The following notes are not intended as a full bibliographical update, but indicate rather some more recent relevant publications with some comments.

Why are states evil? In Chapter 17 I approach this question in relation to Plato’s analogy between soul and city, as this analogy was interpreted by Platonists in Late Antiquity. I indicate first that individual souls belong originally, according to the Platonists, to a transcendent, intelligible community, a city of souls where they enjoy an ‘intelligible love’, a ‘divine friendship’. However, souls, in their presence in the material world, can become alienated by this world, alienated from their original community and from each other. I show that a relation is made between Plato’s account of successive stages of degradation in political constitutions in the Republic Books VIII and IX and stages of moral alienation in souls. Corrupt souls produce corrupt states and corrupt states can corrupt souls.

The Introduction describes the curriculum of sciences taught in the Neoplatonist schools of Late Antiquity and the purpose of this curriculum as a divinization of the human soul. The textbooks which were read as part of the curriculum are identified, the image of a ‘ladder’ of the sciences is introduced and disagreements about the division of the sciences are indicated. The second part of the Introduction provides an overview of, and context for, the following chapters, organized in five parts: rhetoric (not as part of the curriculum, but as an instrument of philosophy), ethics, politics, mathematics, metaphysics. The arrangement of the chapters within each of the five parts is presented and the main themes of each chapter are introduced.

Chapter 15 compares the personifications of philosophy which we find in Synesius’ De regno and in Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. I describe the relationship between philosophy and politics, as presented by Synesius, as ‘tense’. Synesius, ambassador for Cyrene at the court of Constantinople at the beginning of the fifth century (and later bishop of Cyrene), asserts the superiority and independence of true philosophy in relation to politics, while asserting the advantages that philosophy can bring to politics. Boethius, a high-ranking Roman official awaiting his execution in 524, is consoled by Philosophy; his mission to bring philosophy and rulership together was not in vain. I mention three factors which can limit the intervention of philosophy in the political sphere.

Proclus did not accept Plotinus’ position that matter is absolute evil and responsible for other evils. I return to his position in Chapter 12, as it is followed by Simplicius in explaining the evils of his period, the reign of the Emperor Justinian, a period which was afflicted by a series of natural catastrophes (earthquakes, fires, the plague) and human disasters (military, social, economic). Natural disasters, Simplicius explained, are part of the compensatory balance of forces of the natural world and are not evil, as such; human moral evil can be of benefit to those who suffer it. I contrast this account of evil with that given by a contemporary, Procopius of Caesarea, who explains the same evils of his time in terms of the Justinian’s demonic nature.

Chapter 18 introduces the theory of natural law to be found in Plotinus and in Proclus in connection with the interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus. Natural law derives from the ‘law of being’ which is divine Intellect and from souls which, in their nature, are laws unto themselves (autonomous). Divine and natural law are considered as paradigmatic for human law. I explore this relationship as it is presented in Proclus and as exemplified in the idea of rulership for women. Appropriate knowledge in metaphysics and physics is required of the legislator in formulating corresponding human law.

Chapter 20 presents the way in which Proclus interpreted the figure of the tyrant in Plato’s dialogues. Tyranny is based on force, violates law, both cosmic and human, and is motivated by a misled desire for power, power divorced from goodness and knowledge. I argue that Proclus and other Platonists, Damascius and Simplicius, could use this interpretation of Plato to describe the political regimes of their period, in particular the rule of Emperor Justinian, as tyrannies. These tyrannies, in their metaphysical ignorance and moral turpitude, violated divine order and law in destroying pagan temples and statues. I consider finally the cases of two authors, John Lydus and Procopius of Caesarea, who describe Justinian’s rule in terms of kingship or tyranny.