- •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.
3. Pythagoreanism in Hierocles' Commentary on the Golden Verses
The Pythagorean Golden Verses are used by Iamblichus in the introductory part of On Pythagoreanism (Protrepticus, ch. 3). Still available also are Arabic versions of two commentaries on the Golden Verses, one attributed to Iamblichus, the other to Proclus. Although there are good reasons for supposing that the Arabic texts derive from Greek Neoplatonic originals, the attributions to Iamblichus and Proclus present some problems. I propose therefore to discuss the Arabic texts in Appendix II below, treating them as providing further indications of Pythagoreanizing tendencies in Neoplatonic philosophy rather than as documents on the basis of which the history of such tendencies may be developed. At any rate the two Arabic texts, like Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism, use the Golden Verses as an introductory work, providing the beginner with a primarily ethical initiation to philosophy. The fullest extant version of such a use of the Golden Verses, however, is Hierocles' Commentary.
Hierocles makes his intentions very clear in the prologue of his Commentary. The Golden Verses, he claims, contain the general and basic principles of all philosophy: they put the beginner in philosophy on the road to his goal, assimilation to god, through the cultivation of virtue and truth; this they achieve in so far as they provide the rules and starting-points necessary for moving towards the goal (5, 1-6, 2). Such is the work to which Hierocles will put the Golden Verses in his Commentary. The Commentary is thus intended to provide an elementary initiation to philosophy based on Pythagorean principles and
end p.114
aiming beyond itself towards a Pythagorean goal (cf. 7, 17-18), assimilation to god. 18
18 Cf. also I. Hadot (1978), 162-4.
The Commentary is pitched therefore at the same level and has the same purpose as the first two books of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism. Mixing Pythagorean doctrines with moral platitudes drawn from other sources, the Commentary also exhibits the eclectic approach characteristic of Iamblichus' 'Pythagorean' introduction to philosophy. More detailed comparisons will be made between Hierocles and Iamblichus below in the course of reviewing some specific aspects of Hierocles' approach in his Commentary. 19
19 For supplements to the inadequate apparatus fontium in Köhler's edition of Hierocles cf. Kobusch (1976), Schwyzer (1978).
As compared to the impression that is conveyed by Photius' summary of On Providence, the prologue of the Commentary shows that Hierocles here sees Pythagoreanism as embracing the basic truths of all philosophy, including by implication that of Plato. The relation between Plato and Pythagoras is made explicit later in the Commentary (111, 13-14), where Plato appears as the interpreter in the Phaedrus (246 a) of Pythagorean doctrine and where Plato's personage Timaeus (cf. Tim. 44 c 1) is described as an 'accurate teacher of Pythagorean doctrines' (6, 1-2; cf. 53, 1). Empedocles is also characterized as a Pythagorean, as he had been by Iamblichus. 20
20 98, 10; cf. Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 60, 1-6; Burkert (1972), 289 (earlier sources for this idea).
If then Platonism (indeed all true philosophy) is for Hierocles, as well as for Iamblichus, to be found already in Pythagoreanism, this philosophy is itself to be seen as divine revelation. Traces of this idea have been noted above as occurring in Photius' summaries. The Commentary on the Golden Verses is much more informative on the matter and confirms that Hierocles understood this revelatory aspect of philosophy, as did Iamblichus, in connection with an interpretation of Plato's Phaedrus. In ch. 4 of the Commentary Hierocles explains the Pythagorean notion of 'demonic' men: these are men excelling in virtue and wisdom who are 'demonic' because of their freedom from subjection to the body. Such men are to be honoured, for they 'rank' (συντ ταγμ νους, 21, 21) with divine beings and are carried around with the divine choir (τ θ χο συμ μ νος, 22, 1). The connection between this imagery, taken from the Phaedrus, and the origins of philosophy emerges in the following lines. These demonic
end p.115
men, of superior and uncorrupted insight, are said to have left us, in divine-like generosity, commands, exhortations (πα αγγ λματα), prescriptive writings containing the elements of virtue and the principles of truth (22, 3-11). The Golden Verses are obviously one of those writings and are described later (122, 1-5) as an 'educational introduction' (παιδ υτικ στοιχ ωσις) left to us and written by men who had already 'ascended the divine way'. It does not seem that the Golden Verses are the only source of philosophical wisdom conferred on us for our benefit by those men of superior insight, those participants in the vision of the Phaedrus. And it is likely that their company includes, not only Pythagoras, but also Plato. 21