When Proclus Diadochus, the last great philosopher of antiquity, asserted that the recitation of certain myths produces an effect similar to religious or magical ritual, he was formulating one of the most radical ideas in the history of human thought. This conception overturns our conventional understanding of myth as mere narrative, transforming it into a living force capable of altering reality through symbolic operation.
Proclus lived in the fifth century of the Christian era, when the ancient world was experiencing its final decades. Christianity already dominated the Roman Empire, yet within the walls of the Athenian Academy, voices still resounded defending ancient wisdom. It was precisely in this atmosphere of dying paganism and emerging new order that Proclus created his magnificent philosophical system, wherein myth acquired the status of cosmic force.
The foundation of his theory rests upon the concept of cosmic sympathy—the universal compassion of all parts of creation for one another. This idea came to the Neoplatonists from the Stoics, but underwent cardinal transformation. While the Stoics understood sympathy as physical interaction between material bodies within a unified cosmic organism, Proclus elevated it to the rank of metaphysical principle, connecting all levels of being from the supreme One to the grossest matter.
Imagine a world where every stone, every plant, every star is bound by invisible threads to divine forces governing the cosmos. In this world there exist no chance coincidences or isolated phenomena—everything is permeated by a network of meaningful correspondences. Gold is connected to the Sun not merely through external resemblance, but through profound ontological participation in the solar divine chain. The lion embodies solar qualities not metaphorically, but by actually participating in the cosmic hierarchy of solar forces.
This sympathy is realized through a system of “chains” or “series,” which Proclus designates by the Greek words seirai or taxeis. Each such chain represents a vertical sequence of participation, where the divine henad—the individual deity standing at the head of the chain—communicates its qualities to all lower levels of reality. The solar chain includes the solar god Helios, the planet Sun, solar daemons, gold, the sunflower, the lion, and human souls with predominant solar temperament. All these elements are connected not by external similarity, but by inner unity of nature.
In such a worldview, the symbol ceases to be a conventional sign or simple allegory. The symbol in Proclus is a mode of real presence of the higher in the lower, the divine in the material. When the theurgist employs gold in a ritual addressed to the Sun, he does not merely apply arbitrary symbolism, but activates the real connection between material gold and divine solar force. The symbol becomes a conductor of cosmic energy.
Proclus carefully distinguishes between symbol and synthema—two types of divine signs in the material world. The synthema possesses substantial nature and remains unchanging at all levels of the ontological hierarchy. It is like the “signature” of divinity, preserving its identity regardless of the level of manifestation. The symbol, however, is considered in the context of a specific hierarchical level: in the material world it is corporeal, in the intelligible sphere it acquires intellectual nature. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that the synthema preserves the object at the unparticipated level, while the symbol presupposes further participation and multiplicity.
This complex metaphysics becomes the foundation of a revolutionary theory of myth. In the sixth essay of his commentary on Plato’s Republic, Proclus develops a tripartite classification of poetry that forever changed understanding of the nature of mythological narrative. He distinguishes inspired, epistemic, and mimetic poetry.
Mimetic poetry, which Plato banished from the ideal state, indeed represents simple copying of sensible phenomena and carries no spiritual value. Epistemic poetry is based on knowledge and education; it can be useful for moral cultivation. But inspired poetry stands on an entirely different level—it employs not imitations but symbols as its instruments.
The revolutionary nature of this approach can hardly be overestimated. Inspired poetry does not copy reality nor describe it—it creates symbolic structures through which the divine can manifest in human consciousness. When Homer narrates the wrath of Achilles or the wanderings of Odysseus, he is not merely telling captivating stories. He constructs mythic narratives whose every element is a symbol of specific cosmic or psychological realities.
Proclus applies the principles of symbolic interpretation with remarkable methodological rigor. He establishes a clear rule: allegory is appropriate for interpreting myths about gods, but should not be applied to myths about human heroes. This differentiation is based on the ontological status of the described personages. Gods in myths symbolize cosmic principles and metaphysical realities, therefore their actions require symbolic interpretation. Heroes, however, remaining human even if endowed with superhuman qualities, embody ethical and psychological types accessible to direct understanding.
Symbolic interpretation differs fundamentally from allegorical in that it does not replace literal meaning with figurative, but reveals the multilevel structure of significance where each level possesses its own reality. Allegory says: “this means that”; symbolic interpretation affirms: “this is that, present at this level of reality.” When Proclus interprets the myth of Kronos devouring his children, he does not simply decipher an allegory of time consuming its productions. He demonstrates how in this myth are symbolically represented the real relationships between various levels of the intelligible triad, how the principle of unity operates, restraining multiplicity from dispersion.
From this follows Proclus’s central idea that the recitation of certain myths produces an effect analogous to religious or magical ritual. When myth is understood and recited with awareness of its symbolic nature, there occurs actualization of those divine forces that are symbolically represented within it. The narrative becomes theurgical action—”work with gods”—directed toward restoring the connection between the human soul and divine principles.
This process operates through the principle of similarity, which underlies all sympathetic magic. Symbolic reproduction of divine actions in myth creates resonance with corresponding levels of the cosmic hierarchy. As Proclus explains in his treatise “On the Hieratic Art,” theurgists proceed from the sympathy connecting visible things both to one another and to invisible powers, and having understood that all things are in all things, they established theurgical science.
Theurgy—a word that literally means “work with gods” or “divine work”—represents a system of ritual practices directed toward the spiritual ascent of the soul to the divine. But Proclus’s theurgy is not limited to external rituals employing material objects. He develops the conception of “inner theurgy”—mental rituals used by advanced students to elevate the soul beyond its ordinary bounds.
In his commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements, Proclus demonstrates how mathematical objects can serve as symbols of gods and be used for inner theurgical practice. Geometrical figures and numerical relationships possess the capacity to “attune” the soul to specific divine frequencies. The centers and poles of spheres symbolize the iynx-gods, imitating the mysterious union and synthesis they accomplish. The axes represent the connecting forces of all cosmic orders, while the spheres themselves are images of the perfecting divinities.
Mathematical imagination creates symbolic images that serve as bridges between the material and intelligible worlds. In the process of inner theurgy, imagination constructs geometrical and numerical symbols that then become objects of contemplation. This contemplation represents not passive consideration, but active participation in divine activity through symbolic similarity.
A special place in Proclus’s system is occupied by the Chaldean Oracles—enigmatic poetic texts attributed to Julian the Theurgist, who lived in the second century of the Christian era. These texts, preserved only in fragments quoted by the Neoplatonists, were regarded by the latter as divine revelation, almost equal in importance to Plato’s dialogues.
The Chaldean Oracles represent a system of symbolic formulas, each of which contains synthemata—divine signs capable of activating corresponding cosmic forces. Proclus wrote an extensive commentary on these oracles, in which he developed his theory of symbolic theology. The oracles are interpreted by him not as historical documents or philosophical treatises, but as sacred texts whose symbolic language is directly connected with divine energies.
The central symbol of the Chaldean Oracles is fire—not the physical element, but divine energy permeating all levels of the cosmos. Proclus distinguishes paternal fire, intelligible fire, and material fire. The symbol of fire operates through the principle of analogy: material fire does not merely resemble divine fire, but actually participates in divine nature. When the theurgist contemplates or ritually employs fire, he enters into contact with divine fiery forces through a chain of sympathetic connections.
The recitation and study of the oracles becomes a form of theurgical practice directed toward the ascent of the soul to the divine. Each line of the oracle contains hidden synthemata that, when properly understood, activate corresponding divine forces in the soul of the listener or reader. Thus the sacred text is transformed into a magical instrument capable of producing real changes in the human spiritual condition.
Proclus distinguishes three types of theurgical practice, each of which employs symbols differently. Lower theurgy works with material symbols—statues, stones, herbs, incantations—to obtain oracles or influence physical phenomena. Middle theurgy employs astronomical and mathematical symbols to attune the soul to cosmic rhythms. Higher theurgy represents purely intellectual practice, including “perfect prayer,” synthemata, noetic hymns, sacred silence, and theurgical “faith.”
All three types are united by the use of symbols as means of actualizing divine presence. The symbol does not merely point to the divine—it makes it accessible to human experience in accordance with the level of practice. In material theurgy the divine is present through physical objects, in intellectual theurgy through intelligible images and concepts.
Proclus’s theory is based on the fundamental principle of Neoplatonic metaphysics, which traces back to Iamblichus and is formulated as “all in all.” This principle means that each level of reality contains within itself images of all other levels, but in a mode corresponding to its nature. In the divine world all things exist divinely, in the intelligible world intelligibly, in the psychic world psychically, in the material world materially.
This universal interconnection makes possible symbolic cognition: through material symbols one can reach divine realities, since the divine is present in the material in the corresponding mode. Gold contains solar divinity in material mode, the geometrical circle in mathematical mode, the idea of unity in intelligible mode.
Sympathy in Proclus’s system becomes the expression of divine love that connects all levels of reality into a unified hierarchical system. This love represents not emotion, but cosmic force ensuring the participation of lower levels in higher ones and the return of all things to their divine source. Through sympathy is accomplished that cosmic circulation which the Neoplatonists call “remaining, procession, and return”—the fundamental rhythm of creation.
Proclus regards allegorical interpretation of myth not as intellectual exercise, but as salvific practice comparable to theurgy. Correct interpretation of symbolic myths produces a transformational effect upon the interpreter’s soul, bringing it closer to divine truth. This process operates through the principle of anamnesis—the soul’s recollection of its divine nature. Symbols in myth awaken the divine synthemata hidden in the soul, restoring its connection with the intelligible world.
The pedagogical and hieratic significance of myths are distinguished. The pedagogical function is directed toward education and moral cultivation, the hieratic toward spiritual transformation and deification. The hieratic function of myth is realized through its capacity to create symbolic structures that resonate with divine energies. When myth is understood and recited at the symbolic level, it becomes a form of divine service, a mode of participation in divine life.
A crucial role in Proclus’s theory is played by imagination as a cognitive faculty mediating between sensible perception and intellectual cognition. Mathematical imagination is capable of creating symbolic images that serve as bridges between the material and intelligible worlds. Imagination does not merely combine sensible data, but possesses the capacity for symbolic construction, creating images that participate in divine nature.
Proclus’s theory of the symbol differs fundamentally from the Stoic conception of sympathy, although it borrows from it initial intuitions. For the Stoics, sympathy represented a physical principle of interaction between material bodies in a unified cosmic organism. The Neoplatonists, while preserving the idea of cosmic unity, transferred sympathy to the metaphysical sphere. Sympathy becomes not merely physical interaction, but a mode of presence of the higher in the lower, a form of participation of the material in the ideal.
This transformation of the concept of sympathy is connected with the general direction of Neoplatonic thought, which strove to overcome the dualism between material and ideal worlds. If for Plato the material world represented an imperfect copy of the world of ideas, the Neoplatonists see in matter the lowest level of a unified hierarchical system where the divine is present in the corresponding material mode.
Proclus completes the development of Neoplatonic philosophy, creating the most elaborate and systematic version of this teaching. His theory of symbol and sympathy exerted enormous influence on the development of European thought. Through Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Proclus’s symbolic theology entered the Christian tradition, forming the foundations of Christian mysticism and symbolic theology.
In the Renaissance era, Proclus’s theory was received by humanist Platonists, especially Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Ficino translated Proclus’s major works into Latin and created a Latin tradition of Neoplatonic symbolism that influenced the development of Renaissance magic, alchemy, and natural philosophy. Giordano Bruno developed Proclus’s ideas about the symbolic structure of the cosmos in his philosophical and magical writings.
Contemporary scholars evaluate Proclus’s theory of the symbol in various ways. Some see in it an anticipation of modern semiotic theories and the structuralist approach to myth. Others emphasize its uniqueness as a form of religious-philosophical thinking having no direct analogues in contemporary culture. Of particular interest is the connection between Proclus’s theory and contemporary studies of myth and ritual in anthropology and religious studies.
The understanding of myth as active symbolic practice is consonant with contemporary notions of the performativity of religious texts and rituals. As anthropological studies demonstrate, myth in traditional cultures indeed functions not merely as narrative, but as ritual action capable of changing reality through symbolic influence. In this sense, Proclus’s intuitions prove remarkably contemporary.
Proclus’s theory of the symbolic nature of myth and its connection with ritual practice represents a unique synthesis of Platonic metaphysics, Stoic physics, and Eastern religious traditions. At the center of this theory lies the understanding of the symbol not as conventional sign, but as ontological reality capable of actualizing divine presence. Sympathy becomes not merely a physical principle of interaction, but the metaphysical foundation of the possibility of symbolic cognition and theurgical practice.
This conception radically reconceptualizes the nature of mythological narrative. Myth ceases to be a simple tale about gods and heroes and becomes a symbolic structure capable of producing real transformations in the cosmos and the human soul. The recitation of myth becomes a form of ritual practice directed toward restoring the connection between human and divine.
Through sympathy, the symbol acquires the capacity to connect the invisible and visible, the divine and material, myth and ritual. Symbolic reproduction of divine actions in myth creates resonance with corresponding levels of the cosmic hierarchy, activating the same forces that operate in ritual practice. Thus myth and ritual prove to be two forms of the same symbolic activity, directed toward restoring cosmic harmony and the spiritual transformation of humanity.
Proclus’s theory remains relevant for contemporary understanding of the nature of religious symbolism and its role in spiritual transformation. It demonstrates that symbol and ritual are not external additions to religious experience, but constitute its essential structure, ensuring the possibility of encounter between finite and infinite. In a world dominated by mechanistic representations of reality, Proclus’s theory reminds us of deeper dimensions of human experience, where the symbol acquires the power to change actuality through awakening hidden cosmic correspondences.
Sources
- Proclus. Commentarium in Platonis Rem Publicam. Ed. W. Kroll. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899-1901.
- Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria. Ed. E. Diehl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-1906.
- Proclus. Theologia Platonica. Ed. H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968-1997.
- Proclus. The Elements of Theology. Ed. E.R. Dodds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
- The Chaldean Oracles. Ed. É. des Places. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971.
- Iamblichus. De Mysteriis. Ed. É. des Places. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966.
- Baltzly, D., J. Finamore, G. Miles. Proclus: Commentary on Plato’s Republic. Volume I: Essays 1-6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
- Chlup, R. Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
- d’Hoine, P., M. Martijn (eds.). All From One: A Guide to Proclus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
- Majercik, R. The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
- Shaw, G. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
- Spanu, N. Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles: A Study on Proclean Exegesis. London: Routledge, 2020.
- Struck, P.T. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
- Tanaseanu-Döbler, I. Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Proclus”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proclus/
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Iamblichus”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/iamblichus/
