Proclus: Counting the Hypotheses as Nine, Eight, or Twenty-Four?

Abstract In this paper, I highlight the significant fact that in the commentary on Plato’s Parmenides , Proclus designs two versions of an exercise, one consisting of nine hypotheses and the other consisting of eight or twenty-four hypotheses. I argue that to design two versions of the exercise, Proclus uses two different methods, that is, the logical–dialectical method and the metaphysical method. The metaphysical method refers to definition, while the logical–dialectical method refers to the chiastic method of division. Using the 2 × 2 chiasmus, Proclus structures the exercise as a complex of eight hypotheses and constructs the exercise as a complex of twenty-four hypotheses by tripling the two 2 × 2 chiasmata. By applying the metaphysical method, Proclus establishes the exercise as a complex of nine hypotheses. In my view, Proclus designs two versions of exercise because in commenting on the Parmenides , he both acknowledges Plato’s authority and follows in the footsteps of Plotinus. Following Plotinus, Proclus establishes nine hypotheses and sets up a doctrine of multiple hypostases, while Proclus divides the exercise into eight hypotheses applying Plato’s chiastic method of division and enumerates twenty-four hypotheses by trebling Plato’s two chiasmata.