Dennis Clark - The Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

K

onin

klijk

e Br

ill N

V, L

eide

n, 2

010

DO

I: 10

.116

3/18

7254

710X

4929

01

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

TheIn

tern

atio

nal

Jou

rnal

of t

he

Pla

ton

ic T

radit

ion

brill

.nl/j

pt

Th e

God

s as H

enad

s in

Iam

blic

hus

Den

nis C

lark

2133

Shy

Bea

r Way

NW

, Issa

quah

, Was

hing

ton

9802

7, U

SAdi

okler

ikos

@co

mca

st.ne

t

Abs

trac

tTh

e or

igin

of t

he N

eopl

aton

ist d

octri

ne o

f the

hen

ads h

as b

een

impu

ted

to Ia

mbl

i-ch

us, m

ostly

on

indi

rect

evi

denc

e fo

und

in la

ter N

eopl

aton

ists,

chie

y P

roclu

s. Is

ther

e any

trac

e of t

his c

once

pt to

be f

ound

in th

e ext

ant w

orks

or f

ragm

ents

of Ia

m-

blic

hus h

imse

lf? Th

e b

est c

andi

date

s am

ong

his s

urvi

ving

text

s are

the

exce

rpts

in

Psell

us o

f his

volu

me o

n Th

eolo

gica

l Arit

hmet

ic fr

om h

is Py

thag

orea

n se

ries,

and

the

rst

book

of

de M

yster

iis, w

here

Iam

blic

hus

answ

ers

Porp

hyry

s qu

estio

ns o

n th

e na

ture

of t

he g

ods.

Such

evid

ence

as ca

n be

foun

d th

ere w

ould

mos

t lik

ely d

eal w

ith

the

divi

ne h

enad

s, gi

ven

the

subj

ect m

atte

r of

the

text

. Cer

tain

repe

ated

item

s of

voca

bular

y app

ear a

s tec

hnic

al us

ages

that

form

the b

asis

for a

rgui

ng th

at Ia

mbl

ichu

s alr

eady

has

in m

ind

if no

t the

exp

licit

conc

ept h

enad

at l

east

its fu

nctio

nal e

quiv

a-len

t: th

e ter

m m

onoe

ides

occu

rrin

g in

bot

h th

e Pse

llan

exce

rpts

and

de M

yste

riis,

and

in th

e lat

ter,

mos

tly in

Boo

k I,

the s

tate

d at

tribu

tes o

f a h

igh,

div

ine p

rinci

ple u

nit-

ing

the

gods

whi

ch a

re a

lso d

esig

nate

d by

Pro

clus a

s typ

ical

of th

e di

vine

hen

ads,

parti

cular

ly in

the

pro

posit

ions

of

the

Elem

ents

of Th

eol

ogy

de n

ing

the

hena

ds.

Iam

blic

hus i

n Bo

ok I

also

ascr

ibes

to th

e god

s the

sam

e rol

e in

the p

roce

ss of

ella

mp-

sis a

s Pro

clus d

oes f

or th

e di

vine

hen

ads.

A th

eory

is a

lso a

dvan

ced

conc

erni

ng th

e po

ssibl

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he c

once

pt o

f the

hen

ad b

y Ia

mbl

ichu

s, ba

sed

in p

art o

n th

e pol

emic

al na

ture

of d

e Myst

eriis

and

his r

elatio

nshi

p to

Por

phyr

y.

Key

wor

dsH

enad

, Iam

blic

hus,

Porp

hyry

, Pse

llus,

Pyth

agor

ean,

Th eo

logi

cal A

rithm

etic

, de M

ys-ter

iis, P

roclu

s, Sy

rianu

s, M

arsil

io F

icin

o, E

lemen

ts of

Th e

olog

y, G

ods,

Th e

Goo

d,

One

Exi

stent

, Par

ticip

atio

n, M

onoe

ides,

Akr

otes/

Sum

mit,

Ella

mps

is/Ill

umin

atio

n

Th e

late

Neo

plat

onist

doc

trin

e of

the

hen

ads

rece

ives

its

mos

t fo

rmal

de

niti

on a

nd t

reat

men

t fro

m P

rocl

us i

n pr

opos

ition

s 11

3-16

5 of

his

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

55

Elem

ents

of Th

eol

ogy.

Th e

hena

ds a

re p

rese

nted

else

whe

re in

his

writ

ings

, es

peci

ally

Boo

k II

I of t

he P

lato

nic Th

eol

ogy

and

Book

VI o

f his

Com

men

-ta

ry o

n th

e Pa

rmen

ides,

as

fund

amen

tal

elem

ents

of h

is ph

iloso

phic

al

syste

m, a

nd, a

s is w

ell k

now

n, a

re o

f gre

at c

once

rn a

lso to

oth

er la

ter N

eo-

plat

onist

s, su

ch as

Dam

asci

us. Th

eir

rela

tivel

y la

te em

erge

nce h

as n

atur

ally

gi

ven

rise

to a

des

ire t

o de

term

ine

thei

r hi

storic

al o

rigin

, unh

eral

ded

as

they

appe

ar to

be i

n a f

ully

dev

elop

ed fo

rm in

any

philo

soph

er ea

rlier

than

Pr

oclu

s. E.

R. D

odds

attr

ibut

ed th

eir c

once

ptio

n to

Pro

clus

tea

cher

Syr

ia-

nus,

but o

ver 3

0 ye

ars a

go Jo

hn D

illon

pro

pose

d to

asc

ribe

the

intro

duc-

tion

of t

he h

enad

s ra

ther

to

Iam

blic

hus,

draw

ing

chie

y o

n ev

iden

ce

prov

ided

by

Proc

lus

in t

he C

omm

enta

ry o

n th

e Pa

rmen

ides.

1 At l

east

one

serio

us o

bjec

tion

to th

is pr

opos

al h

as b

een

raise

d an

d in

turn

per

suas

ivel

y co

unte

red,

and

muc

h of

the

focu

s of t

he d

ebat

e ha

s cen

tere

d on

the

argu

-m

ents

prov

ided

by

Proc

lus i

n th

at p

artic

ular

wor

k, an

d no

t unn

atur

ally

so,

give

n th

e fra

gmen

tary

sta

te o

f Iam

blic

hus

own

writ

ings

.2 Is

the

re, h

ow-

ever

, mor

e sup

port

for t

he p

rove

nien

ce o

f the

doc

trin

e of t

he h

enad

s am

ong

any

of I

ambl

ichu

s re

mai

ning

wor

ks, e

ven

if pe

rhap

s no

t o

ere

d in

the

fo

rm o

f an

expr

essly

term

inol

ogic

al re

fere

nce

or u

nam

bigu

ous d

e n

ition

?If

inde

ed Ia

mbl

ichu

s did

exp

ound

a th

eory

of t

he h

enad

s in

his w

ritte

n w

orks

, unf

ortu

nate

ly s

ome

of t

hose

no

long

er e

xtan

t, na

mel

y th

e C

om-

men

tary

on

the P

arm

enid

es, h

is O

n th

e God

s, an

d pe

rhap

s the

Com

men

tary

on

the

Cha

ldae

an O

racle

s, ar

e, g

iven

the

nat

ure

of t

heir

subj

ect

mat

ter,

likel

y to

em

erge

as

the

mos

t su

itabl

e pl

atfo

rms

for

such

a d

iscus

sion.

In

fact

it co

uld

be ar

gued

that

the c

ritic

al p

robl

em in

det

erm

inin

g hi

s pos

sible

in

volv

emen

t in

thei

r cre

atio

n is

the l

oss o

f the

se w

orks

who

se sk

opos

wou

ld

be t

he m

ost

appr

opria

te o

ne w

ithin

whi

ch t

o ex

plic

ate

such

a d

octr

ine.

Li

kew

ise a

ny e

xpec

tatio

n to

see

the

conc

ept d

e n

ed in

the

cont

exts

of h

is ot

her w

orks

may

wel

l be

coun

ter o

r hig

hly

tang

entia

l to

the

state

d ai

ms o

f th

ose

othe

r w

ritin

gs. H

ence

the

abse

nce

of a

ny s

erio

us d

iscus

sion

of th

e

1) P

rocl

us e

d. D

odds

(196

3) 2

57-2

60, D

illon

(197

2) 1

02-1

06 a

lso a

s Dill

on (1

973)

412

-41

6, a

nd D

illon

(198

7) 8

83-8

84.

2) F

or th

e ar

gum

ent c

ontr

a, b

ased

mos

tly o

n th

e fa

ct th

at th

e go

ds fo

r Iam

blic

hus w

ould

al

so b

e de

ned

as

obje

cts

of in

telle

ctio

n an

d as

suc

h co

uld

not

qual

ify a

s th

e he

nads

of

Syria

nus a

nd P

rocl

us, s

ee P

rocl

us e

d. S

a re

y an

d W

este

rink

(197

8) ix

-xl,

espe

cial

ly x

xvi

, an

d fo

r Dill

ons

rebu

ttal,

Dill

on (1

993)

48-

54. M

ore

rece

nt su

ppor

t for

Dill

ons

view

may

be

fou

nd,

expr

esse

d so

met

imes

mor

e im

plic

itly

than

exp

licitl

y, in

Ste

el (

1997

) 15

-30,

Bu

ssan

ich

(200

2) 4

4-45

, Bec

htle

(200

6) 1

35-1

59, a

nd G

erso

n (2

008)

107

.

56

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

hena

ds e

lsew

here

cou

ld in

rea

lity

be s

omet

hing

to

be e

xpec

ted,

tho

ugh

adm

itted

ly t

his

argu

men

t is

one

from

sile

nce.

Fai

ling

even

any

rel

evan

t pa

ssag

es in

the

fra

gmen

ts of

tho

se li

kely

tex

ts, t

he n

ext

mos

t pr

omisi

ng

sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e w

ould

be

indi

rect

or s

ubsid

iary

refe

renc

es in

his

othe

r ex

tant

wor

ks, s

ince

it is

cer

tain

ly c

lear

tha

t in

non

e of

the

exi

sting

tex

ts do

es Ia

mbl

ichu

s eve

r exp

licitl

y us

e th

e te

rm h

enad

as l

ater

de

ned

. Pr

omisi

ng c

andi

date

s for

such

a se

arch

wou

ld in

clud

e so

me

of th

e tre

a-tis

es in

his

Pyth

agor

ean

serie

s, es

peci

ally

Boo

k V

II, O

n Th

eolo

gica

l Arit

h-m

etic,

rep

rese

nted

now

onl

y by

the

exc

erpt

s m

ade

by P

sellu

s, an

d th

e lo

nges

t ext

ant w

ork

of Ia

mbl

ichu

s, th

e De M

yste

riis.3

If fo

r no

othe

r rea

son,

th

e Py

thag

orea

n co

ncer

n w

ith th

e M

onad

pro

mot

es th

e lik

elih

ood

of th

e fo

rmer

wor

k, a

nd th

e fa

ct th

at in

late

r Neo

plat

onism

the

gods

are

con

sid-

ered

hen

ads,

the

latte

r. Ps

ellu

s ex

cerp

ts ar

e by

nat

ure

cond

ense

d, b

ut

none

thel

ess

they

may

in fa

ct r

etai

n, in

spi

te o

f the

ir so

mew

hat t

erse

and

di

sjoin

ted

over

all

cont

ent,

Iam

blic

hus

own

wor

ds a

nd t

hus

pote

ntia

lly

o e

r au

then

tic I

ambl

iche

an t

erm

inol

ogy.4

One

pas

sage

of

poss

ible

rel

e-va

nce

start

s at

lin

e 53

of

On

Ethi

cal

and

Th eo

logi

cal

Arith

met

ic, w

here

Ps

ellu

s be

gins

the

extr

acts

on th

e th

eolo

gica

l arit

hmet

ic w

ith th

e di

scus

-sio

n of

an

arit

hmet

ic o

f hi

gher

nat

ures

, o

f nu

mbe

rs h

avin

g th

eir

own

prop

er n

atur

e tr

ansc

ende

nt e

ven

of b

eing

, ju

st as

eth

ical

num

bers

and

ph

ysic

al n

umbe

rs h

ave

thei

r ow

n ap

prop

riate

nat

ures

.5 A

s the

re is

a p

hys-

ical

cau

se o

f phy

sical

num

bers

, an

ethi

cal f

or e

thic

als,

thus

of d

ivin

e nu

m-

ber t

here

is a

uni

form

div

ine p

rinci

ple,

prio

r as c

ause

as t

o th

e cau

ses o

f all

num

bers

, a u

nifo

rm [

] uni

ty p

re-e

xisti

ng e

ven

all u

ni e

d di

vine

nu

mbe

r itse

lf. Th

e

rst t

hen,

the

one

prop

erly

spea

king

, God

as w

e wou

ld

say,

is he

nad

and

tria

d (fo

r th

e tr

iad

unro

lls t

he b

egin

ning

, mid

dle,

and

en

d ar

ound

the o

ne) .

. .6

Of n

ote h

ere i

s the

appe

aran

ce o

f the

term

mon

oe-

ides,

usu

ally

tran

slate

d in

to E

nglis

h as

uni

form

he

re a

nd in

oth

er o

ccur

-re

nces

in N

eopl

aton

ic li

tera

ture

; but

the

com

mon

Eng

lish

uni

form

do

es

not

re e

ct s

peci

cal

ly t

he p

hilo

soph

ical

sen

se c

arrie

d in

a m

ore

liter

al

3) Th

e e

xcer

pts w

ere

rst

reco

gnize

d as

such

by

Dom

inic

OM

eara

; for

a su

mm

ary

disc

us-

sion

see

OM

eara

(198

9) 5

7-60

. Th e

re d

oes n

ot a

ppea

r to

occu

r any

par

ticul

arly

rele

vant

pa

ssag

e in

Boo

k II

I of t

he P

ytha

gore

an se

ries,

De c

omm

uni m

athe

mat

ica sc

ientia

.4) F

or t

heir

faith

fuln

ess

to I

ambl

ichu

s or

igin

al, s

ee O

Mea

ra (

1989

) 58

-59,

and

on

the

exce

rpts

from

the

theo

logi

cal a

rithm

etic

, inc

ludi

ng th

eir d

isjoi

nted

ness

, 81-

85.

5) O

Mea

ra (1

989)

227

. 6) I

bid.

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

57

tran

slatio

n su

ch a

s i

n th

e fo

rm o

f sin

gula

rity

or

in

the

form

of a

part

-ne

ss.7

Th at

Iam

blic

hus

him

self

mad

e ex

plic

it us

e of

the

wor

d is

not

in

doub

t; it

appe

ars n

ear t

he en

d of

the p

assa

ge o

f his

Lette

r to

Mac

edon

ius o

n Fa

te p

rese

rved

by

Stob

aeus

(An

th. I

80,

11-

81, 1

8 W

-H)

to d

escr

ibe

the

actio

n of

the

conc

aten

atio

n of

cau

sal p

rinci

ples

des

cend

ed fr

om th

e O

ne

in d

raw

ing

up t

owar

ds it

self

all t

hing

s:

v

.

Th e

term

mon

oeid

es oc

curs

qui

te f

requ

ently

also

in t

he o

ther

mai

n ex

tant

can

dida

te f

or a

ny

evid

ence

of t

he c

once

pt o

f the

hen

ad, i

n Bo

ok I

of D

e M

yste

riis,

and

in a

pa

ssag

e ind

eed

alre

ady n

oted

as sh

arin

g sim

ilarit

ies w

ith th

e Pse

llan

exce

rpts

on th

eolo

gica

l arit

hmet

ic.8

Th e

purp

ose

of D

e Mys

terii

s, it

is im

port

ant t

o be

ar in

min

d, is

to p

ro-

vide

answ

ers t

o Po

rphy

ry o

ften

in re

butta

l of t

he v

iew

s fra

min

g th

ose q

ues-

tions

pos

ed b

y hi

m in

his

Lette

r to

Ane

bo.9

For

that

rea

son,

De

Mys

terii

s ca

nnot

be

view

ed a

s Ia

mbl

ichu

s de

niti

ve t

reat

ise o

n th

eolo

gy o

r r

st pr

inci

ples

, but

sinc

e it i

s his

mai

n ex

tant

wor

k to

uchi

ng o

n th

ose s

ubje

cts,

faut

e de

mieu

x, w

ith c

are,

it s

erve

s ne

vert

hele

ss a

s th

e be

st su

ch a

vaila

ble

inta

ct so

urce

, if u

sed

subj

ect t

o th

e ca

veat

of i

ts tr

ue p

urpo

se, w

hich

like

ly

a e

cts

not

only

its

tone

but

also

at

times

its

cont

ent.

Book

I s

erve

s to

re

spon

d to

seve

ral o

f Por

phyr

ys q

uesti

ons o

n th

e na

ture

of t

he g

ods,

and

so a

ny i

nfor

mat

ion

to b

e fo

und

ther

e re

gard

ing

hena

ds i

s m

ost

likel

y

7) Th

e te

rm ap

pear

s rs

t in

a phi

loso

phic

al co

ntex

t in

Plat

o at

Pha

edo 7

8d5

and

Sym

posiu

m

211b

1 ap

plie

d to

the

idea

of t

he G

ood,

as n

oted

by

Had

ot (1

994)

81

and

145,

com

men

t-in

g on

its u

se to

des

crib

e the

One

in P

lotin

us E

nn. V

I.9.3

.43.

Had

ot in

terp

rets

the w

ord

as

bein

g fo

rmed

in a

nalo

gy to

aga

thoe

ides,

and

bec

ause

of t

hat a

nalo

gy h

e pr

efer

s a m

oder

n tr

ansla

tion

alon

g th

e sim

ilar l

ines

as ab

ove:

il f

aut m

ieux

, me s

embl

e-t-i

l, tr

adui

re a

yant

la

form

e de l

uni

cit

, pl

utt

que

uni

que p

ar sa

form

e (8

1) .

Plot

inus

appl

ies t

he te

rm in

fact

to

the

One

itse

lf, b

ut t

hen

imm

edia

tely

ste

ps b

ack,

as

it w

ere,

and

qua

li e

s hi

s us

age

to

poin

t ou

t th

at t

he O

ne it

self

rath

er is

str

ictly

w

ithou

t fo

rm,

but

his

appl

icat

ion

of t

he

term

sta

nds

poss

ibly

as

the

Neo

plat

onic

link

age

betw

een

Plat

os s

emin

al u

se o

f it,

whi

ch

Plot

inus

dire

ctly

cite

s her

e rep

rodu

cing

Pla

tos

full

expr

essio

n

,

and

the

late

r use

s of m

onoe

ides

by Ia

mbl

ichu

s und

er d

iscus

sion

and

its u

sage

by

othe

r lat

er

Neo

plat

onist

s, es

peci

ally

Pro

clus

and

Dam

asci

us.

8)

OM

eara

(198

9) 8

2-83

. 9

) Th

e re

al t

itle

of th

e w

ork,

we

mus

t bea

r in

min

d, is

Th e

Rep

ly of

the `

Mas

ter A

bam

on to

th

e Let

ter o

f Por

phyr

y to

Aneb

o, a

nd th

e Sol

utio

ns to

the Q

uesti

ons t

hat i

t Con

tain

s. Th

e pop

u-la

r titl

e is

that

giv

en to

it b

y M

arsil

io F

icin

o.

58

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

rela

ted

to th

e div

ine h

enad

s.10 W

hate

ver i

s to

be g

lean

ed fu

rthe

rmor

e mus

t be

infe

rred

and

extr

apol

ated

from

the c

orre

ctiv

es to

Por

phyr

ys q

uerie

s and

w

hat I

ambl

ichu

s vie

ws a

s the

freq

uent

misp

erce

ptio

ns b

ehin

d th

em re

gard

-in

g th

e nat

ure o

f the

god

s, sin

ce h

e has

stru

ctur

ed h

is te

xt w

ith th

ese p

oint

s dr

ivin

g th

e im

plic

it di

alog

ue b

etw

een

the

two

philo

soph

ers,

with

one

sp

eaki

ng a

ll bu

t ex

cat

hedr

a an

d th

e ot

her

pres

ent

only

as

if in

a s

ort

of

subm

itted

and

und

efen

ded

brie

f, vo

lunt

arily

or n

ot, a

ll in

an

unus

ual c

ol-

loqu

y w

hose

rat

her

pole

mic

al a

nd o

ften

cond

esce

ndin

g to

ne m

ay li

kely

al

so sh

ape

and

limit

the

amou

nt o

f neu

tral

exp

licat

ion

allo

wed

to a

ppea

r in

the

text

.11 D

espi

te th

e ch

alle

nges

rai

sed

by th

e ch

arac

ter

of th

is w

ork,

no

neth

eles

s it

does

o e

r se

vera

l fun

dam

enta

l det

ails

of I

ambl

ichu

s co

n-ce

ptio

n of

the

gods

, whi

ch w

ill b

e se

en u

pon

exam

inat

ion

to sh

ow b

y vi

r-tu

e of

the

mar

ked

simila

rity

of th

e la

ngua

ge u

tilize

d in

Boo

k I

muc

h in

co

mm

on w

ith t

he n

atur

e an

d fu

nctio

n of

the

div

ine

hena

ds a

s la

id o

ut

mor

e for

mal

ly b

y Pr

oclu

s in

his E

lemen

ts of

Th e

olog

y, Pl

aton

ic Th

eolo

gy, a

nd

Com

men

tary

on

the

Parm

enid

es. F

irst,

as in

the

Pse

llan

exce

rpts,

Boo

k I

o e

rs in

fact

man

y oc

curr

ence

s of t

he sa

me

term

mon

oeid

es, in

usa

ges t

hat

can

be s

how

n to

be

rele

vant

and

cen

tral

to

this

disc

ussio

n of

the

div

ine

whi

ch e

xhib

its s

imila

r co

ncer

ns a

ddre

ssed

by

late

r N

eopl

aton

ists

via

the

mec

hani

sm o

f the

hen

ads.

Th e

rst o

ccur

renc

e of m

onoe

ides

com

es in

conn

ectio

n w

ith Ia

mbl

ichu

s re

spon

se to

Por

phyr

ys

rst r

epor

ted

ques

tion

whi

ch in

clud

es a

con

cess

ion

10)

Th e

disti

nctio

n be

twee

n di

vine

and

non

-div

ine

hena

ds is

form

ally

mad

e in

pro

p. 6

4 of

th

e El

emen

ts of

Th e

olog

y: A

nd s

o no

t ev

ery

unity

is

a go

d, b

ut o

nly

the

self-

com

plet

e he

nad,

Pr

oclu

s ed.

Dod

ds (1

963)

63.

(All

tran

slatio

ns q

uote

d fro

m th

is w

ork

are

thos

e of

D

odds

.)11

) E

x ca

thed

ra

also

in th

e vi

ew o

f Tro

uilla

rd (1

972)

173

. Th e

teno

r of t

he im

plie

d di

a-lo

gue

insti

lls in

the

rea

der

an im

pres

sion

of a

priv

ate

conv

ersa

tion

whe

re m

uch

may

be

unsa

id b

ut u

nder

stood

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o pa

rtic

ipan

ts, o

r spo

ken

in so

hig

hly

allu

sive a

fash

-io

n th

at so

me

poin

ts m

ay n

ot b

e ex

plic

itly

and

fully

mad

e. It

s ten

or o

ften

leav

es m

oder

ns

not

part

y to

the

con

ict

bet

wee

n th

e fo

rmer

tea

cher

and

pup

il to

won

der

abou

t ce

rtai

n de

tails

of d

octr

ine,

unf

ortu

nate

ly n

ow p

roba

bly

lost

fore

ver t

o no

n-co

gnos

cent

i of c

entu

ries

late

r, as

wou

ld al

so p

roba

bly

be th

e cas

e for

man

y of

thei

r ow

n tim

e as w

ell,

espe

cial

ly th

ose

not

ini

tiate

s o

f th

ese

part

icul

ar p

hilo

soph

ical

mys

terie

s, or

not

mem

bers

of

the

inne

r ci

rcle

s of

the

tw

o ph

iloso

pher

s. Fo

r so

me

rece

nt d

iscus

sion

of t

he r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Porp

hyry

and

Iam

blic

hus

as r

e e

cted

in D

e M

yste

riis,

see

Cla

rke

(200

2) 6

-8, I

ambl

ichu

s ed

. Cla

rke,

Dill

on, a

nd H

ersh

bell

(200

3) x

xvi

, Bu

ssan

ich

(200

5) 7

-8, a

nd D

illon

(200

7)

30-3

2.

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

59

that

the

gods

do

exist

(DM

I.3)

. Iam

blic

hus o

ers

a c

orre

ctio

n, h

owev

er,

to th

e e e

ct th

at th

e exi

stenc

e of g

ods i

s som

ethi

ng so

bas

ic as

to b

e bey

ond

delib

erat

ion,

just

as P

lotin

us d

enie

d kn

owle

dge

of th

e O

ne b

ecau

se o

f its

utte

r sim

plic

ity a

nd e

xalte

dnes

s, bu

t he

con

tend

s ne

vert

hele

ss t

here

is a

so

rt o

f co

nnec

tion

to th

em, w

hich

he

term

s as

.12 H

e co

ntin

ues

the

argu

men

t by

add

ing

that

we

cann

ot e

ven

ques

tion

the

exist

ence

of t

his

conn

ectio

n, d

eny

nor

a r

m

nor c

ateg

orize

it, a

nd su

ch a

ctio

ns a

re th

ose

typi

cally

dee

med

by

Neo

pla-

toni

sts a

s im

poss

ible

ass

ertio

ns c

once

rnin

g th

e O

ne.13

Ech

oing

his

use

of

mon

oeid

es, I

ambl

ichu

s th

en a

lso r

eite

rate

s th

e O

ne-li

ke c

hara

cter

izatio

n of

thi

s co

nnec

tion

by d

escr

ibin

g it

as

.

Late

r in

I.3

he

empl

oys

this

spec

i c

lang

uage

tw

ice

mor

e, r

epet

itive

ly

enou

gh in

all t

o im

ply

a sor

t of t

erm

inol

ogic

al u

sage

:

(I.3

.9.7

) and

. . .

(I.3

.10.

3-7)

. Th e

per

spec

tive

here

, due

to h

is ne

ed to

ans

wer

Por

phyr

ys sp

eci

c qu

estio

n, c

once

rns a

ny h

uman

kno

wl-

edge

of t

he d

ivin

e ra

ther

than

a d

e n

ition

of d

ivin

ity it

self,

but

the

only

m

etho

d fo

r an

y su

ch k

now

ledg

e in

Iam

blic

hus

view

is a

n in

dire

ct o

ne

base

d so

lely

on

the

simila

rity

of t

he g

ods

to t

he O

ne t

appe

d in

to b

y a

dep

ende

nt c

onne

ctio

n w

ith t

he g

ods

in f

orm

like

the

One

, a

cces

sible

al

so b

y hu

man

ity b

ecau

se o

f its

liken

ess t

o th

e One

, in

the s

oul.

Proc

lus i

n ET

pro

p. 1

23 u

ses

nota

bly

simila

r la

ngua

ge to

dec

lare

kno

wle

dge

of th

e go

ds a

s im

part

icip

able

hen

ads t

o be

impo

ssib

le:

All t

hat i

s div

ine

is its

elf

ine

abl

e an

d un

know

able

by

any

seco

ndar

y be

ing

beca

use

of it

s su

pra-

exist

entia

l uni

ty, b

ut it

may

be a

ppre

hend

ed an

d kn

own

from

the e

xiste

nts

whi

ch p

artic

ipat

e it.

14

He

then

ela

bora

tes

in t

he p

ropo

sitio

n, u

sing

the

12)

De

Mys

terii

s I.3

.8.4

-5. A

ll qu

otat

ions

and

tra

nsla

tions

are

tak

en fr

om I

ambl

ichu

s ed

. C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

, who

cite

Enn

. 5.3

for P

lotin

us d

enia

l (p1

3n23

).13

) L

ater

at I

.19.

59-6

0 Ia

mbl

ichu

s con

clud

es th

at a

s hum

ans a

ppro

ach

the

high

er e

ntiti

es

from

bel

ow, f

rom

par

ticul

ars

to t

he m

ore

gene

ral,

the

unity

of

the

gods

bec

omes

mor

e ap

pare

nt, j

oini

ng t

oget

her

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y cl

asse

s of

god

s, w

ho

all p

osse

ss w

ith

each

oth

er a

com

mun

ion

of i

ndiss

olub

le c

onne

ctio

n [

]

, usin

g th

e te

rm sy

mpl

oke

agai

n as

abo

ve a

t I.3

.8.4

-5. I

t app

ears

also

no

less

th

an th

ree

times

in th

e pa

ssag

e fro

m th

e Le

tter t

o M

aced

oniu

s cite

d ab

ove

to re

pres

ent t

he

com

bine

d, u

nita

ry ac

tion

of th

e con

cate

natio

n of

caus

es d

esce

ndin

g fro

m th

e One

. For

the

func

tion

of sy

mpl

oke i

n th

eurg

y, se

e Sm

ith (1

974)

85-

86.

14)

ET P

rop.

123

, Pro

clus

ed.

Dod

ds (1

963)

110

.

60

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

exac

t sam

e ter

m fo

r de

pend

ency

as I

ambl

ichu

s has

in I.

3.8.

4: N

ever

the-

less

from

the b

eing

s dep

ende

nt [

]

on

them

[the

god

s] th

e ch

arac

ter

of t

heir

disti

nctiv

e pr

oper

ties

may

be

infe

rred

. . .

15 B

eing

s in

bo

th c

ases

are

fart

her d

own

the

chai

n of

cau

salit

y, bu

t non

ethe

less

spec

i -

cally

de

pend

ent

in

both

cas

es.

Th e

term

mon

oeid

es by

itse

lf is

clea

rly

rem

inisc

ent o

r app

ropr

iate

as an

aspe

ct o

f the

conc

ept o

f the

hen

ad, t

houg

h ad

mitt

edly

it is

use

d of

the

god

s by

Iam

blic

hus

in t

his

pass

age

rath

er t

o de

scrib

e th

eir d

ivin

e fu

nctio

n an

d no

t dire

ctly

nom

inal

ly; b

ut c

lear

ly th

e te

rm li

nks t

hem

, jus

t as

hena

d d

oes,

to th

e O

ne in

a fu

ndam

enta

l and

cr

ucia

l way

. Fu

rthe

r on

in

Book

I a

t I.1

7 Ia

mbl

ichu

s re

sort

s ag

ain

to t

he u

se o

f m

onoe

ides

in h

is sti

pula

tion

of t

he u

nity

of

the

gods

as

his

resp

onse

to

Porp

hyry

s qu

estio

n re

gard

ing

thei

r co

rpor

ality

, how

the

Sun

and

Moo

n,

whi

ch a

re a

gree

d to

be

divi

ne, c

ould

be

visib

le if

the

gods

are

inco

rpor

eal.

Iam

blic

hus s

olve

s thi

s di

cul

ty b

y de

clar

ing

that

the

heav

enly

bod

ies a

re

env

elop

ed

by th

e go

ds, w

hich

reve

rt to

thei

r div

ine

caus

e, a

nd th

at su

ch

a bo

dy is

no

impe

dim

ent;

rath

er it

is o

f its

own

initi

ativ

e

.

16 H

e co

ntin

ues

dire

ctly

the

reaf

ter

by s

tatin

g th

at t

his

heav

enly

bod

y is

itsel

f cl

osel

y re

late

d to

that

of t

he g

ods,

bein

g sim

ple,

with

out p

arts,

indi

visib

le,

not

subj

ect

to c

hang

e, a

nd t

hen

desc

ribes

its

ener

geia

as

mon

oeid

es. B

ut

Iam

blic

hus t

hen

emph

asize

s the

uni

ty o

f the

div

ine n

atur

e itse

lf al

so, a

gain

m

akin

g us

e of

the

sam

e te

rm:

Th e

gods

of

heav

en a

re b

eing

s ho

mog

e-ne

ous i

n al

l res

pect

s, en

tirel

y un

ited

[

] am

ong

them

selv

es, u

ni-

form

[]

and

non

-com

posit

e.17

Th e

wor

d ap

pear

s fre

quen

tly in

th

e wor

ks o

f eve

ry m

ajor

late

r Neo

plat

onist

and

in si

mila

r con

text

s eno

ugh

to a

llow

it w

ith s

ome

assu

ranc

e to

be

take

n as

a N

eopl

aton

ic t

echn

ical

15)

Proc

lus e

d. D

odds

(196

3) 1

11.

16)

I.17.

51.7

-8, s

ome

term

s tra

nsla

ted

by C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

65.

17)

I.17.

52.5

-6, C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

65.

Lat

er in

Boo

k V

whi

le la

ying

out

th

e ap

prop

riate

type

s of o

erin

g to

the

di e

rent

cla

sses

of g

ods,

Iam

blic

hus p

erha

ps e

ven

mor

e te

lling

ly u

tilize

s the

term

mon

oeid

es as

the

singl

e de

term

inan

t to

cont

rast

the

high

er

gods

from

the

less

er w

hich

are

hon

ored

with

phy

sical

sacr

i ce

of b

odie

s: w

hen,

then

, we

o e

r cul

t to

the

gods

who

rule

ove

r sou

l and

nat

ure,

it is

not

inap

prop

riate

to sa

cri

ce to

th

em b

odie

s . . .

but

whe

n w

e se

t out

to h

onou

r th

ose

gods

that

are

in a

nd o

f the

mse

lves

un

iform

[

], it

is pr

oper

to

acco

rd t

hem

hon

ours

tha

t tr

ansc

end

mat

ter,

V.

19.2

26.7

-8, C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

259

.

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

61

term

, tho

ugh

in so

me c

ases

it is

to b

e sur

e em

ploy

ed in

its m

ore u

sual

sens

e as

con

veye

d in

the

Eng

lish

tran

slatio

n as

un

iform

.18

Of

thes

e m

any

occu

rren

ces,

how

ever

, Pro

clus

in h

is Pl

aton

ic Th

eolo

gy w

ould

appe

ar ex

plic

-itl

y to

giv

e a d

e n

ition

of m

onoe

ides

in th

e cou

rse o

f del

inea

ting

two

tria

ds

from

the

Phae

do, i

n th

e se

ctio

n of

that

wor

k de

vote

d to

a se

ries o

f div

ine

attr

ibut

es d

raw

n fro

m P

lato

(Sa

rey-

Wes

terin

k I.2

7, p

.118

.20-

24);

mon

oe-

ides

is de

ned

in th

e ex

plic

atio

n of

the

rst

mem

ber

of th

e se

cond

tria

d:

T

,

.

. . .

Th e

adj

ec-

tive

is he

re r

aise

d to

the

leve

l of a

nom

inal

con

cept

as

a m

embe

r of

the

tr

iad,

whi

ch i

s fu

ndam

enta

lly d

ivin

e, a

t th

e hi

ghes

t le

vel o

f be

ing,

and

ex

plic

itly

at t

he s

ame

leve

l as

the

part

icip

able

hen

ads,

spec

i ca

lly b

elow

Pr

oclu

s O

ne, w

hich

is a

bove

bei

ng. Th

is d

egre

e in

the

hier

arch

y of

bei

ng

is ho

wev

er th

e sam

e as t

he o

ne at

whi

ch Ia

mbl

ichu

s pla

ces t

he g

ods,

as w

ill

be sh

own

next

. Ia

mbl

ichu

s m

akes

use

of

othe

r sp

eci

c la

ngua

ge i

n Bo

ok I

whi

ch i

s di

rect

ly e

choe

d in

Pro

clus

, par

ticul

arly

in th

e pr

opos

ition

s in

the

Elem

ents

of Th

eol

ogy d

e n

ing

the h

enad

s. In

I.5

Iam

blic

hus a

ppea

rs as

it w

ere t

o ste

p ba

ck an

d sta

te so

me g

ener

al p

rinci

ples

abou

t his

view

of t

he g

ods i

n pr

epa-

ratio

n fo

r fur

ther

resp

onse

s to

Porp

hyry

s qu

estio

ns, a

nd in

thes

e ass

ertio

ns

lies p

erha

ps th

e m

ost p

ersu

asiv

e ev

iden

ce th

at h

e is

pres

entin

g th

e go

ds a

s ve

ry s

imila

r to

the

hena

ds a

s de

scrib

ed b

y Pr

oclu

s. Ia

mbl

ichu

s be

gins

by

stipu

latin

g,

Wel

l the

n, th

ere

is th

e G

ood

that

is b

eyon

d be

ing,

and

ther

e is

that

whi

ch ex

ists o

n th

e lev

el o

f bei

ng. B

y b

eing

I m

ean

the m

ost s

enio

r, th

e m

ost h

onou

red,

and

that

whi

ch is

by

its o

wn

natu

re in

corp

orea

l, th

e

18)

A nu

mbe

r of r

elev

ant e

xam

ples

of i

ts us

age i

n Sy

rianu

s, Pr

oclu

s, an

d D

amas

cius

may

be

cite

d; cf

. Syr

ianu

s, in

Met

. 113

, 23,

whe

re

is o

ne o

f the

prim

ary

univ

ersa

l ele

-m

ents

eman

atin

g fro

m t

he a

rche

typa

l M

onad

and

in

Met

. 11

4,21

, w

here

mon

oeid

es is

incl

uded

am

ong

the

attr

ibut

es o

f the

hig

hest

leve

l of t

he d

ivin

e Fo

rms;

Proc

lus,

in T

im.

I.136

,16,

whe

re in

the d

iscus

sion

of th

e lot

s ass

igne

d th

e god

s the

pro

vide

nce o

f the

Fat

her

is de

scrib

ed a

s mon

oeid

es an

d in

Tim

. II.5

9, 1

3, w

here

the

Para

digm

is d

escr

ibed

as m

onoe

-id

es, al

l-per

fect

, and

eter

nal;

perh

aps m

ost s

igni

can

tly D

amas

cius

, de P

rin. W

.-C. I

I.3,1

in

the

defe

nse

of Ia

mbl

ichu

s vi

ew o

f the

rs

t tw

o hy

posta

ses,

the

leve

l of t

he O

ne a

fter t

he

Ine

abl

e and

bef

ore t

he n

oetic

tria

d is

refe

rred

to si

mpl

y as

and

simila

rly u

sed

at II

.6, 8

; Dam

asci

us in

Pha

ed. W

este

rink

I.312

and

I.31

6, w

here

one

of t

he a

ttrib

utes

of

the

real

-exi

stent

s is m

onoe

ides.

62

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

part

icul

ar fe

atur

e of t

he g

ods.

19 H

e the

n co

ntra

sts th

is hi

ghes

t div

ine p

rin-

cipl

e with

that

of t

he s

ouls

that

rule

ove

r bod

ies

, and

sets

them

as th

e tw

o ex

trem

e lev

els o

f div

ine b

eing

s, be

twee

n w

hich

also

fall

thos

e of t

he d

emon

s an

d he

roes

.20 If

the

rst a

nd h

ighe

st ex

trem

e is t

hat o

f the

Goo

d bu

t whi

ch

also

has

bei

ng, e

xplic

itly

belo

w th

e Goo

d th

at is

abov

e bei

ng, i

t wou

ld h

ave

to b

e pl

aced

ver

y hi

gh in

Iam

blic

hus

sche

me

of re

ality

, sin

ce th

e G

ood

is no

rmal

ly sy

nony

mou

s for

the

One

, but

not

at a

ny o

f the

hig

hest

leve

ls of

th

e O

ne,

since

he

also

cla

ims

bein

g fo

r it.

Hen

ce t

his

divi

ne p

rinci

ple

wou

ld th

en m

ost l

ikel

y co

rres

pond

to th

e One

Exi

stent

( )

. But

this

leve

l is a

lso m

ost l

ikel

y th

at o

f the

hen

ads,

if th

ey d

o ex

ist an

ywhe

re w

ithin

th

e for

mal

ont

olog

ical

hie

rarc

hy o

f Iam

blic

hus,

and

henc

e also

the s

ame a

s

as

de n

ed b

y Pr

oclu

s in

the

Plat

onic

Th eo

logy

.21 I

ambl

ichu

s

19)

I.5.1

5.4-

5, C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

21.

20)

See

Sa r

ey (1

990)

287

for a

tabl

e co

nven

ient

ly su

mm

arizi

ng th

e co

ntra

sting

attr

ibut

es

give

n by

Iam

blic

hus t

o th

e tw

o le

vels

in th

ese

chap

ters

. 21

) Se

e D

illon

(199

3) 4

9-50

for

the

sem

inal

arg

umen

t pla

cing

the

hena

ds a

t thi

s le

vel i

n Ia

mbl

ichu

s sc

hem

e; cf

. Bus

sani

ch (2

002)

44-

45, f

or th

e div

ine h

enad

s as h

yper

ousio

i and

as

unita

ry:

Th e

high

est g

od is

a u

nity

and

hen

ce, o

n ea

ch le

vel o

f bei

ng, t

he g

ods c

ompr

ise

uniti

es/h

enad

s whi

ch a

re c

onne

cted

to a

nd w

hich

ass

imila

te a

ll th

ings

to th

e tr

ansc

ende

nt

One

. Pro

clus

, Ins

t. Pr

op. 1

13:

the

divi

ne s

erie

s ha

s th

e ch

arac

ter

of u

nity

, if t

he O

ne is

go

d.

It sh

ould

be

poin

ted

out t

hat P

rocl

us p

osits

the

divi

ne h

enad

s as b

eing

abo

ve e

xis-

tenc

e, a

s in

Prop

. 123

cite

d ab

ove,

whe

re h

e sp

eaks

of t

heir

sup

ra-e

xiste

ntia

l uni

ty,

and

th

is va

rianc

e at

rst m

ay a

ppea

r as a

n ob

stacl

e to

the t

hesis

that

Iam

blic

hus i

s put

ting

fort

h th

e go

ds a

s he

nads

, sin

ce h

e ce

rtai

nly

plac

es t

hem

at

the

high

est

leve

l of

exist

ence

, but

de

nite

ly e

xiste

nt a

nd n

ot s

upra

-exi

stent

. In

poi

nt o

f fa

ct,

Proc

lus

does

im

part

to

the

hena

ds r

athe

r hy

parx

is, w

hich

Sio

rvan

es tr

ansla

tes a

s ro

ot-b

eing

, S

iorv

anes

(199

6) 1

70.

But t

his

inco

nsist

ency

bet

wee

n Pr

oclu

s an

d Ia

mbl

ichu

s is

likel

y re

late

d to

the

sam

e cl

ear

di e

renc

e of

phi

loso

phic

al o

pini

on re

gard

ing

the

natu

re o

f the

rs

t hyp

othe

sis o

f the

Par

-m

enid

es an

d th

e pl

ace

of t

he g

ods

in t

hat

sche

ma,

whi

ch, i

f D

illon

(19

93)

is co

rrec

t, is

expl

aine

d by

the

pla

cem

ent

and

func

tion

of t

he O

ne E

xiste

nt, a

nd p

ertin

ently

for

thi

s di

scus

sion

the O

ne E

xiste

nt is

, as j

ust s

how

n, th

e sam

e lev

el fo

r the

god

s acc

ordi

ng to

Iam

-bl

ichu

s and

for h

im th

e hig

hest

leve

l of e

xiste

nce.

So

it is

quite

pos

sible

that

Iam

blic

hus a

nd

Proc

lus b

oth

see

the

gods

as h

enad

ic b

ut d

o no

t agr

ee o

n th

is po

int c

once

rnin

g th

eir r

ela-

tions

hip

to b

eing

, esp

ecia

lly n

ot in

this

insta

nce

whe

re P

rocl

us m

akes

such

a sh

arp

disti

nc-

tion

with

his

pred

eces

sor r

egar

ding

the n

atur

e of t

he

rst t

wo

hypo

thes

es o

f the

Par

men

ides

and

the

natu

re o

f the

One

as a

com

plet

ely

isola

ted

and

simpl

e hy

posta

sis ju

st be

low

whi

ch

for

him

app

ear

the

hena

ds,

and

a r

st hy

posta

sis u

nlik

e th

at c

ompl

ex o

ne a

ppar

ently

co

ncei

ved

of b

y Ia

mbl

ichu

s. In

fact

in g

ener

al, i

t cou

ld b

e sa

id th

at w

hile

the

two

philo

so-

pher

s wou

ld li

kely

agr

ee o

n m

ost o

f the

par

ticul

ars r

egar

ding

the

hena

ds, t

hey

still

mig

ht

disa

gree

on

som

e fe

w o

f the

m, a

nd th

e ev

iden

ce c

ould

still

poi

nt o

vera

ll no

neth

eles

s to

an

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

63

then

in I.

5.18

, 6-1

1 o

ers

Por

phyr

y as

resta

tem

ent o

f thi

s hig

hest

divi

ne

prin

cipl

e th

e fo

llow

ing:

To

app

roac

h th

e qu

estio

n fro

m a

noth

er p

ersp

ec-

tive:

on

the

one

hand

, uni

ty in

all

its e

xten

sion

and

all i

ts fo

rms,

perm

a-ne

nt s

tabi

lity

in o

nese

lf, t

he q

ualit

y of

bei

ng t

he c

ause

of

indi

visib

le

esse

nces

, an

imm

obili

ty su

ch a

s may

be

conc

eive

d of

as b

eing

the

caus

e of

ev

ery

mot

ion,

a s

uper

iorit

y ov

er a

ll be

ings

whi

ch p

recl

udes

hav

ing

any-

thin

g in

com

mon

with

the

m a

nd, f

urth

erm

ore,

the

con

cept

ion

of b

eing

un

mix

ed an

d tr

ansc

ende

nt al

ike i

n es

senc

e, p

oten

cy an

d ac

tivity

al

l suc

h ch

arac

teris

tics s

houl

d be

attr

ibut

ed to

the

gods

.22

Uni

ty in

all

its e

xten

-sio

n is

her

e ex

pres

sed

telli

ngly

in th

e G

reek

as

. .

.

. If

the

hena

ds

appe

ar a

t the

leve

l of t

he O

ne E

xiste

nt in

Iam

blic

hus

sche

me,

then

they

ar

e also

the

rst o

bjec

t of i

ntel

lect

ion,

also

at th

e hig

hest

leve

l of t

he se

cond

hy

posta

sis: i

n ad

ditio

n Ia

mbl

ichu

s po

sits

here

a p

rinci

ple

of t

he g

ods

as

, m

ade

one

or

uni

ted

, an

d ex

plic

itly

at t

he s

ame

time

,

the

obje

ct o

f hig

h in

telle

ctio

n.23

In th

is sa

me

disc

ussio

n N

ous,

the

lead

er an

d ki

ng o

f the

real

m o

f bei

ng, i

s the

n lin

ked

clos

ely

with

this

high

prin

cipl

e, a

s p

rese

nt c

ontin

uous

ly a

nd u

nifo

rmly

to

the

gods

in

co

ntra

st to

the

gra

sp a

vaila

ble

to t

he S

oul,

whi

ch is

, m

ulti-

form

or

of m

any

Form

s a

s opp

osed

to m

onoe

ides

(I.7

.21.

14),

and

from

th

e ju

xtap

ositi

on N

ous

seem

s as

wel

l int

ende

d by

Iam

blic

hus

to b

e th

e ag

ent

of t

hat

inte

llect

ion.

Th i

s hi

gher

prin

cipl

e is

next

des

crib

ed a

s a

t th

e su

mm

it [

], an

d tr

ansc

ende

nt,

and

perfe

ct [

] . . .

[it]

ca

n ac

hiev

e al

l th

ings

sim

ulta

neou

sly,

in t

he p

rese

nt i

nsta

nt,

unita

rily

Iam

blic

hean

pro

vena

nce,

tho

ugh

of c

ours

e th

at v

aria

nce

wou

ld o

nly

com

plic

ate

mat

ters

an

d re

quire

som

e sp

ecia

l ex

plan

atio

n, e

spec

ially

in

light

of

the

spar

se p

rimar

y te

xtua

l re

sour

ces o

f Iam

blic

hus e

xtan

t for

pro

of in

this

rega

rd.

22)

Cla

rke,

Dill

on, a

nd H

ersh

bell

(200

3) 2

5. S

ee B

ussa

nich

(200

2) 5

0-51

for a

disc

ussio

n of

sim

ilar p

assa

ges o

n th

e tr

ansc

ende

nce

of th

e go

ds in

Boo

k II

I.23

) Fo

r the

hen

ads a

s the

obj

ects

of N

ous,

see

Dill

on (1

993)

50.

Th e

re m

ay b

e m

ore

proo

f fo

r thi

s con

cept

at I

.15.

46.1

-2 w

here

Iam

blic

hus s

tate

s tha

t the

god

s are

abs

olut

ely

supe

-rio

r to

Nou

s; C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

57n

81 a

d lo

c su

gges

t the

y m

ay in

fact

he

re b

e r

egar

ded

as h

enad

s. B

ut si

nce

they

are

at t

he sa

me

leve

l as t

he O

ne E

xiste

nt th

ey

also

for

Iam

blic

hus

wou

ld b

e th

e hi

ghes

t ob

ject

of

inte

llect

ion,

aga

in s

uper

ior

to N

ous

itsel

f. Fo

r the

use

of i

n re

fere

nce t

o th

e One

Exi

stent

cf. D

illon

(200

7b) 5

8. L

ater

in

cha

pter

15

furt

her s

uppo

rtin

g ev

iden

ce fo

r the

pla

cem

ent o

f the

god

s at t

his l

evel

may

be

foun

d in

his

deni

al o

f Por

phyr

ys c

onte

ntio

n th

at th

e go

ds a

re n

oeric

; for

mor

e di

scus

-sio

n of

this

pass

age,

see

note

39

belo

w.

64

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

[

] . . .

[it],

in a

sin

gle

swift

mom

ent,

com

preh

ends

the

supr

eme

ends

of a

ll ac

tiviti

es an

d es

senc

es . .

. the

gods

hav

e pre

sent

to th

em th

roug

h-ou

t, co

ncur

rent

ly w

ith th

eir e

ssen

ce, t

he m

easu

re []

of t

he u

nive

rse

or th

e ca

use

of th

is . .

.24

Th e

prec

edin

g en

com

pass

es in

one

pas

sage

sev

eral

con

cept

s ce

ntra

l to

the

hena

ds a

s de

ned

by

Proc

lus.

In h

is m

ain

disc

ussio

n of

the

hena

ds in

hi

s C

omm

enta

ry o

n th

e Pa

rmen

ides,

106

6, 2

2 ,

seve

ral t

imes

he

refe

rs to

th

em as

(10

43.2

6, 1

047.

20, 1

049.

37, 1

050.

14-1

5, 1

066.

22),

and

in th

e Pl

aton

ic Th

eolo

gy I

II 4

, p. 1

4.14

, in

the

chap

ters

ded

icat

ed to

th

em in

that

wor

k, h

e re

fers

to th

e he

nad

also

as a

n .

25 P

rocl

us in

ET

pro

p. 1

14, t

he se

cond

dev

oted

to th

e de

niti

on o

f the

hen

ads,

state

s th

at e

very

god

is a

; Iam

blic

hus a

ppea

rs to

impa

rt a

sim

ilar

mea

ning

to

her

e, e

mph

asizi

ng t

he in

depe

nden

ce o

f the

hig

her

divi

ne p

rinci

ple

from

subs

idia

ry b

eing

s, in

whi

ch d

wel

ls th

e lo

wes

t prin

-ci

ple,

cont

raste

d re

peat

edly

to th

e hig

hest

in th

is pa

ssag

e, an

d ac

cord

ing

to

Dod

ds th

at sa

me s

ense

is th

e mai

n on

e con

veye

d in

by

Proc

lus,

as o

ppos

ed to

the

of t

he h

ighe

r pr

inci

ples

whi

ch p

enet

rate

to

the l

ower

leve

ls of

bei

ng.26

Iam

blic

hus f

urth

er ca

tego

rizes

the h

ighe

r div

ine

24)

I.7.2

1.1-

I.7.2

2.10

, Cla

rke,

Dill

on, a

nd H

ersh

bell

(200

3) 2

7-29

.25

) Sa

rey

-Wes

terin

k (1

978)

111

-112

n3 in

thei

r co

mm

enta

ry to

the

cite

d pa

ssag

e in

the

Plat

onic

Th eo

logy

poi

nt o

ut th

e re

lativ

ely

grea

ter f

requ

ency

of t

he te

rm

in P

rocl

us

as c

ompa

red

to th

e ot

her t

wo

desig

natio

ns h

e gi

ves t

he h

enad

s in

that

sam

e se

ctio

n,

an

d .

Th e

latte

r pai

r is d

e n

itely

Cha

ldae

an in

orig

in, a

nd it

may

be

that

is

as w

ell,

thou

gh it

is u

sed

in th

e ex

tant

frag

men

ts th

e O

racl

es o

nly

in re

fere

nce

to d

eitie

s ra

ther

low

in th

e hi

erar

chy

of th

at sy

stem

, the

Iyng

es, a

ccor

ding

to L

ewy

(197

8) 1

56. Th

e

term

app

ears

in fr

s.76,

82,

and

84;

see

the

note

s ad

loc,

Maj

erci

k (1

989)

172

-73.

Pro

clus

in

the

Com

men

tary

on

the P

arm

enid

es at

104

9.37

pai

rs

with

, bot

h ta

ken

to

be C

hald

aean

(Pr

oclu

s tr

ansl.

Mor

row

and

Dill

on [

1987

] 40

8n16

). M

ariu

s V

icto

rinus

pa

ired

the

two

term

s also

, Ad

Ariu

m, I

, 62,

13-

14 H

.-H.,

sum

mita

tes .

. . e

t o

rem

, d

es

Plac

es (1

996)

86n

3, a

nd H

adot

is o

f the

sam

e opi

nion

in h

is no

te to

a p

revi

ous o

ccur

renc

e in

the

text

of

sum

mita

tes

at 6

1, 2

3, M

ariu

s Vic

torin

us e

d. H

enry

tran

sl. H

adot

(196

0)

884.

Julia

n in

his

Hym

n to

Hel

ios a

lso m

akes

use

of t

hem

(134

A), a

s poi

nted

out

by

des

Plac

es ib

id. H

e em

ploy

s the

pai

r to

desc

ribe t

he n

oeric

rays

of t

he su

n in

a pa

ssag

e whe

re in

fa

ct h

e ap

pear

s to

be

citin

g do

ctrin

e of

the

Pho

enic

ians

(1

34A)

, whi

ch is

to s

ay r

athe

r C

hald

aean

s, bu

t lik

ely

he is

rep

rodu

cing

her

e as

in m

ost

of t

he h

ymn

som

e te

achi

ng o

f Ia

mbl

ichu

s. W

hat i

ndee

d di

d Ia

mbl

ichu

s him

self

mak

e of

thes

e ve

rses

in h

is C

omm

enta

ry

on th

e Cha

ldae

an O

racle

s and

per

haps

even

the t

erm

itse

lf or

per

haps

in h

is tre

atise

O

n th

e God

s?26

) Pr

oclu

s ed.

Dod

ds (1

963)

260

-261

, not

e to

pro

p. 1

14, r

efer

ring

also

to p

rop.

64,

not

e

D

. Cla

rk /

Th e I

nter

natio

nal J

ourn

al o

f the

Pla

toni

c Tra

ditio

n 4

(201

0) 5

4-74

65

prin

cipl

e as

in a

singl

e sw

ift m

omen

t, co

mpr

ehen

d[in

g] th

e sup

rem

e end

s of

all a

ctiv

ities

and

esse

nces

; su

ch an

abili

ty is

also

attr

ibut

ed to

the h

enad

s by

Pro

clus

in p

rops

. 121

and

124:

eve

ry g

od h

as an

und

ivid

ed k

now

ledg

e of

thin

gs d

ivid

ed a

nd a

tim

eles

s kno

wle

dge

of th

ings

tem

pora

l; he

kno

ws

the

cont

inge

nt w

ithou

t con

tinge

ncy,

the

mut

able

imm

utab

ly, a

nd in

gen

-er

al a

ll th

ings

in a

hig

her m

ode t

han

belo

ngs t

o th

eir s

tatio

n.2

7 Th e

key

to

the

natu

re o

f thi

s kno

wle

dge

is th

at it

is, a

lso fr

om p

rop.

124

,

and,

from

pro

p. 1

23, t

hat t

he h

enad

itse

lf is

unkn

owab

le

to lo

wer

bei

ngs,

as Ia

mbl

ichu

s also

des

crib

es th

e go

ds to

be

in re

spon

se to

Po

rphy

rys

rst

ques

tion.

Th

e la

st co

mm

on c

once

pt e

xpre

ssed

by

Iam

blic

hus i

n th

is ch

arac

teriz

a-tio

n of

the

high

er d

ivin

e pr

inci

ple

is th

at th

e go

ds h

ave

conc

urre

nt w

ith

thei

r ess

ence

the m

easu

re o

f the

uni

vers

e: p

rop.

117

stat

es th

at

Ever

y go

d is

a m

easu

re [

] of

thi

ngs

exist

ent.

At

I.7.2

2.7

Iam

blic

hus

clai

ms

that

thes

e sam

e su

perio

r cla

sses

of b

eing

pos

sess

esse

ntia

l ord

er a

nd es

sen-

tial b

eaut

y, or

if o

ne w

ishes

to ex

pres

s it s

o, it

is th

e cau

sal p

rinci

ple o

f the

se

that

coe

xists

with

the

m

and

in I

.7.2

1.6

the

high

er d

ivin

e pr

inci

ple

dis-

cuss

ed a

bove

is sa

id to

pre

-exi

st ()

all

thin

gs. Th

is s

ort o

f pre

-ex

isten

ce (

) is

cove

red

by P

rocl

us in

gen

eral

in p

rop.

65

and

mor

e spe

ci c

ally

in re

latio

n to

the h

enad

s in

prop

. 118

.28 Th

e la

tter p

ropo

-sit

ion

hold

s tha

t ev

ery

attr

ibut

e of

the

gods

pre

-sub

sists

[]

in

them

in a

man

ner c

onsis

tent

with

thei

r dist

inct

ive

char

acte

r as g

ods.

29

In t

his

singl

e pa

ssag

e Ia

mbl

ichu

s ha

s in

clud

ed i

n hi

s de

niti

on o

f th

is hi

gher

div

ine

prin

cipl

e se

vera

l key

asp

ects

fund

amen

tal a

lso to

the

de n

i-tio

n of

hen

ads a

s pro

pose

d la

ter b

y Pr

oclu

s in

the E

lemen

ts of

Th e

olog

y and

ha

s exp

ress

ed th

em u

sing

the

exac

t sam

e or

qui

te si

mila

r cho

ice

of w

ords

.M

ore

simila

ritie

s ar

e to

be

foun

d in

Boo

k I,

deal

ing

with

the

not

ion

of im

part

ing

the

Goo

d to

less

er b

eing

s, pa

rtic

ipat

ion

by le

sser

bei

ngs

in

the

gods

, and

the

con

cept

of e

llam

psis.

Th

e su

bsta

nce

of e

very

god

is a

on p

p. 2

34-3

5. H

e po

ints

out t

here

that

is o

rigin

ally

an

Arist

otel

ian

and

Stoi

c te

rm. I

t is a

lso in

tere

sting

ly e

noug

h us

ed o

f god

by

Alci

nous

(10.

3) a

nd o

f the

Mon

ad b

y N

icom

achu

s ap.

Th e

ol. A

r. 3.

18 D

e Fa

lco,

Alc

inou

s tra

nsl.

Dill

on (1

995)

104

; cf.

Alci

nous

ed

. Whi

ttake

r (19

90) 9

9n62

and

Festu

gir

e (19

90) 9

7n3

for m

ore o

n th

e hist

ory

of th

e ter

m.

27)

Proc

lus e

d. D

odds

(196

3) 1

11, p

rop.

124

. See

OM

eara

(200

3) 1

26, o

n ho

w p

rinci

ple

of

inte

lligi

ble

omni

pres

ence

w

as d

evel

oped

by

Plot

inus

in E

nn. V

I.4-5

.28

) C

lark

e, D

illon

, and

Her

shbe

ll (2

003)

29n

47 fo

r ref

eren

ce to

pro

p. 6

5.29

) Pr

oclu

s ed.

Dod

ds (1

963)

105

.

66

D. C

lark

/ Th

e Int

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

of t

he P

lato

nic T

radi

tion

4 (2

010)

54-

74

supr

a-ex

isten

tial e

xcel

lenc

e [],

Pr

oclu

s sta

tes

in p

rop.

119

, and

in

122

, Fo

r bei

ng p

ure

exce

llenc

es, b

y th

eir v

ery

bein

g th

ey fu

rnish

to a

ll th

ings

goo

d w

ithou

t sti

nt; t

hey

mak

e no

cal