical statues.Nevertheless, there is some sort of similarity that provides a symbolic connection between hurling and procession, binding and union, castration and separation, etc.While these depictions signify their referents through analogy rather than mimesis, the relationship between symbols and their referents in entheastic myths is, thereby, motivated.The analogy may be at times very obscure, but a skillful interpreter will be able to ascertain that hurling hints enigmatically at a procession, binding -at a union, castration -at a separation, and so on That is why Proclus further explains (In rem I 82, 20-83, 7) that what "in our world" (παρ' ἡμῖν) is perceived as "lower" (χεῖρον) and belonging to the "inferior" (καταδεεστέρας) order of reality, the myths employ with reference to the "superior nature" (κρείττονα φύσιν) in such a way that binding can stand for a "conjunction with the causes and ineffable union" (συναφὴ πρὸς τὰ αἴτια καὶ ἕνωσις ἄρρητος) rather than an obstruction, hurling can stand for "the generative procession as well as free and unrestrained presence in everything" (ἡ γόνιμος […] πρόοδος καὶ ἡ ἄφετος ἐπὶ πάντα παρουσία καὶ εὔλυτος) rather than a violent movement, and castration can stand for a "procession of second-order beings from their own causes to a lower order" (πρόοδος τῶν δευτέρων εἰς ὑφειμένην τάξιν ἀπὸ τῶν σφετέρων αἰτίων) rather than a loss of power.
The opposition between the inferior meaning that corresponds to the sensible world (παρ' ἡμῖν / ἐνταῦθα) and the superior meaning that the corresponds to the intelligible world (παρὰ τοῖς θεοῖς / ἐκεῖ) is employed by Proclus to differentiate between the literal and the allegorical sense of a narrative.This distinction provides the foundation for Proclus' apology of Homer: when seeking to exonerate Homer from the charges that Plato has levelled against τὸ μέγιστον ψεῦδος, Proclus argues that Homer's poetry is predominantly symbolic, i.e., that the low and base language of the myths is only a symbolic description of the highest realities.
From the Neoplatonist perspective, all poems about the gods have to be allegorical, for the transcendence of the gods precludes accuracy of all human accounts of them (whether poetical or philosophical). 37As no language can do justice to the immaterial and unchanging reality that it seeks to represent, literal portrayals of the gods as anthropomorphic beings must be taken as necessary concessions on the part of the poet.As the superior is, in fact, indescribable and inexpressible, these symbolic renditions are necessarily grotesque and monstrous.That is precisely how they make us aware of the fact that what they endeavor to describe and express is, indeed, indescribable and inexpressible.The apparently irreverent and sacrilegious descriptions of the gods must, then, be seen as necessarily material analogies that symbolically hint at the higher immaterial realities.Given that there is no direct similarity or copy-like resemblance between the symbol and its referent, it is only reasonable that the "binding" of one god by another can symbolically signify an "ineffable union", whereas the "hurling" of one god by another can symbolically signify a "generative procession".Irrespective of how imperfect these material analogies might seem, such renditions remain the only means for representing the divine.
Allegoresis shows, then, that it is only on the surface that Homer's naïve and/or blasphemous portrayals of the deities are irreligious, since underneath them a profound theology can be found. 38As a matter of fact, these seemingly shocking descriptions of the gods are the best proof that the poetry of Homer is indeed divinely inspired and that the passages which Plato most vehemently attacks must actually be taken as the most symbolic (i.e., non-mimetic) ones.When this hermeneutical principle is applied, such horrifying deeds of the deities as banishment, imprisonment or castration of one god by another testify precisely to the divinely inspired authority of the poet.That is why Proclus insists (In rem I 193, 14-16) that when creating such myths the poet must have been "inspired by the gods" (ἐνθουσιάζειν) and "possessed by the Muses" (ἐκ τῶν Μουσῶν κατοκωχήν).That is also why he maintains (In rem I 198, 20-23) that a "divinely inspired poet" (ποιητὴς ἔνθους), who "reveals the truth about beings through signs" (διὰ συνθημάτων δηλοῖ τὴν περὶ τῶν ὄντων ἀλήθειαν) is actually "not an imitator" (οὔτε μιμητής).
These assertions show that the highest kind of poetry transcends the limitations of the mimetic one.A divinely inspired poet resorts to the crude and anthropomorphic language of myths to somehow represent the divine matters.While the various mythical formulations ("binding", "hurling" etc.) are used as necessary "material", allegorical interpretation reveals that these symbolic depictions of the immaterial reality are concealed from the vulgar, but available to those who have been properly educated in philosophy.That is why Proclus says (In rem I 85, 26-86, 1) that "such myths encourage those who are naturally suited to desire the wisdom hidden in them" (ἀνεγείρουσιν μὲν οἱ τοιοίδε μῦθοι τοὺς εὐφυεστέρους πρὸς τὴν ἔφεσιν τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀποκρύφου θεωρίας), 37 Sheppard (1980: 17).Cf. also Lamberton (1986: 171-173) and Struck (2004: 244). 38Cf. e.g.Procl.In Tim.I 141, 24-25: ἡ παλαιὰ θεολογία … παρ' ῾Ομήρῳ.
stressing further (In rem I 86, 1-4) that the "apparent marvel-mongering" (φαινομένη τερατολογία) of such myths not only awakens the initiated ones to a quest for the truth but also keeps away the profane crowd.
From allegoresis to theurgy: δαιμόνιος τρόπος τῆς μυθοποιΐας That Homer's poetry is symbolic means that it must derive its "material" from the sensible world: entheastic myths portray the transcendence of the gods anthropomorphi cally just as nature depicts that which is intelligible through that which is sensible (see above).While the highest kind of poetry is, thereby, mediated in the world of phenomena, this phenomenal basis of symbolic poetry brings it close to theurgy, which also employs the material to invoke the divine. 39Accordingly, Proclus draws an important parallel between the soteriological power of symbolic poetry and that of theurgic practices, as he compares the impact of symbols in myths with that of symbols in magic rites: The art, therefore, governing sacred matters distributes, in a fitting way, the whole of ritual among the gods and the attendants of the gods (i.e., the demons), in order that none of those who attend the gods eternally should be left without a share in the religious service due them.This art calls on the gods with the holiest rites and mystic symbols, and invokes the gifts of the demons through the medium of a secret sympathy by means of visible passions.In the same way, the fathers of such myths as we have been discussing, having gazed on virtually the entire procession of divine reality, and being eager to connect the myths with the whole chain which proceeds from each god, made the surface images of their myths analogous to the lowest races of being which preside over lowest, material sufferings.However, what was hidden and unknown to the many they handed down to those whose passion it is to look upon being, in a form which revealed the transcendent being of the gods concealed in inaccessible places.As a consequence, although every myth is demonic on its surface, it is divine with respect to its secret doctrine.ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν τέχνη κατανείμασα δεόντως τὴν σύμπασαν θρῃσκείαν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τοῖς τῶν θεῶν ὀπαδοῖς, ἵνα μηδὲν ἄμοιρον τῆς ἐπιβαλλούσης θεραπείας ἀπολείπηται τῶν ἀϊδίως ἑπομένων τοῖς θεοῖς, τοὺς μὲν ταῖς ἁγιωτάταις τελεταῖς καὶ τοῖς μυστικοῖς συμβόλοις προσάγεται, τῶν δὲ τοῖς φαινομένοις παθήμασιν προκαλεῖται τὰς δόσεις διὰ δή τινος ἀρρήτου συμπαθείας, οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οἱ τῶν τοιῶνδε μύθων πατέρες εἰς πᾶσαν ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀποβλέψαντες τὴν τῶν θείων πρόοδον καὶ τοὺς μύθους εἰς ὅλην ἀνάγειν σπεύδοντες τὴν ἀφ' ἑκάστου προϊοῦσαν σειρὰν τὸ μὲν προβεβλημένον αὐτῶν καὶ εἰδωλικὸν ἀνάλογον ὑπεστήσαντο τοῖς ἐσχάτοις γένεσιν καὶ τῶν τελευταίων καὶ ἐνύλων προεστηκόσι παθῶν, τὸ δὲ ἀποκεκρυμμένον καὶ ἄγνωστον τοῖς πολλοῖς τῆς ἐν ἀβάτοις ἐξῃρημένης τῶν θεῶν οὐσίας ἐκφαντικὸν τοῖς φιλοθεάμοσιν τῶν ὄντων παρέδοσαν.καὶ οὕτω δὴ τῶν μύθων ἕκαστος δαιμόνιος μέν ἐστιν κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον, θεῖος δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀπόρρητον θεωρίαν. 40mbols permeate the whole of reality.41What divinely inspired poetry and theurgy have in common is that they both build on the relation of "sympathy" between a σύμβολον (σύνθημα) and its referent.While the term συμπάθεια stands literally for an "affinity" or "fellow-feeling", in Proclus it designates a non-mimetic connection between a material object and an immaterial entity.Sympathy is, then, a magical power that connects the visible with the invisible.Hence, it is through the relationship of sympathy that the sacred symbols in entheastic myths and theurgic practices can bring individuals into the state of union with the divine. 42hat is why Proclus says in the above-cited passage that mythmakers have created the surface images of their myths analogous to the lowest races of divine beings, i.e., demons.This means that entheastic myths and theurgic practices are "demonic" due to their phenomenal surface, but "divine" with respect to their symbolic meaning. 43Indeed, Proclus explicitly stresses (In rem I 86, 10-13) that the "kinship of these myths with the tribe of demons" (τῶν μύθων τούτων πρὸς τὸ τῶν δαιμόνων φῦλον συγγένειαν) consists precisely in the "activity of making symbolic revelations" (ἐνεργείας συμβολικῶς […] δηλούσης), upon which he further specifies that (In rem I 86, 20) "the mode of such myth-making is demonic" (δαιμόνιος ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶ τῆς τοιαύτης μυθοποιΐας).These assertions show that from Proclus' perspective being an interpreter of entheastic myths is tantamount to being a mystagogue. 44verything that has been said so far makes it easy to understand why Proclus ascribes to allegorical interpretation of symbolic poetry the same soteriological power that he finds in theurgic rites: studying the demonic nature of entheastic myths serves the purpose of knowing the divine and uniting with it.Accordingly, Proclus claims (In rem I 80, 10) that the symbolic (entheastic) myths "lift up" (ἀνάγουσιν) to the "contemplation" (θεωρία) of the gods, just as the grim and monstrous surface of these myths is said (In rem I 85, 16-26) to "compel" (ἀναγκάζειν) the listeners to "contemplate" (θεωρεῖν) what divinities the mythmakers have hidden in these symbolic myths.
In Proclus, allegoresis receives a religious justification, as it paves the way for authentic piety and genuine religiousness. 45Without the aid of allegorical interpretation, Plato's criticism of Homer is valid, since the myths of Homer (and other poets) are doomed to primitive and immoral anthropomorphism.Yet, studying meticulously the demonic surface of various shocking and outrageous myths leads individuals to a genuinely sacred reality, as they are "lifted" and "compelled" to allegorically search for the true divinity concealed underneath these crude portrayals of deities.Thus, allegoresis transforms Homer's mythology from superstition and/or blasphemy to a profound religious experience.The soteriological power of allegoresis consists, thereby, in that it brings the initiated readers closer to the gods through revealing the true nature of the divinity hidden underneath the demonic: allegorical interpretation of entheastic myths makes union with the gods possible, for it makes us aware of the sympathy between these symbolic myths and their referents.In this way, allegoresis enables us to truly participate in the divine.

Final remarks
When trying to mediate in the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry, Proclus argues that it is only on the surface that Homer has "attributed to the gods all sorts of things which are matters of reproach and censure (ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος) among men". 46ccording to Proclus, the truce between philosophers and poets can easily be achieved when it is understood that the highest kind of poetry needs to be read symbolically and not mimetically: if the poet's portrayals of the gods seem prima facie impious to the point of blasphemy, then allegoresis shows that these anthropomorphic depictions must be recognized as indispensable tools for communicating the divine.While symbols are the only vehicle for conveying the immaterial, they do not imitate the things they denote.Proclus insists that entheastic myths seek to do justice to the indescribable and inexpressible nature of the divine as accurately as humanly possible, i.e., symbolically.Thus, rather than being sacrilegious and irreverent, such myths illustrate that the immaterial can only be reached via the material.