9 The point is made by Elter (1910), 180-3, 198.

Only after having presented and defended Plato's views and having shown their harmony with the 'Chaldaean Oracles', Orpheus, Homer, 'and all those others who distinguished themselves before Plato's epiphany ( πι ν ια)', does Hierocles come to a survey of Aristotle's views. Certain thinkers, through contentiousness or ignorance, we are told, attempted to introduce disharmony between the views of Aristotle and Plato, but the harmony was restored by Plotinus' teacher Ammonius Saccas, who purified philosophy and whose lead was followed by a continuous succession of philosophers going from Plotinus through Porphyry and Iamblichus to Hierocles' master, Plutarch of Athens. ¹⁰ 

¹⁰ Photius, Bibl. III 125-30, 171 b-173 a, with I. Hadot, loc. cit.

If we compare this account with the history of philosophy as understood by Iamblichus, the following differences might be noted. Even if allowance is made for the undue emphasis Photius gives to the theme of the harmony between Plato and Aristotle, it appears that Hierocles' treatment of this theme diverges from that in Iamblichus. Hierocles does not seem to agree with the Iamblichean view that Aristotle was sometimes right (when he was faithful to Pythagorean-Platonic philosophy) and sometimes wrong (when he perverted the truth, primarily as regards transcendent being). Hierocles believes rather that later thinkers falsified Plato's and Aristotle's works so as to bring Aristotle into disagreement with Plato. ¹¹ 

¹¹ Photius, Bibl. VII 191, 461 a.

Hierocles therefore shifts the blame for Aristotle's differences with Plato from Aristotle himself to later thinkers. The theory of falsification (which we have already met above (p. 11) in connection with the protest that some attempted to discredit Pythagoreanism by falsifying 'Pythagorean' writings) implies a more positive view of Aristotle than that taken by Iamblichus. Yet the

end p.112

kind of harmony that Hierocles seeks to promote is not essentially different than that assumed by Iamblichus: if Aristotle is brought into agreement with Plato, it is of course on Platonic terms. ¹² 

¹² Cf. also below, pp. 120-4 (on Syrianus' harmonization of Plato and Aristotle).

The role given to Plotinus' teacher Ammonius is another novel element in Hierocles' account. Ammonius emerges as having accomplished what had been essentially Numenius' mission: the restoral of unanimity ( μοδοξ α) to Platonism through the purification of a contentious and degraded tradition. ¹³ 

¹³ Cf. also Photius, Bibl. VII 191, 461 a: στασ αστον τ ν ιλοσο αν πα αδ δωκ .

It looks as if a direct rebuttal of Numenius' pretensions is intended; his mission is taken over and, in being attributed to Ammonius, is placed firmly in the tradition going from Plotinus, through Porphyry and Iamblichus, to Plutarch. There is no trace of this to be found in what survives of Iamblichus' work, but his hostility (and debt) to Numenius would certainly have disposed him to take such a position. However, another source has been proposed both for this treatment of Ammonius and for the theme of the harmony between Plato and Aristotle: Porphyry. ¹⁴ 

¹⁴ Cf. Dörrie (1955), 343-7; I. Hadot (1978), 75.

Whatever the origin of these novel aspects in Hierocles, it is clear that he (or his immediate source) made them part of a broader conspectus of the history of philosophy that recalls most of all Iamblichus' views. ¹⁵ 

¹⁵ Cf. I. Hadot (1978), 67-76.

The rigorous reduction of all Greek philosophy to one true philosophy (Platonism) and the perversions thereof is Iamblichean in spirit, as is the insistence on a systematic harmonization of Platonism with ancient Greek and barbarian wisdom (such as the 'Chaldaean Oracles'). Furthermore Hierocles' interpretation of true philosophy as a revelation is also that of Iamblichus: Plato intervenes in human history as an 'epiphany', and Ammonius, the purifier of philosophy, is instructed by the divine (θ οδ δακτος). ¹⁶ 

¹⁶ Photius, Bibl. III 126, 172 a; VII 191, 461 a.

Is this revelation to be understood, as it is in Iamblichus, as a soteriological mission undertaken by certain superior souls who are interpreted as members of the divine retinue, or 'choir', of Plato's Phaedrus? Photius' précis is of little help here, although he does give some indications that this was indeed Hierocles' view. ¹⁷ 

¹⁷ Cf. Photius, Bibl. III 126, 172 a 3: χο ς (cf. Phaedr. 250 b c); VII 191, 461 a 33: νθουσι σας (cf. Phaedr. 249 d e).

However, the Commentary on the Golden Verses makes it very clear, as will be seen shortly, that Hierocles' understanding of the revelatory nature of philosophy was Iamblichean.

end p.113

There is one singular absence in the history of philosophy of Hierocles' On Providence as reported by Photius: Pythagoras. One might infer from Photius' silence that Pythagoras was at most of secondary importance to Hierocles. It could also be argued that Pythagoras is the victim of a serious omission in Photius' summary, surviving only in the rushed and generalized allusion in the phrase (quoted above): 'and all those others who distinguished themselves before Plato's epiphany'. Certainly Hierocles' only surviving work, the Commentary on the Golden Verses, argues strongly for the importance of Pythagoras, and the evidence of the Commentary is weightier than what conjectural inferences may be drawn from the Patriarch's report.