The fifth volume of the critical edition of Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides, edited by L. and the late lamented S. in the Budé collection, contains the critical text with French translation of the fifth book of the Proclean commentary (coll. 977–1038 of Cousin's edition [18642]), and it corresponds to the exegesis of passage 135b3–137c3 of the Parmenides. Proclus examines the method used in the dialogue by Parmenides in the discussion of the different hypotheses about the One.
Like the other four volumes published so far (1: 2007; 2: 2010; 3: 2011; 4: 2013), this one includes a broad introduction, which contains additional remarks on the manuscript tradition of the fifth book. The divergences in comparison to C. Steel's OCT (2007–2009) (still the most recent edition of the whole Proclean commentary) are listed on pp. lxxiii–lxxix. As shown (p. lxxiii), the significant differences total 260.
The French translation is highly accurate and clear. Moreover, the very large section of additional notes (pp. 111–272) contains many fundamental explanations about particular aspects of the complex Proclean interpretation, and the reasons for specific emendations and precise interpretations of problematic parts of the text.
Concerning the critical text, this volume, like the others, stands out in consideration of the exhaustiveness of its critical apparatus, in which every variant and emendation, together with the different textual references contained in Proclus’ text, are appropriately shown and supplied.
Because of the breadth of the critical apparatus, it is necessary to limit this review to some particularly interesting examples of those emendations that differ from the corresponding ones given in the OCT edition. It should be noted that in the Budé the letter Σ refers to the hyparchetype reconstructed on the basis of the agreement among the different manuscripts (consensus codicum), A indicates the codex Parisinus graecus 1810, and g the text of the Latin translation of Proclus’ commentary on the Parmenides by William of Moerbeke.
Particularly convincing are the textual emendations quoted below, when compared with the corresponding text in the OCT. In the examples the corresponding line number in the OCT is provided in square brackets.
1000.31 [=25]: ἀλλ’ ὅσον δύναται γνωστὸν εἶναι καὶ λόγῳ ῥητὸν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος σημαίνομεν. The emendation σημαίνομεν in place of σημαινόμενον, accepted in the OCT, attested in Σ and deducible from the significatum of g as well, proves to be convincing and, I believe, indispensable, also in consideration of the clear symmetry with respect to εἰσάγομεν and ὑποτιθέμεθα in lines 29 and 30.
1013.27 [=22]: εἰ ἔστι τὸ ὄντως <ὂν> καὶ μὴ ἔστιν. The addition <ὂν>, which resumes, at least partly, the text of the second edition of Cousin's critical text (see Budé, p. 207 n. 1), would seem necessary and better than the addition ἓν in the OCT (τὸ <ἓν> ὄντως): <ὂν> is to be preferred because in this section of Proclus’ text the topic concerns the Being and not the One (for this see Budé ibid.).
1014.11 [=9–10]: θεάσασθαι <δεῖ> πάντα κ.τ.λ. The addition would seem indispensable, because otherwise the infinite θεάσασθαι would be inexplicable.
1019.32–3 [=26]: ταῖς τρίταις τάξεσιν, αἳ τῶν πρώτων μετέχουσι κατὰ τὰς εἰς αὐτὰς [cf. app.: αὐτοὺς Σ] προϊούσας ἐκεῖθεν δυνάμεις. The emendation αὐτὰς in place of αὐτοὺς, which is attested in Σ and accepted in the OCT, is necessary: the feminine αὐτὰς refers to ταῖς τρίταις τάξεσιν in line 32, whereas αὐτοὺς would remain without any possible reference. From the doctrinal point of view, on the basis of the Proclean metaphysical conception, the lower levels of reality cannot partake directly of the higher ones, but only indirectly through the potencies (δυνάμεις), which come to the lower levels from the higher ones. In this way, the necessary connection between the different levels of reality is kept so that they form an overall harmonic unity. For further explanations on this topic, see M. Abbate, Il divino tra unità e molteplicità (2008), pp. 54–5, 196–7.
It should be pointed out that all the examples of addition and emendation quoted above are perfectly justifiable from the palaeographical point of view: in the Budé great attention is always devoted to this aspect.
Assuming that for its nature every critical edition – even if as excellent as the Budé – is always perfectible, for reasons of space I now take into account only a couple of emendations that do not seem to me entirely convincing and acceptable.
980.2 [=2]: οὐδὲ γὰρ θέμις [μὴ] περὶ τὰς μονάδας προϊέναι τὸ πλῆθος κ.τ.λ. The expunction of μὴ – attested in Σ and accepted in the OCT – is not necessary and at the same time it distracts from the actual meaning of this Proclean passage. The French translation in the Budé on the basis of this expunction is the following: ‘il n'est permis, en effet, que la multiplicité procède vers les monades’. Problems emerge, indeed, just from the translation of περὶ as ‘vers’ (we would have expected the preposition πρὸς). Furthermore, the text with this expunction does not seem to have a clear meaning. In the Neoplatonic perspective every form of multiplicity must be brought back to an overall unity. Likewise every lower and imperfect level of reality must be connected to a higher level characterised by a greater perfection. If we keep the reading μὴ, the meaning of this passage appears perspicuous; in this case the literal translation would be: ‘and, indeed, it is not allowable that the multiplicity does not proceed around the monads’. On the basis of the Proclean conception there could not be a manifold and imperfect level of reality that does not unfold around a centre of greater perfection and unity: if not, the whole of reality would shatter into parts gradually characterised by greater multiplicity and imperfection. The use of the preposition περὶ to denote the connection between given levels of reality is attested in the well-known passage 312e1–3 of the second Platonic epistle (= περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα παντ’ ἐστι κ.τ.λ.), which the Neoplatonic authors considered not only authentic, but also doctrinally fundamental (see Abbate, op. cit., pp. 170ff.). The meaning of the transmitted text is clear: multiplicity can proceed and unfold only around a principle or a dimension of higher unity.
1032.20 [=19]: καὶ ἔτι τὰς ἑνάδας αὐτῶν, καὶ τὴν μίαν καὶ ἄρρητον ἑνάδων [cf. app.: ἑνάδα Σ] πασῶν τούτων πηγήν. The emendation ἑνάδων in place of ἑνάδα, which is attested in the manuscript tradition, could be supported by the fact that in g we find unitatum: however this is not in itself a sufficient reason to justify the correction. In the OCT, probably on the basis of the text given in Cousin (see Budé p. 249 n. 2), ἑνάδα is kept by reading καὶ (inserted in manuscript A by hand A2, as explained in the Budé) immediately after ἑνάδα (= ἑνάδα καὶ πασῶν). In my opinion, the text can be kept as attested in the manuscripts without alterations (= ἑνάδα πασῶν), considering πηγήν as an apposition of ἑνάδα: according to Proclus’ Neoplatonic conception the One-in-itself is the supreme and ineffable Henad which, as very first Principle, is a universal source and cause of all other henades. Moreover, the genitive ἑνάδων would appear pleonastic, whereas the singular ἑνάδα contrasts well with the previous ἑνάδας.
Apart from these necessarily brief and summary remarks, the Budé has to be considered as an essential tool, in conjunction with the OCT, to study Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides. Once completed, this edition will be really impressive, also considering the richness of each volume published so far. In this regard, it is enough to mention the comprehensiveness of the critical apparatus and the additional notes in each volume. They provide not only important philological and textual information, but also essential explanations of fundamental doctrinal issues both in this commentary and in the Proclean philosophical perspective as a whole.
