This chapter looks at approximately a millennium of ancient reception, from factors pertaining to the writing and early circulation of Gorgias to the commentary on the work by Olympiodorus in the sixth century of our era. The dialogue was not written for light-hearted entertainment but as a vehicle for serious philosophy. Early readers must have included Plato’s rival Isocrates, whose Against the Sophists criticizes material early in the work, while inspiring 519b-d. Aristotle made extensive use of it in the Rhetoric, but may have thought its ethics superceded. A range of allusions in the spurious Alcibiades II strongly suggests that Gorgias was well-known by the late fourth century. It was widely read thereafter, thanks to rhetoricians and grammarians. Commentaries emerged from the Platonist schools, from Taurus to Olympiodorus, and may be supplemented from other philosophic discussion. Dodds had a low regard for Olympiodorus, taking little account of the task faced by the Alexandrian commentator. Some examples show how this view caused him to overlook places where Olympiodorus’ offers assistance, or even to misreport what he says. I conclude with the value of studying the ancient reception for enhancing our view of Plato.

After introducing Porphyry’s commentary, this chapter asks how Porphyry saw himself at the time of writing. Was it as a ‘Neoplatonist’ and pupil of Plotinus as usually presumed? Does he write as a mathematician and scientist or as a philosopher? Assuming he sees harmonics as a natural interest of the philosopher, what sort of philosopher does he represent himself as? He could claim to be embarking upon a ‘Pythagorean’ task rather than a ‘Platonist’ one, though the two were hard to distinguish in this era. Either would involve the Timaeus. His persona may have a bearing on the work’s date. The long discussion on logos and sensation is examined for indications of Porphyry’s sources and allegiance. This epistemology is distinctive, and the most distinctive features are independent of Plotinus. The section’s eclecticism and polymathy make it hard to associate with a single school, like Thrasyllus, Porphyry’s only named authority here. Porphyry’s persona is in fact complex, as much Pythagorean as Platonist, with an early dating feasible, allowing for debts to Longinus and to the mathematician Demetrius rather than to Plotinus. A Pythagorean’s interest in harmonics is natural.

THE INTEGRITY AND STRUCTURE OF BOOK 5

As in all previous volumes Proclus offers an extended discussion of his text of Plato's Timaeus, which is the same in most of its details as our text. Since it is most important that a Neoplatonic commentary should be able to relate everything in a Platonic dialogue to a single goal or purpose (skopos), Proclus does not choose to leave out any of the material, but to relate everything to his vision of what the dialogue is trying to achieve. The text that comes down to us contains each chunk of Platonic text, ranging from a couple of words (if very important for Proclus’ interpretation) to several lines, followed most commonly by some more general interpretation followed by further comments on the little details of the language. This division, into what are called the theoria and the lexis is more obvious in those commentaries that spring directly from classroom activities, often as recorded by a note-taker, but traces of it remain in Proclus’ work, which is no doubt meant to be of a longer-lasting nature and to be read by generations of readers, for it was seen by Proclus as one of his major achievements (Marinus, VProc. 38).

Unlike the two previous books, Book 5 of Proclus’ Timaeus Commentary is no longer governed by any strong structural influence other than the text of the Timaeus itself, of which it continues to take note of every word that Plato wrote. It covers 40e5–44d2, a little less than four Stephanus pages, fractionally more than Book 4 (37c6–40e4). There is some question about whether this book is finished, and for two reasons. First, Philoponus (Aet. p. 364 Rabe) cites several Proclan lines that relate to Tim. 50c and gives their context as ‘the fifth logos of the exegetic [discussions] on the Timaeus’. Citation of ancient book numbers is often muddled in the early tradition; but one may in any case question whether the logoi of the work are supposed to be identical with the books that have come down to us, and, if not, how (if at all) they relate to what we have. Second, the recensio vulgata writes at the end: ‘Proclus’ [work] on the Timaeus has been discovered as far as what lies before us; it is unclear whether he also interpreted what follows.’

THE SUBLUNARY GODS (40E5–41A6)

Introduction to the Sublunary Gods

General Theory

The account of the sublunary gods (hoi hypo selênên theoi) is a continuation of the study of the heavenly gods and it derives its perfection and scientific nature from its being dependent upon it. This is because the actual generation-producing (genesiourgos) chorus of gods takes after those in the heaven, and, in imitation of the rotation of the heaven, it turns things in generation too in a matching rotation. For in accordance with the undivided and unified procession secondary things follow what precedes them. Accordingly, because those who govern generation are positioned immediately below heavenly [gods], it is because of this that they also revert upon them in a single, partition-free unification, just as they too [revert] to the hyper-heavenly [gods], from whom they have been born next in line; whereas these latter [revert] to the intellective [gods] by whom they were arranged, and the intellective again [revert] to the intelligible [gods], from whom they have been brought to light, since they embrace all things in some concealed fashion that can neither be stated nor otherwise expressed. Assuredly the race of intelligible gods is the summit of all that truly golden series itself, whereas its limit is [the race] of the sublunary gods, which take charge of (epitropeuein) generation and nature in a non-generated and supernatural manner. This [limit] is also something that the Demiurge's plan (nous) is now establishing, when the leadership of the gods stretches down from the heavens above reaching to the furthermost things.

Let it now be our purpose to speak about this [race of gods], and [to state] firstly that all gods now being established preserve the [power of] engendering (gennêtikon) and perfecting that belongs to the one who engendered them and the craftsmanship (dêmiourgikon) and stability (statheron) of creation, and they received from the Father measures and limits and order. All things that he oversees in a transcendent and universal manner, they divide according to lots, and then craft, engender, or perfect them. Some of them are close to the heavenly gods, while others have proceeded further, so that some are able to preserve their character (idea) as far as possible in this order while others abide by it to the extent that they are able.