On the Chaldean Oracles

...at greater length in the writings concerning the Oracles original: "λόγια" (logia) – refers to the Chaldaean Oracles, a sacred text for Neoplatonists. Marinus records in chapter 38 that Proclus held these utterances in such high esteem that he used to say: "If I were the master, I would cause only the Oracles and the Timaeus Plato’s dialogue on the creation of the universe to be circulated among all the ancient books." (Compare Damascius' Life of Isidore in Suidas under the entry for "Hegias"): Therefore, Proclus deemed Hegias worthy, while he was still a young man, of a formal hearing of the Chaldaean Oracles.

Damascius felt the same way; when censuring Asclepiodotus—as is his habit with everyone—he says: "But toward the Orphic and Chaldaean wisdom, which is more sublime and transcends the common intellect of philosophy, he fell even shorter." (Life of Isidore, 126). Proclus mentions the lectures held on the Chaldaean Oracles after the explanation of the Parmenides Plato’s most difficult metaphysical dialogue—lectures which he does not seem to have published—in volume II 9,21: "These matters must therefore be examined more accurately in the [lectures on the] Chaldaean [Oracles]." Also at 11,11 and 132,9: "But indeed, I am deferring this for the Chaldaean gatherings."^1) However, Thilo explains these matters at length in volume II, page 1 and following; I add only that we owe by far the most fragments to Proclus and Damascius.^2)

But someone may ask how the verses of the oracles are to be distinguished from foreign material. For in the manner of the sophists, with whose tricks they are overly imbued, the Platonists hide their authors; "a certain mocker" in Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides (929,22) is actually Aristotle (Metaphysics I 9. 990b 2); "as someone says" (1047,22) is Plotinus (cf. 1090,23; Olympiodorus' Commentary on the Phaedo 20.26, 28,8); Theodorus is called "the philosopher from Asia" (Platonic Theology 215,18); and Aristocles (for so Usener restored the name) is "the philosopher from Rhodes" (Commentary on the Parmenides 1057,6). They do not name Homer, but call him "the inspired poetry"; they do not name Orpheus, but "the Theologian," and so forth. In the same way—

^1) But he treated the Timaeus before the Parmenides (II 216,16 etc.): the former contained natural philosophy original: "physiologiam", the latter contained theology (Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus 5a). Schoell judged most correctly in the place cited (e.g., cf. Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus 193d: "first let us exercise the intellect of the listeners"). Regarding the published lectures, see Freudenthal, Hellenistic Studies III 303.

^2) I add a few notes on the editions. For the books of Proclus of which only the Morbekiana version A 13th-century Latin translation by William of Moerbeke survives, and the commentaries on the Alcibiades and Parmenides, I cite according to the second Cousin edition (Paris, 1864). For the part of the commentaries regarding the Republic, I use the Florentine part according to the Basel edition of 1534; the Vatican part according to Pitra (Analecta V 2), Schoell (Berlin, 1886), and Reitzenstein (Breslau Philosophical Dissertations IV 3). For both parts (Laurentian manuscript 80,9 + Vatican Greek 2197), I use my own collation. Damascius was edited by Ruelle (Paris, 1889), who was the first to edit the Doubts and Solutions on the Parmenides; he understood almost nothing and carelessly compared the excellent manuscript (Marcianus 246) (Göttingen Learned Announcements 1892, 111 ff.). Nor is Heitz’s transcript (now Berlin Greek manuscript Qu. 70) worth more. I have compared portions of the Marcianus manuscript. Having taken the opportunity, I must state—contrary to Allen—that Marcianus 246 and Vatican 2197 + Laurentian 80,9 were not written by different scribes (Journal of Philology XXI 52 f.).