sign in sign up
<<
Home , Commentaries on Plato, Moderatus of Gades

CHAPTER TWO

PHILOSOPHY

For the purpose of the present work, I shall confine myself mainly to such of Iamblichus' philosophical views as are illustrated by the fragments of his Platonic Commentaries. A proper account of his philosophy as a whole must await a close analysis of ' Platonic Theology, ' Dubitationes et Solutiones, and Proclus' Commentary on the , from which last that element which is Iamblichean will have to be carefully isolated on the basis of whatever can be learned from all other sources.1 lamblichus' system of philosophy is essentially an elaboration of 's , though strongly influenced by Neo­ pythagorean writings and the Chaldaean Oracles. Besides his teacher Anatolius, the writings of his fellow-countryman Nico­ machus of Gerasa (c. 120-196 2 A.D.) influenced him greatly. We find him making much use of the writings of '', for in­ stance, in his Commentary on the Categories and in the Protrepticus, and of other Neopythagorean apocrypha. He believed, with Moderatus of Gades, that was essentially a Pythagorean, and he pays great respect to for the same reason. Following on the new direction given to philosophy by Plotinus a sequence of scholastic elaborations of doctrine arose by a sort of natural process. Plotinus' successors, Amelius, , Iamblichus and Theodorus, are normally dismissed as second-rate and unoriginal. In comparison with Plotinus, certainly they were, but to condemn them absolutely for this is to condemn in the same breath the vast majority of philosophers of all eras and schools who have carried on and elaborated the thought of one

1 In the Parmenides-Commentary Proclus has gone much further than in the -Commentary towards the complete masking of his sources, which sophistic stylistics seemed to favour. Iamblichus' name is not once mentioned, and yet his influence seems paramount. Fortunately, in the Timaeus Commentary, sources are given adequate acknowledgement (though the sophistic taboo against verbatim quoting is observed), which makes that commentary the best preserved of all. 8 See my note 'A Date for the Death of Nicomachus of Gerasa'. CR n.s. XVI 1969. PHILOSOPHY 27

great master or another, ironing out inconsistencies in his thought and bringing out in a salutary way various tendencies latent therein. All the four philosophers mentioned above were great and noble men; I am only required to defend one of them. However, it will be necessary in the course of my notes on the Commentaries to touch repeatedly on the opinions of the other three, and in par­ ticular on those of Porphyry, so that something may usefully be said now of their habits and beliefs. The remarkable method of philosophising favoured by Plotinus was not, so far as we can see, followed by his pupils, at least in their written works. They returned to the business of exegesis, commentaries on Plato and , and essays on such ancient subjects as The Soul, Freewill and Necessity and The Gods, although fortified in their work by the insights gained from contact with the Master. As compared with , the chief deve­ lopments were the doctrine of the Transcendent One, distinct from and superior to , the doctrine of the Hypostases, and the doctrine of Emanation. We say this on the basis of our knowledge, which is incomplete, but pending evidence to the contrary, we may accept it.1 As regards the interpretation of Plato, a far greater freedom of symbolic interpretation is immediately apparent, together with a concp:·11to make Plato agree, not just with Aristotle or , but with Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus and the Chal­ daean Oracles. It becomes absolutely necessary that Plato be consistent both with all these inspired authorities, and also with himself. This last had always been a necessity for Platonists; but it becomes a much more strenuous problem now, when the whole of each dialogue becomes infused with higher significance, and especially when, on the authority of Iamblichus, a single, consistent rrxo1t6t;is established for each dialogue, to which even the introductory and apparently casual portions must conform.

1 The concept of the Supreme God in , Didaskalikos eh. X, and certain doctrines of Philo, Plutarch (e.g. the Myth of the De Genia Socr.) and Celsus (ap. , Contra Celsum VII 45), as well as a doctrine of emanation which I discern in Nicomachus of Gerasa, must make us aware of the limita­ tions of our knowledge. There are large gaps in our knowledge of the doctrine of Numenius; and the Chaldaean Oracles and the Hermetic Corpus were, after all, based on contemporary Platonism of some variety, as Lewy, Chald. Or. Ch. VI, and Festugiere Rev. d. H.T. have argued. On these matters see also Dodds, 'The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic One.' CQ 22, 1928, pp. 129-142.