1

The Celestial City:

Proclean Neoplatonic Political Philosophy
Mark Lamarre

This paper proposes to present a basic outline of Proclus’ political philosophy, which is essentially
based on an interpretation and development of Plato’s Republic, outlined in his Commentaries on the
Republic, including the summary of said work in Plato’s Timaeus, which he has commented on in
his Commentaries on the Timaeus. The Commentaries on the Republic are mainly devoted to Proclus’
defense of Homer (treatises V et VI), his commentary on the Myth of Er (treatise XVI), and his
commentary on the nuptial number (treatise XIII). Treatise seven presents an original discussion on
the three parts of the souls and its relation to the three classes.1 Treatises’ I, III, V, VIII-XII, XIV are
shorter works on various aspects of the Republic, running the gamut from ontological,
epistemological, and ethical questions to the role of women in education and the nature of
philosophical love.
Treatise XVII of the Commentaries on the Republic, dealing with Aristotle’s objections to the aspects of
the central books of the Republic from book II of the Politics, will be used as a starting point because
it is a relatively straightforward exposition grounded in the original Platonic and Aristotelian texts.2
This paper will not be examining Aristotle’s arguments against Plato per se, but will rather try to
examine the specifically Proclean views that emerge from the Platonic/Aristotelian debate and use
those as a launching-point for further exploration of Proclus’ political philosophy.
1 - Organic argument. Proclus is not averse to using Aristotelian terminology to defend Plato. He
begins by approving of Aristotle’s presentation of the problem, which uses a kind of logic of the
mean between extremes (Regarding goods in a polis, the citizens can either share everything, some
of the things, or nothing. The sharing of some of the things is deemed preferable). Indeed,
Aristotelian logic plays an important role in the Proclean philosophical system.3 Proclus argues for
a strongly organic view of the state by using the distinct trade argument and the unity of body
argument together, arguing that they both contribute to the unity of the state:4 Moreover, he
stresses a more explicit analogy between the body and the state than Plato:5

1
‘’In this short essay, Proclus gives an account of political virtue, by examining the parts of the soul insofar as it is
master of the body and master of itself. The soul which has entered into relation with a terrestrial body possesses a
mixture of psychic parts, which on their own would express an activity proper to immaterial mind on the one hand, and
to irrational beasts on the other. But because these parts are together within a single life, they have relations of ruling and
being ruled which are governed by the political virtues. As we have seen, these relations can be quite complex, and go
some way towards explaining the complexity of actual political action. Proclus’ theory would allow him to accept Plato’s
account of the varieties of good and bad men, and good and bad states, and in some ways give a more nuanced account
of these’’ (MacIsaac 139-40).
2
It is also the only one translated into English, to my knowledge, in Stalley. The Commentary on the Republic only
exists in one manuscript, which is damaged and has missing pages. Treatise 17 is incomplete, covering roughly only the
first five chapters of book two of the Politics (Stalley 130).
3
Concerning Proclus’ use of logic: ‘’The leading model of the power of logical inference was Aristotle’s
family of categorical syllogisms. Connected propositions comprise the premises which generate another
proposition, the conclusion Premises can be seen as the causes of the conclusion (e.g. Aristotle, An. Post.,
2.11:94a-95a) ’’ (Siorvanes 87)
4
‘’Proclus goes somewhat farther than Plato in his assimilation of the state to a single organism. Plato argues that the
state should so far as possible be like a single human being in that pleasures and pains are shared, but he does not say in
so many words that the state should be integrated with itself in the same way as a single human being’’ (Stalley 144).
5
‘’Car ceci aussi est l’opinion de Platon, que c’est une même façon d’être qui règle et une cité et une maison et chaque
individu. Or s’il en est ainsi, et chacun de nous vit ‘constitutionnellement’ en tant qu’il a été réglé par la justice et le cité
vit ‘justement’ en tant qu’elle a été ordonnée selon la constitution la meilleure’’ (In Rem I. 11 20-25).
 2
He makes the same point clear when he says that the city should be integrated
with itself in the same way as the parts of a single body. (In Rem XVII. 361 3-5)
Proclus therefore uses both examples to show that Plato’s concept of the unity of the polis does not
cause a massified, excessive unity but rather a harmonious unity based on a properly articulated
diversity. The strong emphasis that he places on the notion of unity is consistent with an essential
aspect of Neoplatonic metaphysics.6 In Proclus’ Elements of Theology, the very first proposition is:
‘’Every manifold in some way participates unity.’’7 The gist of the debate in broad terms is
basically the question of the relation between unity and multiplicity, monism and pluralism, a
prevalent debate in Greek philosophy since Parmenides and central to Neoplatonic philosophy in
general.
In his Commentary on the Timaeus, he gives a metaphysical rationale for the division of labour
concept:
De même donc que, dans l’Univers, tel être accomplit par nature ce à quoi il a été
assigné par le plan démiurgique, de même aussi dans la cité il y a division des
occupations de chacun, et chaque citoyen est placé à la tâche pour laquelle il est
naturellement disposé. (In Tim. 36 26-30)
Not only is the division of labour in accord with an organic conception of the city – this is put in
relation to a wider cosmic reality (this point will be examined in section 4). Moreover, he integrates
a theological aspect by relating the different civic functions in the Republic to specific planets, each
planet being equated to a god in Greek tradition (In Tim 34 15-25):
1- Moon : Labourers
2- Aphrodite : Public marriages
3- Hermes : Marriage lotteries
4- Sun : Education and Justice
5- Ares : Military
6- Zeus : Political leaders
7- Kronos : Philosophers
2- Material and Final Cause. He further uses Aristotelian terminology in defending Plato when he
identifies the material and final causes of unity of the city:8
In fact one is superior to the parts and joins the many individuals together in
such a way as to be greater than them and to be a final cause rather than a mere
condition or material cause. (In Rem XVII. 362 5-7)
In defending Plato’s concept of unity of the city against Aristotle, he therefore makes use of
Aristotle’s theory of causation from the Physics. Proclus had, moreover, developed a more elaborate
system of six causes (Siorvanes 89):9

6
‘’Unity is thus unification, unification preservation, and preservation is what constitutes the good for each thing, this is
the primary conviction of the Neoplatonists’’; ‘’L’unité est ainsi unification, l’unification préservation, et la préservation
ce qui constitue le bien pour chaque chose, telle est la conviction première des néoplatoniciens’’ (Narbonne 4).
7
The next five propositions are all elaborate concepts of unity and unification that can be seen reflected in the arguments
of the treatise: ‘’2-All that participates unity is both one and not-one; 3-All that becomes one does so by participation of
unity; 4-All that is unified is other than the One itself; 5-Every manifold is posterior to the One; 6-Every manifold is
composed either of unified groups or henads (units)’’.
8
Narbonne points out the unusual use of the Material Cause and Final Cause terminology, one of his arguments against
Proclus being the author of treatise XVII: ‘’À ma connaissance, on ne trouve nulle part développée chez Plotin, et nulle
part ailleurs chez Proclus, cette opposition de l’un matière (en hulikon) et de l’un fin, cause finale ou même forme
(eidos : In Rem XVII, 364.14), pour traduire le rapport du composé à ses propres constituants’’ (Narbonne 12). Although
I think it is a valid observation, the fact that Olympiodorus’ Proclean causal explanation of the city seems to be
compatible with what is being identified as the Material Cause (souls in Olympiodorus, individual citizens in Proclus)
and the Final Cause (unity in Proclus, the good in Olympiodorus), would seem to indicate that it is consistent with
Proclus’ general view of causality applied to the polis.
 3
1- Material (hylikon)
2- Formal or Specifying (eidêtikon) ;
3- Instrumental (organikon);
4-Efficient or creative (poiêtikon) ;
5-Paradigmatic (paradeigmatikon);
6-Final (telikon).
He adds the Instrumental and Paradigmatic cause, based on Plato’s notion of causality.10 In the
Elements of Theology, proposition eight presents a related exposition of the Neoplatonic hierarchical
understanding of causality:’’ Every productive cause is superior to that which it produces.’’
Proposition nine is related to the good as final cause: ’’All that in any way participates the Good is
subordinate to the primal Good which is nothing else but good.’’
Olympiodorus, following the same conceptual framework (although using the term ‘’Principles’’
instead of ‘’Causes’’ except for the ‘’Efficient Cause’’), elaborates how this applies to the polis (In
Gorgiam 5.1-31):
1- Material : Soul;
2- Formal : Justice, temperance;
3- Instrumental : Moral habits and education;
4- Efficient : Philosophical life;
5- Paradigmatic : Orderly cosmos;
6- Final : The good
3- Self-sufficiency. The question of self-sufficiency that Aristotle raises became an essential concept
in Proclean metaphysics, therefore his defence of the self-sufficiency of the city could be seen to
reflect this preoccupation. 11 He argues that a larger entity is more unified than a smaller one
because it unifies a greater amount of elements. Furthermore, what has greater unity is more self-
sufficient and therefore has more autonomy:
Whatever is more self-sufficient has a greater participation in the good (for self-
sufficiency is an element of the good). Thus the city, in that it is a more self-
sufficient thing than a single man, must also participate in true unity. (In Rem
XVII. 363 25-30)
In the Elements of Theology, proposition nine posits a related concept of self-sufficiency: ‘’All that is
self-sufficient either in its existence or in its activity is superior to what is not self-sufficient but
dependent upon another existence which is the cause of its completeness’’.12 The former citation
also relates the idea of Unity with the idea of the Good; the equating of the One (from Plato’s
Parmenides) and the Good (from the Republic) being an essential Neoplatonist premise. Proposition
thirteen of the Elements of Theology emphasizes the teleological aspects of unification and its identity
with the good: ‘’Every good tends to unify what participates it; and all unification is a good; and the
Good is identical with the One.’’
4- Cosmic analogy. In defending the notion that there is a greater degree of self-sufficiency in the
polis than in the individual, he makes use of a comparative example, the cosmos; the cosmos is the
greatest unity in the manifested world:

9
‘’What Proclus supplies over and above Aristotelian change is that causation covers all domains, physical and non-
physical, and the cause is metaphysically anterior and superior to the effect’’ (Siorvanes 88).
10
‘’Causation involves the transmission of the causal character and simultaneously its alteration (thus marrying Plato’s
causal Forms with Aristotle’s theory of change and becoming, but extended to the metaphysical’’ (Siorvanes 95).
11
‘’Briefly, ‘self-sufficent’(autarkes) are things, attributes or values that contain their ultimate states. Good or excellent
(in Greek, the word agathon has both meanings) is desired the most, because it is an ultimate state that lacks nothing
else. ‘Independents’ have their goals in themselves and meet their ultimate state without external agents. ‘Self-
perfect(ed)’ (autoteles) are those complete in themselves. Proclus uses them synonymously with the self-sufficient’’
(Siorvanes 83-4).
12
Proposition ten further maintains that: ‘’All that is self-sufficient is inferior to the unqualified Good’’.
 4
Since this universe is composed of all perceptible things, we say, even though it
seems paradoxical, that it is more unified with respect to this kind of unification
than each of the parts of which it is composed. (In Rem 364 1-5)13
Proclus is here implying a relation between the cosmos and the polis.14 In the In Timaeum, he makes
this more specific, and it becomes central to his political theory. 15, 16, 17
Si en effet tu veux bien ranger d’une part la cité entière en rapport d’analogie
avec le monde entier – car, si l’homme est un microcosme - d’autre part, couper
en deux la cité par la division en cité d’en haut et cité d’en bas et assigner en
propre l’une par la au Ciel, l’autre à la génésis, tu pourras trouver que le rapport
d’analogie est complètement adéquat. (In Tim 33 25-30)
He elaborates this notion in various ways; in a binary terms, he considers the world as a reflection
of an ideal natural constitution, 18 and also that the ideal human constitution should reflect a divine
one. 19 From a ternary perspective, he considers that justice in the soul corresponds to the ideal
republic which in turn corresponds to the order of the world.20 He also alludes to a theological
hierarchy of beings that correspond with the three parts of the soul and the city (In Tim 34 1-10) :
Parts of the individual soul : appetitive, irascible, reasonable
Classes in the city : laborers, soldiers, guardians
Beings in the encosmic reality: mortals, daimons, gods

13
Narbonne points out an inconsistency that indicates the other point of evidence of non-authorship of Proclus : ‘’Sur un
point cependant l’exposé de Proclus dévie de L’orthodoxie de l’École. C’est quand on lit qu’’est seulement un sens
propre le Tout (monos hen kurios to pan), énoncé qui, pris au pied de la lettre, laisserait supposer que pour le diadoque
lui-même ou pour le néoplatonisme en général, l’Un suprême devrait s’entendre comme une sorte de totalité absolue, ce
qu’il n’est nullement pour lui ou pour l’ensemble des néoplatoniciens. (Narbonne 22) He ably expresses the
inconsistency of identifying the All with the One, however see In Rem I. 16 20-25 where apparently Proclus can use the
term loosely, meaning the all of the manifested universe is One, however in absolute terms, it is not the One.
14
‘’In the Timaeus (90b-d), Plato mentions a closer, more accessible, visible source of inspiration for the assimilation of
the soul to the divine, the observable motions of the heavens which, in their harmonious order, provide us with patterns
for the motions of the soul. Indeed the universe as a whole, as a cosmos, an order brought out of disorder, after the model
of the Forms, can itself be considered as a natural paradigm for ethical and political order for humans. This idea became
very influential in Antiquity, in particular in its Stoic version, in which imitation dei was conformity to nature, the
cosmos itself being a polis writ large. The Stoic idea of imitation of the cosmic order influenced the Hellenistic ‘mirrors
of princes’ attributed to various Pythagoreans, was also in the texts on ideal rulership of the Roman imperial period such
as those of Dio Chrysostom’’(O’Meara Platonopolis 89).
15
‘’From the Proclean perspective, if the human soul is made a unitary and harmonious whole by politke arête and the
politke episteme allow men to imitate the perfect harmony and unity that reign in the universe conceived as a whole.
Indeed, to the extent that the soul and the city are particular and fragmented entities, they are distant from the universal
principles placed at the top of the Neoplatonic metaphysical hierarchy and characterized by an absolute simplicity.
Consequently, because of their nature, the soul and the city are subject to division, and must be turned towards that
particular kind of unity which manifests itself as the organic harmony of their parts’’ (Abbate 191).
16
‘’ Proclus himself believed that political science has its foundations in intelligible reality. Because it concerns human
affairs, it is inferior to physical science, which deals with the cosmos. Metaphysics, the cosmos and the human condition
are connected. What constitutional government (politeia) is to the state, a sense of justice is to the soul, and order is to
the cosmos. In a way constitutional government with its characteristic properties of order, justice, reason and
completeness is common to all existence’’ (Siorvanes 9).
17
‘’From the Proclean, and generally Neoplatonic, point of view, the practice of the political virtues enables men and
women to imitate the perfect harmony and order of divine reality in the material world. This is also the fundamental aim
of the legislator-philosopher’’ (Abbate 194).
18
‘’ Mais en tant que la constitution politique subsiste dans les Principes Universels et qu’elle est placé dans l’incorporel
et l’immatériel, elle est supérieure à la science de la Nature : car le monde n’est qu’une certaine ‘république’ et il est
partiel, car tout corps est partiel’’ (In Tim. 32 5-10)
19
‘’Indeed this what results really the most useful thing for the parts, to imitate the ‘Whole’, and for the human
constitutions to make themselves similar to the divine ones’’ (In Rem 247, 24-27).
20
‘’Les deux donc aboutissent au même, c’est le même sujet qui est justice dans l’âme, ‘république’ dans la cité, bon
ordre dans le Monde, et ne faut pas se créer des embarras en marquant des séparations dans ce que la nature elle-même a
lié’’ (In Tim.31 15-20).
 5
Collective order of souls : those who work in creation, those who work with the
providential gods, those who work towards elevation to the Intelligible.
Furthermore, drawing from passages from the Republic and the Timaeus21 the role of the
philosopher-ruler takes on an added theological dimension as he presents the demiurge of the
Timaeus as a paradigm of the political philosopher.22, 23 The political philosopher is said to elevate
himself and imitate this demiurgic reality in order create ideal political structures.24 Proclus gives
three types of demiurges, corresponding to three types of rule (In Tim 8 15-20):25
1- Zeus : establishes community in all things – creates the Whole.
2- Dionysos : divides and distributes – separates the parts of the Whole.
3- Adonis : restores what has been perverted – renews what is born and dies.
5- Communism of property. As he had done previously, Proclus considers two separate arguments
from the Republic together. He endorses the notions of holding common property and considering
all spouses and children as common as part of the same notion. He supports the idea that the
maximum amount of property should be held in common:
Thus each will call the same thing ‘mine’ because he thinks of it as belonging to
the city. He will also think of himself as having one good which is identical with
that of the city. (In Rem. XVII. 366 24-25)
He adds certain practical considerations, specifying that property should belong to the state and is
thus common to all citizens and specifies that there needs to be laws that govern the state property.
The metaphysical rationale for having common property and offspring is that the activity of the
celestial orders of the gods is considered to be collective. Gods have individual identities but their
creative activity is done collectively with a kind of perfect collective consciousness:
Tous les êtres sont des rejetons de tous les dieux, même s’ils sont diversement
caractérisés selon des propriétés différentes, et les dieux sont tous en tous, et ils
sont tous unis à tous sous réserve de la pureté sans mélange qui convient au
divin, pureté à laquelle Socrate aussi avait regard quand il admettait pas
seulement la communauté susdite, mais aussi la distribution des occupations une
à une, chacun conformément à sa nature. (In Tim 48 25-30)
6- De-privatisation. His endorsement of Platonic communism also entails a maximal de-
privatisation policy which denounces private property somewhat more emphatically than Plato:
Those who are well brought up should, on the contrary, live in a way that sets
what is common above what is private, for nothing else is as prone to drag our
souls down to the lowest level as is that affliction which we call ‘private concern.
(In Rem. XVII. 368 7-12)
The argument broadly reflects a fundamental ontological notion of Neoplatonism, reflected in
books six and seven of the Republic. The ascending path to the contemplation of the Good consists
in divesting oneself of worldly considerations to raise ones consciousness to essential principles;

21
Rep. 592b, Tim. 90a-d.
22
‘’The idea of the cosmos, the ‘cosmic city’, as model of political order is also to be found in Proclus. Indeed it is an
idea that can be related to the conception of transcendent demiurges as political models to the extent that the world, the
cosmic order, is an expression of these divine demiurgic natures’’ (O’Meara 97).
23
‘’Political science can be conceived as an instrument through which the philosophical-ruler is able to unify the city and
to preserve its unity as far as possible, since the city is a part of the material world and, consequently, is subject to
fragmentation and corruption. On the basis of this metaphysical-theological perspective, the philosopher acts as an
‘intermediary’ between the intelligible and the phenomenal world and, at the same time, between the divine and the
human dimension.’’(Abbate 198).
24
‘’Car, tandis qu’il récapitulait comme il faut, au moyen de chapitres distincts, tout la figure de la cite terrestre, Socrate
s’est élevé vers l’unité indivisible de l’Intellect, pour imiter le Dieu qui a organisé conformément à l’Intelligible, et à la
façon d’un père, la Cité du Ciel’’ (In Tim. 54 25-30).
25
It is not clear what three types of rule he is referring to (Tarrant 58). Possibly the main types given in the Republic, the
Laws, and the Statesman, respectively or the three types given in the Statesman.
 6
transcending the human condition to become divine. This implies developing a sense of
selflessness, identifying oneself with humanity as a whole. Individual salvation is therefore not
distinct from collective divinisation, but rather complementary.26,27
From a theological perspective, he again uses the analogy of the activity of the gods. Their pure
activity is based on a fluid, interactive selflessness and their creative productions are effected in
common:
Au surplus, on trouve aussi chez les dieux le fait de ne pas connaître privément
son propre enfant, parce que les intellections sont pour eux communes,
communes les productions : c’est comme appartenant en commun à tous que
chacun d’eux fait de l’engendré l’objet de ses bienfaits et de ses soins
conservateurs. (In Tim 48 25-30, 49 1-5)
What emerges from the study is that Proclus has a political philosophy developed along
metaphysical and theological lines and strongly endorses the Republic in terms of practical
organization28 going so far as to propose an even more radically communistic ethos. He shows a
more conservative side as part of his project of adapting traditional Greek mythological and
theological concepts. In that sense it is a religious vision closer to the Laws in terms of the close link
between religion and politics, although there is no obvious way in which he is directly borrowing
from the Laws in any practical way. Proclus’ political philosophy seems to be a development of the
Republic firmly based on Iamblichean principles.29
Moreover, Proclus adheres to the general view of ancient political philosophy that it be based on
individual cultivation of virtue ethics and he adheres to the Neoplatonic notion of hierarchy of
virtues, placing emphasis on a particular virtue for each level (In Rem 13, 1-5):30
Moral virtue : Temperance
Political virtue : Justice
Purgative virtue : Courage
Contemplative virtue : Prudence
As in Plato, political philosophy is intimately linked with the fundamental role of virtue ethics in
the accomplishment of human nature as a rational creature that has a transcendent nature. It is a
deeply organic, holistic, integrative perspective that seeks to articulate a complex web of
hierarchical inter-connected levels on ontological structures which inherently participates in the
political function, and the political is viewed as a reflection of archetypal realities that propounds a
notion of individual salvation organically connected to collective destiny.

26
‘’As Proclus affirms, the harmony of the whole city will be greater if there is uniformity among all its citizens: so
among all its men and women political virtue must reign. In this perspective, political theorization is conceived in the
light of the overcoming of the ‘individual’ for the ‘universal’, which of course represents the fundamental Neoplatonic
theoretical aim’’ (Abbate 194-95).
27
‘’C’est du reste cette relativisation univereselle de l’<un> qui explique que la tendance vers soi-même soit
simultanément tendance vers l’au-delà de soi-même, l’Un qui est situé au-delà de soi habitant d’abord d’une certaine
manière en soi’’ (Narbonne 19).
28
In Proclus, political theorization actually takes the shape of a metaphysical-theological politics. (Abbate198).
Although Abbate seems to imply that Proclus political philosophy is not practical. Although it true that the Commentary
on the Republic is more focused on theological considerations, the results of this paper’s research would tend to indicate
that Proclus is committed to a practical application of the political ideas of the Republic with an even more rigorous
application of unification and communism than in Plato.
29
‘’Plato’s play on the word ‘law’ (nomos) as a ‘disposition of intellect’ (tou nou dianome, Laws 714a1-2) is cited by
Proclus as if it were a definition of law and he infers that legislative science is a kind of particular intellect, in other
words that law is a determination of reason deriving from, and subordinate to, transcendent divine Intellect. It
corresponds thus to the wisdom of Iamblichus’ philosopher-kings which derives from, and has its model, transcendent
intellect, or, more precisely, Zeus as demiurge’’ (O’Meara, Platonopolis 99).
30
I think Baltzly is correct in pointing out that Proclus’ adoption of the hierarchy of virtue, which includes the level of
political virtue, means that there is such a thing for him as meaningful engagement with this world (MacIsaac 140).
 7
Works Consulted

Abbate, Michele. "Metaphysics and Theology as Methodological and Conceptual Paradigms in Proclus’
Ethico-Politcal Theory". Proklos – Methode, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik.. Perkams & R. M. Piccione, eds.
Leiden: Brill, 2006. 186-2000. Print.

Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. R. McKeon, ed. New York: Random House, 1941. Print.

Gerson, Lloyd. Aristotle and Other Platonists, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Print.

Narbonne, Jean-Marc. "De L’Un Matière à l’Un Forme – La Réponse de Proclus à la Critique
Aristotélicienne de l’Unité du Politique dans la République de Platon". Pensées de l’Un dans l’Histoire de
la Philosophie. J.-.M. Narbonne & A. Reckermann, eds. Saint-Nicholas: Les Presses de l’Université de
Laval, 2004. 3-25. Print.

MacIsaac, D. G. " The Soul and the Virtues in Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic of Plato ".
Philosophie antique (2009) 9 115-143 9 Nov. 2011
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v011/11.4schott.html >.

Olympiodorus. Commentary on Plato's Gorgias. Transl., Jackon, R.,Lycos. K., & H. Tarrant. Leiden:
Brill, 1988. Print.

O’Meara, Dominic J. Platonopolis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Print.

Plato. Gorgias. T. Irwin, transl. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

- -. The Republic of Plato. Trans. F. M. Cornford. Oxford: Oxford University Pres,s 1941 Print.

- - -. The Laws. Trans. T. J. Saunders. London: Penguin Books, 1970 Print.

Proclus . Commentaire sur la République, Tome I. Transl. A.J. Festugière. Paris: Librairie Philosophique
J. Vrin, 1970. Print.

- - - . Commentaire sur la République, Tome 2. Transl. A.J. Festugière. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin, 1970. Print.

- - - . Commentaire sur la République, Tome 3. Transl. A.J. Festugière. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin, 1970. Print.

- - - . Commentaire sur le Timée, Tome 1. Transl. A.J. Festugière. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin, 1966. Print.

- - - . Elements of Theology. Trans. E. R. Dodds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Print.

- - - . In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii.. G. Kroll, ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901. Print.

Siorvanes, Lucas. Proclus – Neoplatonic Philosophy and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1996. Print.

Stalley, R. F. " The Unity of the State: Plato, Aristotle and Proclus ". Polis (1995) 14 1/2 129-149. Print.

Tarrant, H. " Proclus on the Summary of the Constituion in the Timaeus ". Commentary on the
Timaeus, Bk. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.53-60. Print.