Plato Ὁμηρικώτατος? Proclus on the Muses’ Speech (Resp. VIII, 545c–547a)

In his treatise On the Sublime, Ps.-Longinus mentions Plato as him who shows us an important path leading to sublimity, namely the imitation and emulation of the great writers of the past (Subl. 13.2–3). This imitation is described as a form of inspiration. Among those who emulate Homer, Plato is said to be “Homeric in the highest degree,” a claim which may sound surprising in the light of Plato’s views on imitation and poetry. To what extent and in what respects can Plato be regarded as ὁμηρικώτατος? In an attempt to answer this question, I will examine the Muses’ speech (Resp. 8.545c–547a) in connection with Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic. The speech in question does not explicitly address Plato’s view on poetry or on Homer. However, it proves to be extremely interesting both because it is framed by two Homeric quotations and because it is delivered by the inspired Homeric Muses. What is more, as we shall see, the overall reading of the passage heavily depends on whether the invocation of the Muses is taken seriously or not. As is well known, the Muses’ tale is introduced in order to explain the decline of Kallipolis by means of the (mis)calculation of a mysterious “geometric number,” better known as the ‘nuptial number.’ While modern scholars are often inclined to dismiss the speech as an absurd story¹ or to regard it as a parody, ancient commentators took it very seriously. A telling case in point is Proclus, who devotes to the Muses’ speech an entire treatise, also known as μέλισσα, the “Bee.” In this Essay, Proclus analyses at length the previous interpretations of the passage, carefully examines its mathematical details and discloses its hidden philosophical meaning by laying emphasis on its style and on those uttering it. Given Proclus’ widespread tendency to harmonize Homer and Plato,³ his reading of the speech will prove helpful to answer affirmatively the question whether Plato is ὁμηρικώτατος. In what follows, I shall show that Proclus takes the speech seriously on the basis of the very features on account of which it is dismissed nowadays, namely: its lofty style, its enigmatic mathematical content, its mythical setting and the speakers, i. e., the Homeric Muses. Without endorsing Proclus’ reconstruction in all its details, I shall advocate his overall approach in reading Plato’s passage, which does not dismiss or downplay the speech as a mere parody, but tries to bring mathematical details, references to poetry and the idea of political decline together into a meaningful, coherent picture.