Nikolas C Churik (Princeton University)
In his Commentary on the Republic, Proklos Diadochos (c.412-485) addresses the value of myths
in the education of youths, and, in particular, he evaluates their traditional sources, drama and
epic (Baltzly et al. 2018). Drama, as Proklos determines, is a totally mimetic genre (In remp. I
14.20), and, at its best, it presents characters who imitate their station in life appropriately (In
remp. I 15.13). Through these considerations of literary genres, however, Proklos dismisses
drama as useless for education because it depicts too many varieties of life, making it
inappropriate for stable and unified imitation, and because it frequently misrepresents characters.
Despite this dismissal, Proklos readily adopts “drama” for conceptualizing human life. In his de
decem dubitationibus (60), Proklos remarks that the whole course of life is analogous to a drama
and that fate is analogous to the poet of the drama. Although the Greek text is lacunose and
Moerbeke’s translation is obscure here, it provides the basis for further explanation of Proklos’s
conceptual use of drama as an analogue for life. Each person has a “role” to play in an
appropriate way, as determined by fate. The person must fit into their social category
(free/enslaved, woman/man, child/youth/adult) and carry it out to the best of their ability, while
not imitating the others. In his Commentary on the Timaeus (II 305.3-25), Proklos returns to this
image: the One is like the poet of a tragedy. The poet is able to generate dialogue appropriate to
gods and heroes, sometimes in Greek and other times a foreign language. Despite producing this
variety, the One remains unitary and simple and can recognize these features even in in the
fragmented and conflicted word.
How can Proklos both dismiss drama and use it in his works? This paper argues that, like epic
poetry, drama is useful for people who are sufficiently instructed and who can under its truth on
a higher level of reality. The deep structures of the genre, when comprehended by a learned
person, can lead to truths about the world. When considered from the view of the philosopher,
making claims about the abilities of the One, drama becomes a productive metaphor, but when
viewed by an unprepared audience, drama confuses its viewers and prevents them from
developing a virtuous and appropriate character. These views reflect the protectiveness extended
over elite education (and particularly against popular productions of Attic tragedies) and further
indicate the social embeddedness of Proklos’s thought.
This paper offers a contribution on several fronts. Although Proklos’s understanding of epic
poetry has been well studied, his engagement with drama has received little attention (Trouillard
1977). Because other Neoplatonic thinkers use drama as metaphor (Plotinus: Chlup 2012 67;
Sopater: Marcos 2018), Proklos is placed in this intellectual lineage. As a study of reception of
drama in Byzantium, this paper considers the reception of a concept, not only borrowings of
content and language