proclus on interpreting mythology
proclus commentary on plato's republic:
"to a small number of people who have woken up to understanding, myths reveal the sympathy which they have towards reality, and the hieratic rites themselves impart faith that their power is connatural with things divine. for the gods themselves rejoice at hearing such symbols and they are persuaded readily by those who call upon them, and they show what is peculiar to them [tên heautôn idiotêta] through these tokens [synthêmata] because they are appropriate [oikeios] to them and most familiar [gnôrimos]." (in remp. I, 83.15-22)
commentary from e.p. butler:
"... myths manifest that which is 'peculiar' (idiotês) to the Gods, what is unique and individual to them, and not merely what is appropriate to them as a class. and the myths are in themselves synthêmata, a technical term from theurgy; they are just like the elements we use in ritual... one can neither interpret the myths literally, nor simply downgrade their ontological status. they are revelation, theophany, and just by virtue of that, demand interpretation, an interpretation, however, which is never completed, for the intellect can never exhaust the meaning of a myth."
source: e.p. butler's livejournal site. has a lot of interesting information that i've been chewing on for weeks.
edited to add my thoughts: love the idea that the myths are themselves theurgical tools that can be invoked and evoked. when i think of a theurgical tool i think of holy water, incense, etc., but it makes sense that for hellenic polytheists / neoplatonists / others who find meaning in greek mythology also put mythology in this category.
interested in how many levels myths are meant to be interpreted on. wondering if my brain will ever comprehend that there is no finite destination for intellectual comprehension of the myths.
