- •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.
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.
Hierocles' notion that the Golden Verses and other 'Pythagorean' writings are commands or exhortations (πα αγγ λματα), containing basic rules and starting-points in philosophy (καν ν ς, ο μα ) conferred on men for their edification by superior souls, is an important theme in the first two books of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism. Pythagoras is represented in the first book as instructing his followers with exhortations (πα αγγ λματα) concerning friendship (Vita Pyth. 123, 27 ff.). Ch. 3 of the following book, the Protrepticus, is devoted to the exegesis of moral aphorisms (γν μαι) contained in the Golden Verses, and excerpts from Plato are presented in ch. 5 as Pythagorean moral exhortations (πα ακλ σ ις). However there are significant differences between the exegesis of the Golden Verses in Iamblichus' Protrepticus ch. 3 and that in Hierocles' Commentary. Iamblichus' chapter on the Golden Verses 22
22 They are also used in Vit. Pyth. 81, 3 ff.
is a small portion of a survey that includes a very wide range of supposedly Pythagorean and admittedly non-Pythagorean materials. Hence he includes only a selection from the Golden Verses, and interpretation is kept to a bare moralizing minimum. On the other hand Hierocles' use of the Golden Verses as the text of his Commentary is more extensive and his exegesis much more developed. 23
23 At 87, 19-20 Hierocles also cites the Sacred Discourse attributed to Pythagoras and, at 114, 14 ff., the Pythagorean σ μβολα explained by Iamblichus in Pr. 123, 3 ff. Cf. Kobusch (1976), 163-8, for Hierocles' use of other Pythagorean materials.
These differences may help explain why Hierocles does not seem to have used Protrepticus ch. 3 as a source for his exegesis, despite verbal parallels and similarities in the general tendency of interpretation. 24
24 e.g., compare Pr. 11, 14-12, 3 with Hierocles, Comm. 94, 2-12.
If indeed Hierocles is dependent on a source—and
end p.116
such is the philosophical system presupposed by Hierocles that it does not pre-date Iamblichus 25
25 Cf. I. Hadot (1978), 71, 93-7, 99-106, 107-110, 112-13.
—it was in all likelihood more extensive than Protrepticus ch. 3. 26
26 Jerome (Ep. adv. Ruf. 108, ch. 39, 29-31) refers to an otherwise unknown Commentary on the Golden Verses by Iamblichus: could this be Hierocles' source? For the relation between Hierocles and the Arabic commentaries on the Golden Verses, cf. below, Appendix II.
Hierocles understands 'Pythagorean' philosophy much as did Nicomachus and Iamblichus, as a (Platonic) flight from material reality and assimilation to god. He also shares their view as to the role of mathematics in this flight: mathematics acts as an intermediary, purifying the soul for the higher vision (116, 20-7). As is appropriate for the level and approach of his work, he does not introduce much in the way of mathematical theory. However when the exegesis of the Golden Verses involves explaining the Pythagorean concept of the 'tetractys' (87, 17 ff.), Hierocles embarks on a numerological disquisition on the mathematical and extra-mathematical characteristics ( δι ματα) of the tetrad such as can be found in Nicomachus, Anatolius, and other numerological sources. 27