I. The Commentary on the Golden Verses Attributed to Iamblichus

An incomplete text of this commentary survives in one manuscript of the thirteenth century now at Princeton. Linley translates its title thus: 'A Commentary, compiled from the book of Iamblichus, on the "Exhortations" of the philosopher Pythagoras'. Linley indicates (in his edition of the Proclus commentary, v) that this text, as opposed to the Proclus commentary, uses the standard Arabic translation of the Golden Verses. The two texts appear also otherwise to have little in common, excepting some moral platitudes, a similar exegesis at the end of their comments on verses 59-60, and some points to be mentioned shortly. In general the Iamblichus commentary does not show any close dependence either on Hierocles or on Iamblichus' exegesis in Protrepticus, ch. 3 (exceptions noted below), and gives the impression of being little more than a series of glosses on and paraphrases of the Golden Verses. Where the commentary is fuller, it gives expression to rather banal moral ideas. I do not think, however, that this text can be regarded simply as Muslim (or perhaps Christian) glossing of the Golden Verses, for there are signs of some dependence on Greek Neoplatonic exegesis of the Golden Verses.

end p.230

The clearest indication of this is the articulation of the commentary into an ethical and political section, ending with the exegesis of verse 45, and a theoretical section on the divine and on man that follows. Westerink (1987), 68, has noted the occurrence of this articulation in the Arabic commentary attributed to Proclus and in Hierocles (cf. In carm. 84, 7-9). Another articulation is found in our Arabic Iamblichus at verses 54-8 where the exegesis marks a transition from physics to the topic of choice (π οα σις), a transition marked also in the corresponding part of Iamblichus' Protrepticus (12, 1-9), but not in Hierocles and in the Arabic Proclus commentary. One might note finally some traces in the Arabic Iamblichus text of vulgarized Neoplatonism: the conception of souls that have freed themselves from the material world as wise and divine beings (on verses 1-2)—enough is said here to indicate that the hierarchy of souls (heroic, demonic, and divine) developed by Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus is in question—and emphasis on the unchanging immaterial being of the divine and on the divine intellect in man that reminds him of his superior origin and nature (on verses 46, 49-51, 61-5).

If this evidence suggests that the commentary depends ultimately on some Greek Neoplatonic original, it does not suffice, however, to determine how seriously the attribution in the title of the commentary to Iamblichus should be taken. Such an attribution is not impossible, allowance being made for many omissions and later additions in the text of the commentary. But at present at any rate there is little that could confirm the attribution.

2. The Commentary on the Golden Verses Attributed to Proclus

Another Arabic commentary on the Golden Verses, transmitted also by a single manuscript, consists of extracts made by Ibn at Tayyib (eleventh century) entitled: 'The essentials of the treatise of Pythagoras known as "the Golden". Proclus' commentary'. (On the manuscript and on at Tayyib, cf. Linley's edition.) The major points made by Westerink (1987) might be summarized as follows. (i) The commentary—a larger and much more interesting work than the Arabic commentary attributed to Iamblichus—follows a Neoplatonic Greek model, excepting some Muslim (or Christian) modifications. For it demonstrates a familiarity with Pythagoras' biography and with Plato's dialogues that goes beyond the commonplace. Westerink also shows the presence in it of specific Neoplatonic doctrines, two of which will be discussed below, namely the hierarchy of gods, demons, heroes, and souls, and a hierarchy of different kinds of number. (ii) On the question of the attribution of the commentary to Proclus, Westerink explores the various possibilities. Arabic bibliography knows of a Commentary on the Golden Verses by Proclus, but this information may be based on the text under discussion

end p.231

here. Greek bibliographies do not assign such a commentary to Proclus. However, the Suda lists as works of a certain Proclus Procleius of Laodicea a theology, a commentary on the Golden Verses, a commentary on Nicomachus, and various geometrical works. Westerink shows that this Proclus of Laodicea, a Neoplatonist of the end of the fourth century or slightly later, is not to be identified with Proclus the successor of Syrianus in the school of Athens. It is possible then that the author of the Greek original of the Arabic text is either of these two Procluses or perhaps another Greek Neoplatonist whose work came to be attributed to 'Proclus'.

At present it does not appear to be possible to go further than this on the question of attribution to Proclus. If the Arabic text corresponds indeed to the commentary by Proclus of Laodicea, it would constitute another example of the influence of Iamblichus' Pythagoreanizing programme. In the light of this programme the fact that this Proclus wrote on the Golden Verses, on Nicomachus, and on geometry does not appear to be merely coincidental. Furthermore the Arabic text contains passages of particular interest with regard to Iamblichus' Pythagoreanism. One passage (19), speaking of the hierarchy of gods, demons, and heroes, describes heroes as follows:

Heroes are souls which have passed lives as humans, and have remained with humans without becoming polluted, and were causes of their goods.

Westerink (1987), 67, compares this to Iamblichus and in particular to the unpolluted souls in Proclus. In Iamblichus, as we have seen, such pure souls are especially significant as corresponding to the great philosophical benefactors of mankind, including of course Pythagoras. However, the Arabic text does not establish this correspondence. Another interesting passage in the Arabic text (77-9) introduces numerological speculations and in particular a hierarchy of different kinds of number:

The first numbers are characteristic of the gods, the second represent the intelligible forms that are found in all that exists, the third are representations of soul . . . the fourth are representations of natural objects, in keeping with matter and its ordering by form.

Westerink refers to another such classification in Proclus. But it is already an important theme in Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism, as we have seen. The Arabic commentary thus contains ideas characteristic of Iamblichus' Pythagoreanizing programme which reappear in Syrianus and in Proclus. If then the precise authorship of the Arabic commentary cannot yet be determined with certainty, it can at least be seen as further evidence of the influence of Iamblichus' revival of Pythagoreanism.

end p.232