![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Proclus on Hera
Jan. 19th, 2009 03:33 pm(I wrote this for a Yahoo! group, thought I might as well post it here as well.)
For what it’s worth, here’s some of the Platonic thinking on the apparent bitterness between Zeus and Hera.
According to Proclus, Zeus and Hera are responsible for the whole psychical order of Being, that is, all ensouled beings, and he interprets their relationship in light of the account Plato gives of the demiurge’s fashioning of Soul in the Timaeus. Proclus identifies Zeus as the demiurge and Hera as the kratêr (cup or bowl—compare gradalus, ‘grail’) in which (Tim. 41d) the demiurge mixes first the soul of the universe, and then the partial or particular souls. In the cooperative work of the demiurge and the kratêr, the constitution of the soul of the universe (detailed in Tim. 35a ff.) is attributed more to the demiurge, the constitution of the partial souls more to the kratêr.
Proclus relates this to Hera’s mythological situation, explaining that in the Hellenic theology Hera is "the source of all the Titanic division [diairesis] perceived in souls according to allotment [moiras, i.e., ‘destiny’]," (In Tim. III, 249). What he means in effect is that Zeus has more to do with what souls have in common, and Hera more with that in which they differ. Hence their relationship expresses the conflict in the functions they perform in their joint work of ensouling the cosmos. He alludes to the Titans here because they are also responsible for conflict in the cosmos, conflict Proclus understands as necessary because it brings new planes of reality into manifestation. That’s what Hera does, too.
Hera has in a sense taken upon herself the tougher job, and this is why she is portrayed the way she is in the myths. She deals with the things that draw souls apart, and often into conflict; but this is necessary, because things have to be in conflict sometimes if they are to fully express themselves according to their peculiar destiny and find their niche in the world. She drives the process of manifestation forward.
Thinking largely of the Herakles myths, Proclus says that the myths designate Hera "the cause of insanity [mania], but Zeus of temperance [sôphrosunê]; and the former, of labors in the realm of coming-into-being, but the latter, of leading up from it [anagôgê]. For Hera excites all things to procession, multiplies them, and causes them by her illuminations to be prolific," (ibid., 251). The ‘insanity’ of Herakles or of Io, which are attributed to Hera, are symbols of the procession of soul into the physical realm, away from the realm of pure Mind and thus in the direction of ‘insanity’.
By causing ‘insanity’ in Herakles, Hera leads him to the performance of labors that result in new possibilities for humanity; they are labors of civilization. The myths symbolize the cause of this as insanity because 'sanity’ for souls lies in turning oneself back toward the sources of one’s being. In this sense, it is ‘insane’ to be concerned with pushing deeper into the world of conflict; Herakles does so anyway because he is a hero, and heroes do difficult jobs the Gods wish to see done on planes of Being where the Gods themselves act at a disadvantage.
One can see the Gods in the myths rendering themselves passive sometimes, that is, experiencing passions, like when Aphrodite is wounded rescuing Aeneas in the Iliad (5.335 & sq.). Another example is Hera’s pity in the first book of the Iliad, which parallels Apollo’s wrath (55-56). One of the principal theological messages of the Iliad is that the Gods experience passions in the process of bringing forth our own, impassioned plane of Being. Hera’s pity causes her to put in Achilles’ mind the impulse to act, to call an assembly. Hera pities the Danaans, it is explained, because she sees (horato) them dying. Seeing is the most basic passion or passivity: Hera exposes herself to the vision of the mortals, though this is a mode of knowledge that as a Goddess she transcends, possessing far more effective means of insight into the nature of the world. From this passion, however, she formulates an intention of a form suitable to be implanted directly into the mind, epi phresi (55), of one who ordinarily experiences things in this fashion. The passions of the Gods are thus in themselves actions: the wrath of Apollo is the dying of mortals by pestilence, the seeing of mortal suffering is Hera’s call to action.
These sorts of moments show the Gods’ closest approach to the plane on which we live everyday. What they can accomplish only at their most passive, a special mortal, a hero, can do at their most active. But because Hera is particularly concerned with this plane of manifestation, she is portrayed as frequently passionate and in conflict, though perhaps not as much as Gods who are even more deeply involved with souls on this plane, namely the Gods in the next generation, the children of Zeus. One notices her conflictual nature more, however, because it is with Zeus that her conflicts often occur, and because the conflicts concern more universal, and thus more basic, properties and activities of souls.
In the relationship between Zeus and Hera, Proclus emphasizes the intimate involvement of Hera in all that Zeus does: “the intellectual thought of Zeus is said to be participated in first by Hera; for ‘no other God’, says Homer’s Zeus, ‘knows my mind before Hera does’ (Il. 1.547),” (In Crat. 169/93). The strife between Zeus and Hera is, as Hephaestus underscores in the Iliad, “for mortals’ sakes,” (Il. 1.574); indeed, bringing forth the mortal world is a “work of sorrow [loigia erga]” (573).
For what it’s worth, here’s some of the Platonic thinking on the apparent bitterness between Zeus and Hera.
According to Proclus, Zeus and Hera are responsible for the whole psychical order of Being, that is, all ensouled beings, and he interprets their relationship in light of the account Plato gives of the demiurge’s fashioning of Soul in the Timaeus. Proclus identifies Zeus as the demiurge and Hera as the kratêr (cup or bowl—compare gradalus, ‘grail’) in which (Tim. 41d) the demiurge mixes first the soul of the universe, and then the partial or particular souls. In the cooperative work of the demiurge and the kratêr, the constitution of the soul of the universe (detailed in Tim. 35a ff.) is attributed more to the demiurge, the constitution of the partial souls more to the kratêr.
Proclus relates this to Hera’s mythological situation, explaining that in the Hellenic theology Hera is "the source of all the Titanic division [diairesis] perceived in souls according to allotment [moiras, i.e., ‘destiny’]," (In Tim. III, 249). What he means in effect is that Zeus has more to do with what souls have in common, and Hera more with that in which they differ. Hence their relationship expresses the conflict in the functions they perform in their joint work of ensouling the cosmos. He alludes to the Titans here because they are also responsible for conflict in the cosmos, conflict Proclus understands as necessary because it brings new planes of reality into manifestation. That’s what Hera does, too.
Hera has in a sense taken upon herself the tougher job, and this is why she is portrayed the way she is in the myths. She deals with the things that draw souls apart, and often into conflict; but this is necessary, because things have to be in conflict sometimes if they are to fully express themselves according to their peculiar destiny and find their niche in the world. She drives the process of manifestation forward.
Thinking largely of the Herakles myths, Proclus says that the myths designate Hera "the cause of insanity [mania], but Zeus of temperance [sôphrosunê]; and the former, of labors in the realm of coming-into-being, but the latter, of leading up from it [anagôgê]. For Hera excites all things to procession, multiplies them, and causes them by her illuminations to be prolific," (ibid., 251). The ‘insanity’ of Herakles or of Io, which are attributed to Hera, are symbols of the procession of soul into the physical realm, away from the realm of pure Mind and thus in the direction of ‘insanity’.
By causing ‘insanity’ in Herakles, Hera leads him to the performance of labors that result in new possibilities for humanity; they are labors of civilization. The myths symbolize the cause of this as insanity because 'sanity’ for souls lies in turning oneself back toward the sources of one’s being. In this sense, it is ‘insane’ to be concerned with pushing deeper into the world of conflict; Herakles does so anyway because he is a hero, and heroes do difficult jobs the Gods wish to see done on planes of Being where the Gods themselves act at a disadvantage.
One can see the Gods in the myths rendering themselves passive sometimes, that is, experiencing passions, like when Aphrodite is wounded rescuing Aeneas in the Iliad (5.335 & sq.). Another example is Hera’s pity in the first book of the Iliad, which parallels Apollo’s wrath (55-56). One of the principal theological messages of the Iliad is that the Gods experience passions in the process of bringing forth our own, impassioned plane of Being. Hera’s pity causes her to put in Achilles’ mind the impulse to act, to call an assembly. Hera pities the Danaans, it is explained, because she sees (horato) them dying. Seeing is the most basic passion or passivity: Hera exposes herself to the vision of the mortals, though this is a mode of knowledge that as a Goddess she transcends, possessing far more effective means of insight into the nature of the world. From this passion, however, she formulates an intention of a form suitable to be implanted directly into the mind, epi phresi (55), of one who ordinarily experiences things in this fashion. The passions of the Gods are thus in themselves actions: the wrath of Apollo is the dying of mortals by pestilence, the seeing of mortal suffering is Hera’s call to action.
These sorts of moments show the Gods’ closest approach to the plane on which we live everyday. What they can accomplish only at their most passive, a special mortal, a hero, can do at their most active. But because Hera is particularly concerned with this plane of manifestation, she is portrayed as frequently passionate and in conflict, though perhaps not as much as Gods who are even more deeply involved with souls on this plane, namely the Gods in the next generation, the children of Zeus. One notices her conflictual nature more, however, because it is with Zeus that her conflicts often occur, and because the conflicts concern more universal, and thus more basic, properties and activities of souls.
In the relationship between Zeus and Hera, Proclus emphasizes the intimate involvement of Hera in all that Zeus does: “the intellectual thought of Zeus is said to be participated in first by Hera; for ‘no other God’, says Homer’s Zeus, ‘knows my mind before Hera does’ (Il. 1.547),” (In Crat. 169/93). The strife between Zeus and Hera is, as Hephaestus underscores in the Iliad, “for mortals’ sakes,” (Il. 1.574); indeed, bringing forth the mortal world is a “work of sorrow [loigia erga]” (573).
