UC Berkeley

Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Republic is the only extant ancient Greek commentary on Plato's Republic. Despite the fact that it includes discussions of most of the major parts of the book, it has received very little scholarly attention. This dissertation introduces the work in its entirety and tries to identify some of the most important contributions it can make to philosophical and philological scholarship on the Republic. I am particularly attentive to ways in which Proclus' concerns--such as responding to Epicurean critiques of Platonic myth or defending Homer--may help us see Plato's work in its cultural context.

The first chapter focuses on introducing the work and answering basic questions about the place of the Republic in late antique Platonism, the extent of Proclus' sources and what portions of the Republic Proclus discusses. I consider the form of the commentary, arranged as various essays, in comparison with Proclus' other commentaries which proceed in a line by line manner. I respond to arguments that have claimed that the commentary is not a unified work by considering the form and extent of the essays relative to the content of the Republic.

The second chapter argues that Proclus' commentary is not trimming the Platonic tradition to fit into the religious orthodoxy of late antiquity but rather stressing arguments and interpretative approaches that became most influential in the Renaissance. I consider several examples such as Proclus' interest in the Orphic and Pythagorean tradition, his emphasis on gender equality and the scientific aspects of his approach to natural philosophy.

The third chapter considers some important aspects of Proclus' hermeneutics. I consider how and why Proclus sometimes disagrees with Plato. In particular, I focus on some portions of the commentary that demonstrate Proclus' approach to the dramatic aspects of the dialogues and discuss why Proclus' defence of Homer includes some observations about his Platonic hermeneutics. I consider also his responses to Aristotle's idea of catharsis and his approach to Glaucon's role in the Republic.

The fourth chapter translates and discusses a particular portion of the sixth essay in which Proclus argues, contrary to the view Socrates expresses in the Republic, that Homer is a text which teaches the political virtue of sophrosune. I consider the historical origins of allegorizing interpretations and then distinguish between Proclus' use of allegory and his use of other interpretative methodologies. I consider in particular Proclus' defence of the idea of euphrosune and compare his approach with earlier philosophical discussions which responded to the same passage of Homer (Odyssey 9.6-10) and interrogated the passage along the lines suggested in the Republic.