
- •Preface
- •Introduction
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •19 See below, Ch. 2 n. 22.
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •13 In Nic. 125, 14-25 (expanding on 118, 11-19); cf. 3, 13 ff. I shall return to this passage in the next chapter. The book on music is also referred to at 121, 13; 122, 12.
- •Introduction to Pythagorean Mathematics:
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •3 I 135; for a sceptical view of these claims, cf. Lemerle (1977), 200-1, 245.
- •21 Of the issues raised by Psellus' excerpts I shall discuss only those relating to the reconstruction of Iamblichus' books in what follows.
- •23 Cf. The division of the text proposed below, Appendix I.
- •28 Cf. The references given in Appendix I, ad loc.
- •29 Simplicius, In phys. 315, 10-15 (quoting Alexander of Aphrodisias). Cf. Syrianus, In met. 82, 4-5.
- •30 Phys. 201 b 16-27: . . . Τ τητα κα νισ τητα κα τ μ ν σκοντ ς ε ναι τ ν κ νησιν ν ο δ ν ναγκαι ον κινει σθαι, ο τ ν τ α ο τ′ ν νισα ο τ′ ν ο κ ντα.
- •4. On Pythagoreanism VI
- •45 At least one omission in the excerpts is a treatment of friendship promised in In Nic. 35, 5-10.
- •51 Iamblichus, De an., in Stobaeus, Anth. I 369, 9-15; cf. Festugière (1950-4), III 194.
- •64 In met. 181, 34-185, 27, especially 183, 26-9.
- •71 In met. 140, 10-15 (cf. Psellus' excerpts, 73-4). For the intelligible/intellectual distinction in Porphyry as compared to Iamblichus cf. P. Hadot (1968), I 98-101.
- •72 Κατ κ ττους ννο ας (87). Cf. Above, p. 47.
- •75 Cf. Also 81-4, where the 'supernatural' beings are described as unities, ν σ ις.
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •1. On Pythagoreanism: a Brief Review
- •Introduce the reader, at an elementary level, to Pythagorean philosophy.
- •2 Cf. For example the distinction between being and the divine in Books I, III, VII (above, pp. 45, 81). Some vague areas remain unclarified, as far as can be determined (above, p. 45).
- •9 The point is made by Elter (1910), 180-3, 198.
- •3. Pythagoreanism in Hierocles' Commentary on the Golden Verses
- •21 If 40, 15-17 ('divine men') alludes to the Phaedo and/or Phaedrus. On 'demonic' men in Hierocles cf. Also Aujoulat (1986), 181-8.
- •27 Cf. Kobusch (1976), 188-91; Aujoulat (1986), 122-38; and especially I. Hadot (1979), who provides extensive references.
- •6 Syrianus
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •37 For this division in Iamblichus, cf. Above, p. 44 (Iamblichus' text is very probably the source of inspiration of Syrianus' tripartite division of reality).
- •48 Cf. 103, 15 ff.; 186, 30-5; 45, 33-46, 5; for the difference between Forms and universals in the soul cf. 105, 37-106, 5.
- •56 Cf. Also 137, 6-10; 138, 27-139, 1; 142, 10-12; Proclus, In Tim. I 310, 3-311, 4 (on Syrianus).
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •17 Cf. Tannery (1906), 262-3.
- •23 Cf. Saffrey and Westerink's note ad loc.
- •35 In Alc. § 235, 15-18; cf. O'Neill (1965), ad loc.
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •8 Cf. Or. Chald. 198 (with des Places's references); Syrianus, In met. 182, 24; Proclus, In Crat. 32, 22 and 28; Saffrey and Westernik's notes in Proclus, Theol. Plat. III 145; IV 120-1.
- •18 Cf. In Parm. 926, 16-29.
- •Intelligible. Finally, on the subject of the practical arts, Proclus makes explicitly (25, 6-7) the use implicitly made in Iamblichus (57, 26-7) of Plato's Philebus.
- •2. Arithmetic and (Or?) Geometry
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •15 In the strong Greek sense of science of course. To the extent that modern physics regards its claims as probable, it seems to be no more ambitious than Timaeus' discourse.
- •16 Cf. I 337, 29-338, 5, with 346, 29-347, 2; 348, 23-7.
- •27 Cf. Nicomachus, Intro. Arith. 126, 12-128, 19.
- •28 II 23, 30-2; this is Aristotle's caveat, An. Post. I 7, 75 a 38.
- •29 On these mathematical terms cf. Festugière ad loc. (III 52 n. 2); cf. In Tim. I 17, 4-6.
- •33 Cf. Annas (1976), 151.
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •7 Cf. Theol. Plat. I 40, 5-13 (with Saffrey and Westerink's notes); In Tim. I 276, 10-14.
- •2. The Science of Dialectic
- •12 Cf. In Parm. 645, 9-27; 727, 8-10; 1132, 20-6; 1140, 19-22; 1195, 26-30; 1206, 1-3.
- •21 Theol. Plat. II 66, 1-9.
- •Dominic j. O'Meara
- •In the second half of this book the impact of Iamblichus' Pythagoreanizing programme on his successors was examined in regard to
- •7 Cf. Saffrey (1975).
- •I. The Commentary on the Golden Verses Attributed to Iamblichus
- •Bibliography
- •I. Ancient Authors
- •Iamblichus, (?) Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses, typescript of provisional incomplete English translation by n. Linley (communicated by l. G. Westerink).
- •2. Modern Authors
- •Imbach, r. (1978). 'Le (Néo-) Platonisme médiéval, Proclus latin et l'école dominicaine allemande', Revue de théologie et de philosophie 110, 427-48.
- •219. Lemerle, p. (1977). Cinq études sur le xIe siècle byzantin, Paris.
O'Meara, Dominic J. Professor of Philosophy, University of Fribourg
P
ythagoras
Revived
Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Print ISBN 0198239130, 1990
Table of Contents
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Part I |
The Revival Of Pythagoreanism In the Neoplatonic School
|
end p.ix
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Part II |
Iamblichean Pythagoreanism In the Athenian School
|
end p.x
|
|
end p.xi
|
|
end p.xii
Preface
Research begun many years ago with the support of a Junior and Visiting Fellowship at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies brought me to the texts and theses explored in this book. A sabbatical grant and generous leave of absence from The Catholic University of America and a grant provided in ideal circumstances by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung allowed me to develop these theses. Completion of the book was made possible by the support made available by the Université de Fribourg. I am also much indebted to friends and colleagues for their assistance. Henri-Dominique Saffrey made many helpful suggestions and corrections for which I am grateful, as I am to Oxford University Press's reader for constructive and detailed comments. Ilsetraut Hadot also proposed improvements to the book, which is indebted to her research as it is to the work of Pierre Hadot, a longstanding source of inspiration for me. Leendert Westerink and John Duffy were unfailing in their expert assistance. I am particularly grateful to Werner Beierwaltes: he put me on the track of Iamblichus and gave me invaluable advice and help during my stay in Freiburg-im-Breisgau and Munich. The deficiencies that remain in the book are of course mine. My wife Carra gave my work her full encouragement and support throughout many years. Amy Eiholzer-Silver prepared the typescripts of the final revisions of the book with intelligent care.
In an effort to simplify footnotes as far as possible, I have adopted the practice of referring to modern works by the name of the author and the year of publication: further details may be found in the second part of the Bibliography. The texts of ancient authors are cited by page and line in the editions listed in the first part of the Bibliography (for fragments, by fragment number and line). In cases where this seemed appropriate, I have added a chapter number before the page reference (e.g. I ch. 2, 3=vol. I, chapter 2, page 3). Translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. The following standard abbreviations are used:
CAG |
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Berlin, 1870 ff. |
DK |
H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin, 1952. |
end p.vii
LSJ |
Liddell, Scott, Jones, Greek—English Lexicon. |
RE |
Pauly, Wissowa, Kroll, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. |
SVF |
Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. H. von Arnim, Leipzig, 1905-24. |
This book was completed early in 1986. I have tried to include mention of what has been published since, but have only been able to take account to a limited extent in particular of the important Paris colloquium on Proclus: Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens, ed. J. Pépin, H.-D. Saffrey, Paris 1987.
D.J.O'M.
Fribourg, Switzerland
Christmas 1987
end p.viii