The Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

7/30/2019 The Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

1/21

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/187254710X492901

Te International Journal of the Platonic radition 4 (2010) 54-74

The International

Journal of the

Platonic Tradition

brill.nl/jpt

Te Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

Dennis Clark2133 Shy Bear Way NW, Issaquah, Washington 98027, USA

[email protected]

Abstract

Te origin of the Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads has been imputed to Iambli-chus, mostly on indirect evidence found in later Neoplatonists, chiefly Proclus. Isthere any trace of this concept to be found in the extant works or fragments of Iam-blichus himself? Te best candidates among his surviving texts are the excerpts inPsellus of his volume on Teological Arithmetic from his Pythagorean series, and thefirst book ofde Mysteriis, where Iamblichus answers Porphyrys questions on thenature of the gods. Such evidence as can be found there would most likely deal with

the divine henads, given the subject matter of the text. Certain repeated items ofvocabulary appear as technical usages that form the basis for arguing that Iamblichusalready has in mind if not the explicit concept henad at least its functional equiva-lent: the term monoeidesoccurring in both the Psellan excerpts and de Mysteriis, andin the latter, mostly in Book I, the stated attributes of a high, divine principle unit-ing the gods which are also designated by Proclus as typical of the divine henads,particularly in the propositions of the Elements of Teology defining the henads.Iamblichus in Book I also ascribes to the gods the same role in the process ofellamp-sisas Proclus does for the divine henads. A theory is also advanced concerning the

possible development of the concept of the henad by Iamblichus, based in part onthe polemical nature ofde Mysteriisand his relationship to Porphyry.

Keywords

Henad, Iamblichus, Porphyry, Psellus, Pythagorean,Teological Arithmetic, de Mys-teriis, Proclus, Syrianus, Marsilio Ficino, Elements of Teology, Gods, Te Good,One Existent, Participation,Monoeides, Akrotes/Summit, Ellampsis/Illumination

Te late Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads receives its most formaldefinition and treatment from Proclus in propositions 113-165 of his


2/21

D. Clark / Te International Journal of the Platonic radition 4 (2010) 54-74 55

Elements of Teology. Te henads are presented elsewhere in his writings,especially Book III of the Platonic Teologyand Book VI of his Commen-

tary on the Parmenides, as fundamental elements of his philosophicalsystem, and, as is well known, are of great concern also to other later Neo-platonists, such as Damascius. Teir relatively late emergence has naturallygiven rise to a desire to determine their historical origin, unheralded asthey appear to be in a fully developed form in any philosopher earlier thanProclus. E.R. Dodds attributed their conception to Proclus teacher Syria-nus, but over 30 years ago John Dillon proposed to ascribe the introduc-tion of the henads rather to Iamblichus, drawing chiefly on evidence

provided by Proclus in the Commentary on theParmenides.1

At least oneserious objection to this proposal has been raised and in turn persuasivelycountered, and much of the focus of the debate has centered on the argu-ments provided by Proclus in that particular work, and not unnaturally so,given the fragmentary state of Iamblichus own writings.2 Is there, how-ever, more support for the provenience of the doctrine of the henads amongany of Iamblichus remaining works, even if perhaps not offered in theform of an expressly terminological reference or unambiguous definition?

If indeed Iamblichus did expound a theory of the henads in his writtenworks, unfortunately some of those no longer extant, namely the Com-mentary on the Parmenides, his On the Gods, and perhaps the Commentaryon the Chaldaean Oracles, are, given the nature of their subject matter,likely to emerge as the most suitable platforms for such a discussion. Infact it could be argued that the critical problem in determining his possibleinvolvement in their creation is the loss of these works whose skoposwouldbe the most appropriate one within which to explicate such a doctrine.Likewise any expectation to see the concept defined in the contexts of his

other works may well be counter or highly tangential to the stated aims ofthose other writings. Hence the absence of any serious discussion of the

1) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 257-260, Dillon (1972) 102-106 also as Dillon (1973) 412-416, and Dillon (1987) 883-884.2) For the argument contra, based mostly on the fact that the gods for Iamblichus wouldalso be defined as objects of intellection and as such could not qualify as the henads ofSyrianus and Proclus, see Proclus ed. Saffrey and Westerink (1978) ix-xl, especially xxvi ff,and for Dillons rebuttal, Dillon (1993) 48-54. More recent support for Dillons view may

be found, expressed sometimes more implicitly than explicitly, in Steel (1997) 15-30,Bussanich (2002) 44-45, Bechtle (2006) 135-159, and Gerson (2008) 107.


3/21

56 D. Clark / Te International Journal of the Platonic radition 4 (2010) 54-74

henads elsewhere could in reality be something to be expected, thoughadmittedly this argument is one from silence. Failing even any relevant

passages in the fragments of those likely texts, the next most promisingsource of evidence would be indirect or subsidiary references in his otherextant works, since it is certainly clear that in none of the existing textsdoes Iamblichus ever explicitly use the term henad as later defined.

Promising candidates for such a search would include some of the trea-tises in his Pythagorean series, especially Book VII, On Teological Arith-metic, represented now only by the excerpts made by Psellus, and thelongest extant work of Iamblichus, the De Mysteriis.3 If for no other reason,

the Pythagorean concern with the Monad promotes the likelihood of theformer work, and the fact that in later Neoplatonism the gods are consid-ered henads, the latter. Psellus excerpts are by nature condensed, butnonetheless they may in fact retain, in spite of their somewhat terse anddisjointed overall content, Iamblichus own words and thus potentiallyoffer authentic Iamblichean terminology.4 One passage of possible rele-vance starts at line 53 of On Ethical and Teological Arithmetic, wherePsellus begins the extracts on the theological arithmetic with the discus-sion of an arithmetic of higher natures, of numbers having their ownproper nature transcendent even of being, just as ethical numbers andphysical numbers have their own appropriate natures.5 As there is a phys-ical cause of physical numbers, an ethical for ethicals, thus of divine num-ber there is a uniform divine principle, prior as cause as to the causes of allnumbers, a uniform [] unity pre-existing even all unified divinenumber itself. Te first then, the one properly speaking, God as wewouldsay, is henad and triad (for the triad unrolls the beginning, middle, andend around the one) . . .6 Of note here is the appearance of the term monoe-

ides, usually translated into English as uniform here and in other occur-rences in Neoplatonic literature; but the common English uniform doesnot reflect specifically the philosophical sense carried in a more literal

3) Te excerpts were first recognized as such by Dominic OMeara; for a summary discus-sion see OMeara (1989) 57-60. Tere does not appear to occur any particularly relevantpassage in Book III of the Pythagorean series, De communi mathematica scientia.4) For their faithfulness to Iamblichus original, see OMeara (1989) 58-59, and on theexcerpts from the theological arithmetic, including their disjointedness, 81-85.5) OMeara (1989) 227.6) Ibid.


4/21


translation such as in the form of singularity or in the form of apart-ness.7 Tat Iamblichus himself made explicit use of the word is not in

doubt; it appears near the end of the passage of his Letter to Macedonius onFatepreserved by Stobaeus (Anth. I 80, 11-81, 18 W-H) to describe theaction of the concatenation of causal principles descended from the Onein drawing up towards itself all things: . Te term monoeidesoccurs quite frequently also in the other main extant candidate for anyevidence of the concept of the henad, in Book I ofDe Mysteriis, and in a

passage indeed already noted as sharing similarities with the Psellan excerptson theological arithmetic.8Te purpose ofDe Mysteriis, it is important to bear in mind, is to pro-

vide answers to Porphyry often in rebuttal of the views framing those ques-tions posed by him in his Letter to Anebo.9For that reason, De Mysteriiscannot be viewed as Iamblichus definitive treatise on theology or firstprinciples, but since it is his main extant work touching on those subjects,faute de mieux, with care, it serves nevertheless as the best such availableintact source, if used subject to the caveat of its true purpose, which likelyaffects not only its tone but also at times its content. Book I serves torespond to several of Porphyrys questions on the nature of the gods, andso any information to be found there regarding henads is most likely

7) Te term appears first in a philosophical context in Plato at Phaedo 78d5 and Symposium211b1 applied to the idea of the Good, as noted by Hadot (1994) 81 and 145, comment-ing on its use to describe the One in Plotinus Enn. VI.9.3.43. Hadot interprets the word asbeing formed in analogy to agathoeides, and because of that analogy he prefers a modern

translation along the similar lines as above: il faut mieux, me semble-t-il, traduire ayant laforme de lunicit, plutt que unique par sa forme (81) . Plotinus applies the term in factto the One itself, but then immediately steps back, as it were, and qualifies his usage topoint out that the One itself rather is strictly without form, but his application of theterm stands possibly as the Neoplatonic linkage between Platos seminal use of it, whichPlotinus directly cites here reproducing Platos full expression ,and the later uses ofmonoeidesby Iamblichus under discussion and its usage by other laterNeoplatonists, especially Proclus and Damascius.8) OMeara (1989) 82-83.9) Te real title of the work, we must bear in mind, is Te Reply of the Master Abamon to

the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the Solutions to the Questions that it Contains. Te popu-lar title is that given to it by Marsilio Ficino.


5/21


related to the divine henads.10 Whatever is to be gleaned furthermore mustbe inferred and extrapolated from the correctives to Porphyrys queries and

what Iamblichus views as the frequent misperceptions behind them regard-ing the nature of the gods, since he has structured his text with these pointsdriving the implicit dialogue between the two philosophers, with onespeaking all but ex cathedraand the other present only as if in a sort ofsubmitted and undefended brief, voluntarily or not, all in an unusual col-loquy whose rather polemical and often condescending tone may likelyalso shape and limit the amount of neutral explication allowed to appearin the text.11 Despite the challenges raised by the character of this work,

nonetheless it does offer several fundamental details of Iamblichus con-ception of the gods, which will be seen upon examination to show by vir-tue of the marked similarity of the language utilized in Book I much incommon with the nature and function of the divine henads as laid outmore formally by Proclus in his Elements of Teology, Platonic Teology, andCommentary on the Parmenides. First, as in the Psellan excerpts, Book Ioffers in fact many occurrences of the same term monoeides, in usages thatcan be shown to be relevant and central to this discussion of the divinewhich exhibits similar concerns addressed by later Neoplatonists via themechanism of the henads.

Te first occurrence ofmonoeidescomes in connection with Iamblichusresponse to Porphyrys first reported question which includes a concession

10) Te distinction between divine and non-divine henads is formally made in prop. 64 ofthe Elements of Teology: And so not every unity is a god, but only the self-completehenad, Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 63. (All translations quoted from this work are those ofDodds.)11) Ex cathedra also in the view of rouillard (1972) 173. Te tenor of the implied dia-logue instills in the reader an impression of a private conversation where much may beunsaid but understood between the two participants, or spoken in so highly allusive a fash-ion that some points may not be explicitly and fully made. Its tenor often leaves modernsnot party to the conflict between the former teacher and pupil to wonder about certaindetails of doctrine, unfortunately now probably lost forever to non-cognoscenti of centurieslater, as would also probably be the case for many of their own time as well, especially thosenot initiates of these particular philosophical mysteries, or not members of the innercircles of the two philosophers. For some recent discussion of the relationship betweenPorphyry and Iamblichus as reflected in De Mysteriis, see Clarke (2002) 6-8, Iamblichused. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) xxvi ff, Bussanich (2005) 7-8, and Dillon (2007)30-32.


6/21


that the gods do exist (DMI.3). Iamblichus offers a correction, however,to the effect that the existence of gods is something so basic as to be beyond

deliberation, just as Plotinus denied knowledge of the One because of itsutter simplicity and exaltedness, but he contends nevertheless there is asort of connection to them, which he terms as .12 He continues the argument by adding that wecannot even question the existence of this connection, deny nor affi rmnor categorize it, and such actions are those typically deemed by Neopla-tonists as impossible assertions concerning the One.13 Echoing his use ofmonoeides, Iamblichus then also reiterates the One-like characterization

of this connection by describing it as .Later in I.3 he employs this specific language twice more, repetitivelyenough in all to imply a sort of terminological usage: (I.3.9.7) and . . . (I.3.10.3-7). Te perspective here, due to hisneed to answer Porphyrys specific question, concerns any human knowl-edge of the divine rather than a definition of divinity itself, but the onlymethod for any such knowledge in Iamblichus view is an indirect onebased solely on the similarity of the gods to the One tapped into by adependent connection with the gods in form like the One, accessiblealso by humanity because of its likeness to the One, in the soul. Proclus inEprop. 123 uses notably similar language to declare knowledge of thegods as imparticipable henads to be impossible: All that is divine is itselfineffable and unknowable by any secondary being because of its supra-existential unity, but it may be apprehended and known from the existentswhich participate it.14 He then elaborates in the proposition, using the

12) De MysteriisI.3.8.4-5. All quotations and translations are taken from Iamblichus ed.Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003), who cite Enn. 5.3 for Plotinus denial (p13n23).13) Later atI.19.59-60 Iamblichus concludes that as humans approach the higher entitiesfrom below, from particulars to the more general, the unity of the gods becomes moreapparent, joining together primary and secondary classes of gods, who all possess witheach other a communion of indissoluble connection [ ], using the term symplokeagain as above at I.3.8.4-5.It appears also no lessthan three times in the passage from the Letter to Macedoniuscited above to represent thecombined, unitary action of the concatenation of causes descending from the One. For thefunction ofsymplokein theurgy, see Smith (1974) 85-86.14) EProp. 123, Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 110.


7/21


exact same term for dependency as Iamblichus has in I.3.8.4: Neverthe-less from the beings dependent [] on them [the gods] the

character of their distinctive properties may be inferred . . .15 Beings inboth cases are farther down the chain of causality, but nonetheless specifi-cally dependent in both cases. Te term monoeides by itself is clearlyreminiscent or appropriate as an aspect of the concept of the henad, thoughadmittedly it is used of the gods by Iamblichus in this passage rather todescribe their divine function and not directly nominally; but clearly theterm links them, just as henad does, to the One in a fundamental andcrucial way.

Further on in Book I at I.17 Iamblichus resorts again to the use ofmonoeides in his stipulation of the unity of the gods as his response toPorphyrys question regarding their corporality, how the Sun and Moon,which are agreed to be divine, could be visible if the gods are incorporeal.Iamblichus solves this diffi culty by declaring that the heavenly bodies areenveloped by the gods, which revert to their divine cause, and that sucha body is no impediment; rather it is of its own initiative .16 Hecontinues directly thereafter by stating that this heavenly body is itselfclosely related to that of the gods, being simple, without parts, indivisible,not subject to change, and then describes its energeiaas monoeides. ButIamblichus then emphasizes the unity of the divine nature itself also, againmaking use of the same term: Te gods of heaven are beings homoge-neous in all respects, entirely united [] among themselves, uni-form [] and non-composite.17 Te word appears frequently inthe works of every major later Neoplatonist and in similar contexts enoughto allow it with some assurance to be taken as a Neoplatonic technical

15) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 111.16) I.17.51.7-8, some terms translated by Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 65.17) I.17.52.5-6, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 65. Later in Book V while laying outthe appropriate types of offering to the different classes of gods, Iamblichus perhaps evenmore tellingly utilizes the term monoeidesas the single determinant to contrast the highergods from the lesser which are honored with physical sacrifice of bodies: when, then, weoffer cult to the gods who rule over soul and nature, it is not inappropriate to sacrifice tothem bodies . . . but when we set out to honour those gods that are in and of themselvesuniform [], it is proper to accord them honours that transcend matter,V.19.226.7-8, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 259.


8/21


term, though in some cases it is to be sure employed in its more usual senseas conveyed in the English translation as uniform.18 Of these many

occurrences, however, Proclus in his Platonic Teologywould appear explic-itly to give a definition ofmonoeidesin the course of delineating two triadsfrom the Phaedo, in the section of that work devoted to a series of divineattributes drawn from Plato (Saffrey-Westerink I.27, p.118.20-24); monoe-idesis defined in the explication of the first member of the second triad:T, . . . . Te adjec-

tive is here raised to the level of a nominal concept as a member of thetriad, which is fundamentally divine, at the highest level of being, andexplicitly at the same level as the participable henads, specifically belowProclus One, which is above being. Tis degree in the hierarchy of beingis however the same as the one at which Iamblichus places the gods, as willbe shown next.

Iamblichus makes use of other specific language in Book I which isdirectly echoed in Proclus, particularly in the propositions in the Elementsof Teologydefining the henads. In I.5 Iamblichus appears as it were to stepback and state some general principles about his view of the gods in prepa-ration for further responses to Porphyrys questions, and in these assertionslies perhaps the most persuasive evidence that he is presenting the gods asvery similar to the henads as described by Proclus. Iamblichus begins bystipulating, Well then, there is the Good that is beyond being, and thereis that which exists on the level of being. By being I mean the most senior,the most honoured, and that which is by its own nature incorporeal, the

18) A number of relevant examples of its usage in Syrianus, Proclus, and Damascius may becited; cf. Syrianus, in Met. 113, 23, where is one of the primary universal ele-ments emanating from the archetypal Monad and in Met. 114,21, where monoeides isincluded among the attributes of the highest level of the divine Forms; Proclus, in im.I.136,16, where in the discussion of the lots assigned the gods the providence of the Fatheris described as monoeidesand in im. II.59, 13, where the Paradigm is described as monoe-ides, all-perfect, and eternal; perhaps most significantly Damascius, de Prin. W.-C. II.3,1 inthe defense of Iamblichus view of the first two hypostases, the level of the One after theIneffable and before the noetic triad is referred to simply as and similarly usedat II.6, 8; Damascius in Phaed. Westerink I.312 and I.316, where one of the attributes ofthe real-existents is monoeides.


9/21


particular feature of the gods.19 He then contrasts this highest divine prin-ciple with that of the souls that rule over bodies, and sets them as the two

extreme levels of divine beings, between which also fall those of the demonsand heroes.20 If the first and highest extreme is that of the Good but whichalso has being, explicitly below the Good that is above being, it would haveto be placed very high in Iamblichus scheme of reality, since the Good isnormally synonymous for the One, but not at any of the highest levels ofthe One, since he also claims being for it. Hence this divine principlewould then most likely correspond to the One Existent (). But thislevel is also most likely that of the henads, if they do exist anywhere within

the formal ontological hierarchy of Iamblichus, and hence also the same as as defined by Proclus in the Platonic Teology.21 Iamblichus

19) I.5.15.4-5, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 21.20) See Saffrey (1990) 287 for a table conveniently summarizing the contrasting attributesgiven by Iamblichus to the two levels in these chapters.21) See Dillon (1993) 49-50 for the seminal argument placing the henads at this level inIamblichus scheme; cf. Bussanich (2002) 44-45, for the divine henads as hyperousioiand asunitary: Te highest god is a unity and hence, on each level of being, the gods comprise

unities/henads which are connected to and which assimilate all things to the transcendentOne. Proclus, Inst. Prop. 113: the divine series has the character of unity, if the One isgod. It should be pointed out that Proclus posits the divine henads as being above exis-tence, as in Prop. 123 cited above, where he speaks of their supra-existential unity, andthis variance at first may appear as an obstacle to the thesis that Iamblichus is putting forththe gods as henads, since he certainly places them at the highest level of existence, butdefinitely existent and not supra-existent. In point of fact, Proclus does impart to thehenads rather hyparxis, which Siorvanes translates as root-being, Siorvanes (1996) 170.But this inconsistency between Proclus and Iamblichus is likely related to the same cleardifference of philosophical opinion regarding the nature of the first hypothesis of the Par-

menidesand the place of the gods in that schema, which, if Dillon (1993) is correct, isexplained by the placement and function of the One Existent, and pertinently for thisdiscussion the One Existent is, as just shown, the same level for the gods according to Iam-blichus and for him the highest level of existence. So it is quite possible that Iamblichus andProclus both see the gods as henadic but do not agree on this point concerning their rela-tionship to being, especially not in this instance where Proclus makes such a sharp distinc-tion with his predecessor regarding the nature of the first two hypotheses of the Parmenidesand the nature of the One as a completely isolated and simple hypostasis just below whichfor him appear the henads, and a first hypostasis unlike that complex one apparentlyconceived of by Iamblichus. In fact in general, it could be said that while the two philoso-phers would likely agree on most of the particulars regarding the henads, they still mightdisagree on some few of them, and the evidence could still point overall nonetheless to an


10/21


then in I.5.18, 6-11 offers Porphyry as restatement of this highest divineprinciple the following: o approach the question from another perspec-

tive: on the one hand, unity in all its extension and all its forms, perma-nent stability in oneself, the quality of being the cause of indivisibleessences, an immobility such as may be conceived of as being the cause ofevery motion, a superiority over all beings which precludes having any-thing in common with them and, furthermore, the conception of beingunmixed and transcendent alike in essence, potency and activityall suchcharacteristics should be attributed to the gods.22 Unity in all its exten-sion is here expressed tellingly in the Greek as

. . . . If the henadsappear at the level of the One Existent in Iamblichus scheme, then theyare also the first object of intellection, also at the highest level of the secondhypostasis: in addition Iamblichus posits here a principle of the gods as, made one or united, and explicitly at the same time, the object of high intellection.23 In this same discussion Nous,the leader and king of the realm of being, is then linked closely with thishigh principle, as present continuously and uniformly to the gods incontrast to the grasp available to the Soul, which is , multi-form or of many Forms as opposed to monoeides(I.7.21.14), and fromthe juxtaposition Nous seems as well intended by Iamblichus to be theagent of that intellection. Tis higher principle is next described as atthe summit [], and transcendent, and perfect [] . . . [it]can achieve all things simultaneously, in the present instant, unitarily

Iamblichean provenance, though of course that variance would only complicate mattersand require some special explanation, especially in light of the sparse primary textual

resources of Iamblichus extant for proof in this regard.22) Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 25. See Bussanich (2002) 50-51 for a discussionof similar passages on the transcendence of the gods in Book III.23) For the henads as the objects of Nous, see Dillon (1993) 50. Tere may be more prooffor this concept at I.15.46.1-2 where Iamblichus states that the gods are absolutely supe-rior to Nous; Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 57n81 ad loc suggest they may in facthere be regarded as henads. But since they are at the same level as the One Existent theyalso for Iamblichus would be the highest object of intellection, again superior to Nousitself. For the use of in reference to the One Existent cf. Dillon (2007b) 58. Laterin chapter 15 further supporting evidence for the placement of the gods at this level maybe found in his denial of Porphyrys contention that the gods are noeric; for more discus-sion of this passage, see note 39 below.


11/21


[] . . . [it], in a single swift moment, comprehends the supremeends of all activities and essences . . . the gods have present to them through-

out, concurrently with their essence, the measure [] of the universeor the cause of this . . .24

Te preceding encompasses in one passage several concepts central tothe henads as defined by Proclus. In his main discussion of the henads inhis Commentary on the Parmenides, 1066, 22ff, several times he refers tothem as (1043.26, 1047.20, 1049.37, 1050.14-15, 1066.22),and in the Platonic TeologyIII 4, p. 14.14, in the chapters dedicated tothem in that work, he refers to the henad also as an . 25 Proclus in

Eprop. 114, the second devoted to the definition of the henads, statesthat every god is a; Iamblichus appears to impart a similarmeaning to here, emphasizing the independence of the higherdivine principle from subsidiary beings, in which dwells the lowest prin-ciple, contrasted repeatedly to the highest in this passage, and according toDodds that same sense is the main one conveyed in by Proclus,as opposed to the of the higher principles which penetrate tothe lower levels of being.26 Iamblichus further categorizes the higher divine

24) I.7.21.1-I.7.22.10, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 27-29.25) Saffrey-Westerink (1978) 111-112n3 in their commentary to the cited passage in thePlatonic Teologypoint out the relatively greater frequency of the term in Proclusas compared to the other two designations he gives the henads in that same section, and . Te latter pair is definitely Chaldaean in origin, and it may be that is as well, though it is used in the extant fragments the Oracles only in reference to deitiesrather low in the hierarchy of that system, the Iynges, according to Lewy (1978) 156. Teterm appears in frs.76, 82, and 84; see the notes ad loc, Majercik (1989) 172-73. Proclusin the Commentaryon theParmenidesat 1049.37 pairs with , both taken to

be Chaldaean (Proclus transl. Morrow and Dillon [1987] 408n16). Marius Victorinuspaired the two terms also,Ad Arium, I, 62, 13-14 H.-H., summitates . . . et florem, desPlaces (1996) 86n3, and Hadot is of the same opinion in his note to a previous occurrencein the text of summitates at 61, 23, Marius Victorinus ed. Henry transl. Hadot (1960)884. Julian in his Hymn to Helios also makes use of them (134A), as pointed out by desPlaces ibid. He employs the pair to describe the noeric rays of the sun in a passage where infact he appears to be citing doctrine of the Phoenicians (134A), which is to say ratherChaldaeans, but likely he is reproducing here as in most of the hymn some teaching ofIamblichus. What indeed did Iamblichus himself make of these verses in his Commentaryon the Chaldaean Oraclesand perhaps even the term itself or perhaps in his treatiseOn the Gods?26) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 260-261, note to prop. 114, referring also to prop. 64, note


12/21


principle as in a single swift moment, comprehend[ing] the supreme endsof all activities and essences; such an ability is also attributed to the henads

by Proclus in props. 121 and 124: every god has an undivided knowledgeof things divided and a timeless knowledge of things temporal; he knowsthe contingent without contingency, the mutable immutably, and in gen-eral all things in a higher mode than belongs to their station.27 Te key tothe nature of this knowledge is that it is, also from prop. 124, and, from prop. 123, that the henad itself is unknowableto lower beings, as Iamblichus also describes the gods to be in response toPorphyrys first question.

Te last common concept expressed by Iamblichus in this characteriza-tion of the higher divine principle is that the gods have concurrent withtheir essence the measure of the universe: prop. 117 states that Every godis a measure [] of things existent. At I.7.22.7 Iamblichus claimsthat these same superior classes of being possess essential order and essen-tial beauty, or if one wishes to express it so, it is the causal principle of thesethat coexists with them and in I.7.21.6 the higher divine principle dis-cussed above is said to pre-exist () all things. Tis sort of pre-existence () is covered by Proclus in general in prop. 65 andmore specifically in relation to the henads in prop. 118.28 Te latter propo-sition holds that every attribute of the gods pre-subsists []in them in a manner consistent with their distinctive character as gods.29In this single passage Iamblichus has included in his definition of thishigher divine principle several key aspects fundamental also to the defini-tion of henads as proposed later by Proclus in the Elements of Teologyandhas expressed them using the exact same or quite similar choice of words.

More similarities are to be found in Book I, dealing with the notion

of imparting the Good to lesser beings, participation by lesser beings inthe gods, and the concept ofellampsis. Te substance of every god is a

on pp. 234-35. He points out there that is originally an Aristotelian and Stoicterm. It is also interestingly enough used of god by Alcinous (10.3) and of the Monad byNicomachus ap. Teol. Ar. 3.18 De Falco, Alcinous transl. Dillon (1995) 104; cf. Alcinoused. Whittaker (1990) 99n62 and Festugire (1990) 97n3 for more on the history of the term.27) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 111, prop. 124. See OMeara (2003) 126, on how principleof intelligible omnipresence was developed by Plotinus in Enn. VI.4-5.28) Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 29n47 for reference to prop. 65.29) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 105.


13/21


supra-existential excellence [], Proclus states in prop. 119, andin 122, For being pure excellences, by their very being they furnish to all

things good without stint; they make no calculated apportionment, butthe participants receive according to their own desserts what the godsbestow according to their own substance.30 In two passages Iamblichuscharacterizes in like terms the beneficent actions of the gods; they [thegods as superior entities] give from themselves to bodies everything in theway of goodness that bodies can receive . . . (I.8.24.4-5) and For in factall [the gods] alike are good and causes of good, and looking towards onesingle good the direct themselves unitarily [] to the Fine and

Good alone. (I.18.53.2).31

One of the first propositions of the group con-cerned with the henads, 116, establishes that every god is participable,except the One.32 Iamblichus alludes briefly to the notion of participation() by lesser entities in the gods at I.8.29.1-2 and discusses it atgreater length at I.18.54.5-I.18.56.2, citing specific examples of the influ-ences of Kronos and Ares.

Te final major similarity can be found in I.9 as Iamblichus responds towhat he views as Porphyrys misconception that the gods are localized andact as separate agents of power, some in the air, some in the water, some ofearth, and some subterranean.33 Te correct view is that the divine powermanifested in each god is anything but divided in any way, that they holda which is , , and and thattheir implicit could not be preserved if they wereas separate as Porphyry deems them to be (I.9.29.13-I.9.30.6). Te solu-tion to this issue is offered not metaphorically, but literally as the ellampsisor illumination of the gods: regardless of spatial locality anywhere in theworld, the fact is that divinity illuminates everything from without, even

as the sun lights everything from without with its rays. Even as the sun-light, then, envelops what it illuminates, so also does the power of the gods

30) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 105 and 109.31) Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 31 and 67.32) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 103. Cf. Prop. 128 and 129.33) Iamblichus reinterprets Porphyrys original query about theurgists invoking terrestrialand subterranean gods instead to those of the air and water, but the full list of divine cate-gories given above for Porphyry comes from his Philosophy from the Oraclesfr. 314-315Smith; for a recent discussion of that work and Porphyrys classification of the gods, seeEdwards (2006) 114-115.


14/21


embrace from outside that which participates in it . . . the light of the godsilluminates its subject transcendently []

(I.9.30.13-I.9.31.4). Ellampsisfurthermore is the means for divine powerto draw up the soul of the theurge (rather than Porphyrys notion of anydrawing down of the gods by magical means), as Iamblichus states atI.12.13.15 and II.2.69.8, and as such is central to the process of theurgy,and in III.11-13 he shows howellampsisis essential also to the workings ofdivination.34

On the other end of the spectrum, in Book VIII ofDe Mysteriisthe OneExistent is characterized as the preexistent source of being, god of gods:

(VIII.2.262.3), and so may providethe origin in the vertical hierarchy for ellampsis penetrating downwardthroughout the lower levels of being.35Eprops. 70 and 71 are devotedto the principle ofellampsisand props. 125, 137, and 138 discuss its rele-vance to the divine henads. Te former propositions state, All those more

34) On how ellampsisalso reaches all the way into matter and allows the effi cacy of thetheurgic sunthemata, see Shaw (1995) 48-49. On the henads and ellampsisin Proclus, see

also Bechtle (2006) 146-147. Te concept appears also in Sallustius XIV.26-28, who likelyis drawing somehow on Iamblichus; cf. Sallustius ed. Nock (1996) xcviii, where Nockdescribes in de Mysteriisas almost a technical term.35) Bechtle regards the One Existent as Monad in Book VIII as tantamount to a divinehenad already being employed by Iamblichus, Bechtle (2006) 158. Light used at least met-aphorically in this manner hardly originates with Iamblichus and may be found in severalpassages in Plotinus, such as Enn. IV.5.6-7; cf. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 39n57,and Platos metaphor of the Sun in the Republicprobably serves as the fount for all suchPlatonic imagery. For a comparison of the usage of such light imagery by Plotinus versus byIamblichus and an important detailed discussion of the incorporeal nature of light starting

in Iamblichus and continued in later Neoplatonists, see Finamore (1993) 56-57. He citesJulians Hymn to Helios(134a5-b7) as well on incorporeal light, the same passage whereJulian typifies the rays of the Helios as a sort of or in a likely Chaldaeanusage. Cremer in fact takes ellampsisin de Mysteriisthroughout to be in origin Chaldaean,Cremer (1969) 104-105. Blumenthal on the other hand suggests the term may arise fromthe Gnostic Sethian cosmogony as related by Hippolytus, Refutatio V.19.4 and X.11.3,though the use there seems metaphorical, Blumenthal (1971) 15n19. (Tanks to GiannisStamatellos for pointing out this reference to me.) Te important distinction to be made isthat Iamblichus imparts to ellampsis a specific function fundamental to the nature oftheurgy and the dispersion of gifts of the gods downward to all beings as well as a unifica-tory method among themselves, and with repeated allusions to the concept in de Mysteriishe in effect raises it to the level of a technical term within Neoplatonism.


15/21


universal characters which inhere in the originative principles both irradi-ate [] their participants before the specific characters . . . and all

those characters which in the originative causes have higher and moreuniversal rank become in their resultant beings, through the irradiations[] which proceed from them, a kind of substratum for the giftsof the more specific principles . . .36

As for the henads, Proclus in prop. 137 observes how the henad coop-erates with the One in producing the real-existents which participate it . . .at the same time the dependent existents are severally produced by thehenads which irradiate [] them (prop. 125). o the One they

owe simply their existence; their community of nature with a particularhenad is due to the activity of that henad.37 As shown then by Iamblichusthe gods and by Proclus the divine henads utilize their likeness to the One,their being monoeides, in order to impart being down the chain of the

36) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 67-69.37) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 121-123. Te downward action ofellampsisin regards to thehenads is referred to directly also in Prop. 136 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 120 line 28 andProp. 138 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 122 line 15. Cf. Platonic TeologySaffrey-Westerink

I.18, p. 85.6-20, for a passage on the divine attributes drawn from the Republicconcerningthe propagation of the Good, which cites ellampsis( I.18, p. 85.9) as a part of the explica-tion, and includes much of the language under discussion here, such as two further relevantusages ofmonoeides. Ellampsismay also operate upon the soul; Olympiodorus points out inhis Commentaryon thePhaedo how it allows the soul to join with the One: for just as oureye, when illuminated by the sunlight, is at first different from the source of the light, as itsrecipient, but is afterwards somehow united with it and joined to it, and becomes as it wereone with it and sun-like, so our soul is at first illuminated [] by intelligenceand its actions are directed by the contemplative virtues, but afterwards it becomes in a wayidentical with the source of the illumination [] and acts in union with the One

[] by the exemplary virtues. Te object of philosophy is to make us intel-ligence, that of theurgy to unite us with the intelligible principles and conform our activityto the ideal examples (Westerink 46, 14-20, his translation). In the corresponding sectionof the Commentary on the Phaedo of Damascius, Westerink 143, 1-5, Damascius similarlydescribes the exemplary, or paradigmatic, vis--vis intelligence (Nous) and in that textexplicitly attributes some refinement of the definition of the paradigmatic virtues to Iam-blichus in his lost treatise, On Virtues. For more on the development of the Platonic virtuesby Iamblichus, see Westerinks note ad loc to the text in Damascius, and also Saffrey (1971)237-238. Olympiodorus language here is suggestive and quite reminiscent, particularly inthe use of the analogy to the sun, of the passage from DMI.9 discussed above; has he per-haps actually echoed or even reproduced in his CommentaryIamblichus own text from thelost On Virtues?


16/21


hierarchy all the way to the lowest levels, through this process termed byboth ellampsis. In a passage in De Principiisof great importance to the

argument for Iamblichus as the originator of the henads, under the head-ing from Westerink-Combs of Les pluralits externes: illuminations ousubsistences?, the second response to the first aporia concerning the Pro-cession of the One (pp. 62-65), Damascius discusses the process ofellamp-sis in some detail, and specifically contrasts Iamblichus concept of thegods in this regard with that of the majority of his predecessors. Tosebefore him had seen the gods as owing their existence merely to an ellamp-sisfrom the One, so that they had not viewed them rather, in the implied

opinion of Iamblichus, as a . . . (De Prin. III 64,12-13). Te distinction then isbetween the gods as only . . . (III 64,11) versus self-complete (autoteles, again) levels above being; since thisdenial comprises the half of the contrast between the earlier philosophersand what Iamblichus believed, it is very diffi cult to construe Damasciushere as other than imputing to Iamblichus a belief in the divine henads,just as described by Proclus in the Elements of Teologyand elsewhere andimplied in Book I of his own de Mysteriis.38

Many then of the fundamental characteristics of the divine henads asdefined by Proclus are already evinced of the gods by Iamblichus in Book Iofde Mysteriis. First, he places them at the appropriate level in the hierar-chy of being at the One Existent, which is itself in Book VIII termed thesource of ellampsis, and which is most likely that of the divine henads.Both Iamblichus and Proclus declare the gods and divine henads to bedirectly unknowable, because of their level of unity, repeatedly referred toby Iamblichus, often via the same term as used in the Psellan excerpts, as

monoeides, a term along with related forms such as henoeideswhich appearsfrequently also in Proclus in similar contexts. Good is imparted to lowerbeings by the gods and the divine henads, and both are described as sum-mits, perfect or self-contained, and measures in regard to those

38) Saffrey and Westerink, Proclus ed. Saffrey-Westerink (1978) xxxix, are of the opinionthat Damascius here is merely using his own terminology to describe Iamblichus doctrine;such a reading is certainly possible, but again the entities themselves by their stated attri-butes fit the functional bill as henads. Hadot briefly recognized the importance of thispassage for Iamblichean authorship in Hadot (1961) 432, and it probably deserves moreconsideration in the debate over the origin of the henads than it has received.


17/21


lower beings which are seen in both cases as participating in the highergods or henads. Finally, both philosophers cite the process of ellampsisas

crucial to the workings of the gods and the divine henads in their roles inthe chain of being.39

If however for the sake of argument it is granted that Iamblichus was theoriginator of the doctrine of the henads, and if it is conceded that he refersfrequently to the gods in Book I in terms of that doctrine, it is neverthelessquite reasonable then to ask at this point, why would he not simply use theterm itself explicitly in the course of his discussion?40 While, given thehypothetical nature of the consideration of Iamblichus role in the origin

of the henads, we may not be in a position to answer this question with

39) wo other passages are of relevance to the argument that Iamblichus offers a henadicconception of the gods. In chapter 15 he disputes Porphyrys contention that the gods arepure intellect by distinguishing them as higher in his scheme of being, to be associated inthe realm of Nous rather with the highest level within it, the intelligible, which in Iambli-chus philosophy also serves as the lowest element of the hypostasis of the One, again thelevel of the One Existent, and furthermore these gods may identified with what Iambli-chus elsewhere calls the monads of the forms (cf. Comm. Phileb. Frg. 4). Since the highest

element in any given hypostasis is theoretically identical with the lowest element in the oneabove it, these entities may also be regarded as henads, the lowest element in the realm ofthe One, as they were later for Syrianus and the Athenian School, Clarke, Dillon, andHershbell (2003) 57n81. Secondly, in chapter 19 he responds to Porphyrys query what isit that attaches those entities possessing a body in the heavens to the incorporeal gods byrepeatedly stressing the unity of the gods and reiterating that they have their origin at thatlevel of the intelligible. His term of choice to emphasize this point in the passage, used noless than six times from I.19.59.1 to I.19.61.3, is henosis.40) wo other likely reasons for the absence of the term from De Mysteriisagain have to dowith the nature of the work. It must be remembered that in it Iamblichus has taken on and

for the most part maintained the persona of Abamon the Egyptian priest, and so that stancealone might make it inappropriate to employ so technical a Neoplatonic term. Te secondreason may be even simpler: that Iamblichus would be aware that Porphyry would notsubscribe to such a theory as that of the henads, so why bother to adduce it directly? Boththese points I owe to John Dillon, to whom I am most thankful also for reading this essayand suggesting improvements to it. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee forseveral comments which helped, it is hoped, sharpen the arguments presented, and in addi-tion, to several kind and helpful correspondents who have in general given thoughtfulencouragement over the last few years, I would express my thanks: Sara Ahbel-Rappe,Cosmin Andron, Nico Bader, Michael Chase, Stephen Clark, Beniamino di Dario, Chris-toph Helmig, Marilynn Lawrence, Melanie Mineo, Edward Moore, Jan Opsomer, GregoryShaw, Anne Sheppard, and Harold arrant.


18/21


assurance, perhaps at least a proposal might be made that would address it.As has been pointed out, one of the driving forces behind De Mysteriisis

the clear difference of opinion about the basic nature of divinity betweenPorphyry and Iamblichus, and that variance includes also, significantly forthe history of the development of later Neoplatonism, the fact that Iambli-chus apparently was much more concerned to create an accounting for thegods strictly consonant with that philosophical system. o integrate themfully rather than merely to synthesize them in any casual way representsmore accurately his desire, though it does appear that both these philoso-phers were pious and sincere in their individual beliefs, whatever degree of

devotion Porphyrys mentor Plotinus may have personally held. Is it con-ceivable then that this debate concerning the philosophical status of thegods in the Neoplatonic universe was in fact a main impetus for Iambli-chus to develop his henadic view of divinity, and what is presented in DeMysteriis, with its limited skoposand polemical cast, represents rather a firststep in that process which may have produced at some later point the moreformal definition of the henads in one of his works now no longer extant,perhaps in On the Gods?41

Is it possible that Iamblichus is functionally describing divine henads inDe Mysteriisand the evidence of the text does seem to support that notionat the very least with some assurance as detailed in this present analysisbut he simply had not yet devised and applied the term henad itself? Asadmittedly extrapolative as such a hypothesis is, nevertheless it is requiredof any fundamental explanation of the historical development of Neopla-tonism to account for what a modern critic with justification might terman extraordinary obsession with incorporating the Hellenic gods into the

41) One intriguing question which unfortunately will find no certain answer given the cur-rent state of Iamblichus textual remains is exactly how much does Book I ofDe Mysteriiscorrespond to that lost work, as well as what is the chronological relationship between thetwo. Iamblichus does in fact refer later in Book VIII to a treatise On the Gods(VIII.8.271.10),but in the persona of course of Abamon, so that it would appear prohibitively out of char-acter for this cited work to be literally his own and not rather some lost Hermetic writing;so is the opinion of Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 325n450, which is accepted forthis analysis (Proclus direct reference to On the Godsfound in Platonic TeologySaffrey-Westerink I.11, p. 52.3ff is of no help in determining this issue). Could Book I be a sort ofpreliminary for On the Godswhich in the scenario as argued here is the later work? Orcontra, if actually written later, does Book I consist largely rather of a summary or relevantexcerpts of an already published and likely much more extensive On the Gods?


19/21


Neoplatonic system, and in the most intimate and integral fashion, notmerely as ornament or afterthought. Tis pervasive concern had to be ini-

tiated by someone in the line of later Platonists, since it clearly is not amatter of any great interest to Plotinus and yet is obvious to even the mostcasual of observers of almost any major work of Proclus to be central to hisconception of Platonic thought. Tat this development must precede hisfull blown theology in the history of Neoplatonism is well known, but theexact point at which the henads were introduced has been diffi cult toascertain. Tis analysis of Iamblichus presentation of a henadic view of thegods in Book I ofDe Mysteriiswill not yield for once and for all a specific

date nor an author for the origination of that concept, but perhaps it willat least provoke further discussion by gathering and exposing the potentialterminological and other evidence until now somewhat concealed in theantagonistic rhetoric of Iamblichus treatise, which itself has mostly beenviewed as a defense of theurgy rather than any disquisition on the natureof the gods, whether they ultimately claim an assured place in his ownPlatonic theology as divine henads or not.42

42) Tough certainly of no primary evidential value for determining the status of the henadsin Iamblichus, the following passage of Marsilio Ficino from the first section of his para-phrasing Latin version ofDe Mysteriis, titled De Cognitione Divinorum, based on severalof the chapters of Book I discussed above, is of note for his choice of terms, in particularunitas: Essentialis cognitio divinorum, quae anima est perpetua ac re vera non est cog-nitio haec, qua deo fruimur. In cognitione enim est alteritas, sed contactus quidam essen-tialis et simplex. Non enim possumus attingere unitatem ipsam, nisi unitissimo quodam etunitate mentis, quae super animae mentisque proprietatem extat. Unitas ipsa deorum unit

sibi animas ab aeterno per unitates earum secundum contiguitatem tam propriam et effi ca-cem, ut esse continuitas videatur. Ficino in all likelihood was familiar with the Latin trans-lation of Proclus Commentaryon theParmenidesby William of Moerbeke (cf. Allen [1989]14n4), and consistently in the passages in Book VI of that work dedicated to the discussionof the henads, William translates the Greek henas with unitas and at 1043 employsunitissimis for henikotatois, used above also by Ficino in his epitome. In his translationof Proclus Elements of TeologyWilliam again translates henas with unitas in the rele-vant propositions. In his own Platonic Teology, especially in Book II, Ficino will applyunitas as a chief attribute to his highest, single God, taking great pains as a Christian torender that singularity most strictly, but it appears that here in his interpretation of De

Mysteriishe is expressing, already in the 15th century, what might be claimed as a henadicview of the gods in Iamblichus.


20/21


Bibliography

Oracles Chaldaques, edited and translated by douard des Places, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996.Alcinous. Te Handbook of Platonism, ranslated with and Introduction and Commentary byJohn Dillon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, ed. John Whittaker, Paris: Les Belles Lettres,1990.

Allen, Michael J.B. Icastes: Marsilio Ficinos Interpretation of Platos Sophist, Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press, 1989.

Bechtle, Gerald. Gttliche Henaden und Platonischer Parmenides in Iamblichus, Aspekteseiner Philosophie und Wissenschaftskonzeption: Studien zum spteren Platonismus, SanktAugustin: Academia Verlag, 2006: 135-159.

Blumenthal, H.J. Plotinus Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul, Te Hague:Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.Bussanich, John. Philosophy, Teology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus,

in Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sptantiken Denkens, ed. . Kobusch &M. Erler, Mnchen: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2002: 39-61.

. New Editions of Iamblichus: A Review Essay, Ancient Philosophy25.2 (2005),478-494.

Clarke, Emma. Iamblichus De Mysteriis: a Manifesto of the Miraculous, Aldershot: Ashgate,2002.

Damascius. rait des premiers principesvol. III, edited and translated by L.G. Westerink,

J. Combs, and A.-Ph. Segonds (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les BellesLettres, 1991.

Dillon, John. Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of the Henads, Phronesis17(1972), 102-106.

. Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Edited withtranslation and commentaryby John M. Dillon, Leiden: Brill, 1973.

. Iamblichus of ChalcisANRWII.36.2 (1987), 862-909.. Iamblichus and Henads Again in Te Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of

Gods, edited by H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark, London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993:48-54.

. Iamblichus Defence of Teurgy: Some Reflections, Te International Journal ofthe Platonic radition 1 (2007), 30-41.

. What Price the Father of the Noetic riad? Some Toughts on Porphyrys Doctrineof the First Principle in Studies in Porphyryed. G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard, Lon-don: Bulletin of the Institute for Classical StudiesSupplement, 2007: 51-59.

Edwards, Mark. Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus, London: Duckworth, 2006.Festugire, A.J. La revelation dHerms rismgistevol. IV, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990.Finamore, John F. Iamblichus on Light and the ransparent in Te Divine Iamblichus:

Philosopher and Man of Gods, edited by H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark, London:Bristol Classical Press, 1993: 55-64.

Gerson, Lloyd P. From Platos Good to Platonic God, Te International Journal of thePlatonic radition 2 (2008), 93-112.


21/21


Hadot, Pierre. Fragments dun commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parmnide, Revue destudes grecques74 (1961), 410-438.

Iamblichus. On the Mysteries, translated by Emma C. Clarke, John Dillon, and JacksonP. Hershbell, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.. Les mystres dgypte[par]Jamblique, edited and translated by douard des Places,

Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966.. Giamblico. I misteri egiziani, translated by A.R. Sodano, Milan: Rusconi, 1984.Julian. Te Works of the Emperor Julian; Orations and Letters, translated by W.C. Wright,

vol. I Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.Lewy, Hans. Chaldaean Oracles and Teurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the later

Roman Empire, new edition by M. ardieu, Paris: tudes augustiniennes, 1978.Majercik, Ruth. Te Chaldaean Oracles ext, ranslation, and Commentary, Leiden: Brill,

1989.Marius Victorinus. raits thologiques sur la rinit, SC68-69, edited by Paul Henry, intro-duction, translation and notes by Pierre Hadot, Paris: Cerf, 1960.

OMeara, Dominic J. Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 2003.

. Pythagoras Revived. Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Claren-don Press, 1989.

Plotinus. rait 9, edited and translated by Pierre Hadot, Paris: Cerf, 1994.Proclus. Proclus Commentary on the Platos Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and

John M. Dillon, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

. Te Elements of Teology, edited and translated by E.R. Dodds, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1963.

. Tologie platoniciennevol. I, edited and translated by H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Wester-ink (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968.

. Tologie platonicienne vol. III, edited and translated by H.D. Saffrey and L.G.Westerink (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978.

Saffrey, H.D. Abamon, pseudonyme de Jamblique, in Philomathes. Studies and essays inthe Humanities in memory of Philip Merlan, edited by Robert B. Palmer and RobertHamerton-Kelly, Te Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971, 227-239.

. Plan des livres I et II du De mysteriis de Jamblique in Recherches sur le Nopla-

tonisme aprs Plotin, Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1990: 109-126.Sallustius. Concerning the Gods and the Universe, edited by Arthur Darby Nock, reprint

Chicago: Ares, 1996.Shaw, Gregory. Teurgy and the Soul Te Neoplatonism of Iamblichus,University Park: Penn

State University Press, 1995.Siorvanes, Lucas. Proclus Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science, New Haven and London:

Yale University Press, 1996.Smith, Andrew. Porphyrys Place in the Neoplatonic radition, Te Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,

1974.Steel, Carlos G. Iamblichus and the Teological Interpretation of the Parmenides, Syllecta

Classica8 (1997), 15-30.rouillard, Jean. LUn et lme selon Proclos, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972.

The Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

Documents