Abstract
Many recent studies propose that symbolon and synthēma are synonymous in the writings of Proclus. However, his Platonic Theology contains reliable evidence to put this opinion to doubt. The goal of this research is to determine the meaning of both terms from the contexts of their usage, engaging the textual analysis and the following philosophical reconstruction. As distinguished from a symbol, a synthēma has substantial nature, is stable and remains invariable when is discovered at different levels of the ontological hierarchy. In the Platonic Theology, a symbol is often considered in terms of the hierarchic level, where it appears: in the material world, it is corporeal; among numbers, it is ontologically irrelevant, the intelligible realm contains its proper symbols as well. A significant difference between symbolon and synthēma is related to the dialectics of participation: synthēma in an object keeps it on an unparticipated level, while a symbol implies further participation to a symbolic object. Finally, a synthēma is described as “disseminated,” “planted,” or in any other way hidden in the being; while a symbol is “discovered,” or found in the being, therefore synthēma may be considered an inner kernel of what is discovered as a symbol, and a symbol — as an outward expression of a synthēma. Such understanding of these terms agrees with both exegetical and theurgic contexts in Proclus’ Platonic Theology.
Highlights
In 1981, Jean Trouillard introduced the basic considerations related to this problem (Trouillard 1981), and in 1985 Rosa Loredano Cardullo undertook a profound examination of all the places, where terms symbolon, synthēma, and eikōn are mentioned in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Republic (Cardullo 1985)
Covered” in the being; — a synthēma is an inner kernel of what is discovered as a symbol, and a symbol is an outward expression of a synthēma; — any synthēma has substantial nature, while a symbol can be excluded from any ontological predication, or be compared with an energy of a substance; — synthēma in an object keeps it on an unparticipated level, while a symbol makes a symbolic object capable of being participated
— both synthēmata and symbola are related to the dialectics of reversion
Summary
In the first book of the TP, Proclus compares different ways to express the theological knowledge, and promises that during all the following discussion he will “prefer the clear, distinct, and simple [narration] to the contraries of these,” while “the contraries” are “delivered through symbols (διὰ συμβόλων) ... and images (δι’ εἰκόνων).”. Each way of speaking is used for a different purpose: the symbolic (or mythic), and the figurative (δι’ εἰκόνων) ways are used when speaking about gods and divine things. A myth (e.g., Diotima’s narrative in the Symposium) speaks of a god’s birth when a “dialectical discourse” (διαλεκτικευομένῳ) finds all gods being unbegotten.11 This latter way is called “intellectual and not mystic,” it reveals that what symbolically is described as a god’s genealogy, is a relation to “unspeakable causes” of an ever-unbegotten deity.. There is a more or less stable correspondence between the intellectual realm and its sensual revelations, making up a kind of semantic system, which one may call a language of symbols Proclus develops this idea into a theory of divine names.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
