In His from Platonism to Neoplatonism, First Published in 1954

CHAPTER FIVE

In his From Platonism to Neoplatonism, first published in 1954, Merlan singled out a passage of Iamblichus' De Communi Mathe matica Scientia as a fragment of Speusippus, and in the second edition of this work he defended his interpretation against the objections raised by some scholars.407 He argues that within chapter IV of Iamblichus' work the section dealing with the prin ciples of mathematical numbers and magnitudes (De Communi Mathematica Scientia IV, pp. 15, 6-18, 12; hereafter= DCMS IV) is so essentially at variance with Iamblichus' doctrine and style that it cannot be his work at all. Merlan believes that only the introduction to the passage in question (i.e. pp. 14, 18-15, 5) and what he considers to be its concluding summary (p. 18, 13-23) are by Iamblichus, that the rest of chapter IV comes directly or indirectly from Speusippus, and that, even if the latter is the case, there is no essential misrepresentation of Speusippus' thought. 408 The reasons for the ascription to Speusippus are two: (a) DCMS IV is so similar to what Aristotle describes as typical of Speusippus that the passage must refer to the latter's doctrine; (b) DCMS IV is sufficiently different from Aristotle's testimony to justify the inference that it does not come from him. Merlan's theory about the ultimately Speusippean origin of DCMS IV has been accepted by many critics who, like him, make use of this text in their reconstructions of Speusippus' doctrine. 409 To be sure, they

407 My references to Merlan are always to From Platonism•. Apart from one change in wording, pp. 98-128 are essentially identical to the first edition, whereas in an appendix, pp. 128-qo, he has tried to answer the criticisms of other scholars. Part of Merlan's discussion in this chapter of his book has to do with his interpretation of Plotinus, a subject which is unrelated to the points at issue here, and which I have therefore ignored. Against his notion that F 48 confirms his interpretation of Speusippus' One as "above being" cf. comm. ad Zoe. tos Cf. Merlan, From Platonism•, esp. pp. I00-102, 120, 129-132. 401 Among the numerous scholars who follow Merlan one may mention Kohnke, Gnomon 27 (1955), pp. 16o-161 (who thinks that Iamblichus got DCMS IV from Posidonius); Dorrie, Philos. Rund. 3 (1955), pp. 15-16 = Platonica Minora, pp. 276 f.; Kramer, Urspyung, esp. pp. 208-214 (and in several other places of this work as well as in other publications of his); SPEUSIPPUS, ARISTOTLE, AND IAMBLICHUS sometimes disagree with him and also with one another concerning the interpretation of DCMS IV itself, the meaning of Speusippus' doctrine as reconstructed from this passage, the relation of it to the Aristotelian evidence, and other kindred matters; but they nevertheless accept Merlan's contention that DCMS IV is primary evidence for the reconstruction of Speusippus' philosophy. Some critics have expressed doubts concerning the attribution of DCMS IV to Speusippus.410 Two in particular, W. G. Rabinowitz and M. Isnardi Parente, have, from different points of view, rejected Merlan's theory and at the same time advanced detailed interpretations of the Iamblichean text and its relation to Speu sippus' thought.411 Rabinowitz, while agreeing with Merlan that DCMS IV exhibits some similarities to Speusippus' doctrine as reported by Aristotle, nevertheless contends that this passage is in several places essentially at variance with the Aristotelian testimony. He argues that the author of DCMS IV has in fact modified Speusippus' thought in order to avoid Aristotle's criti cisms of Speusippus in Metaphysics roSs A 32 - B 4 and B 12-34 ( = F 40 + F sr) and that the result of this modification is a doc trine which cannot be that of Speusippus. Isnardi Parente, for her part, maintains that in DCMS IV Speusippus' doctrine has been modified in the light of Neopythagorean tenets, that Iamblichus' source has failed to understand some essential Speusippean notions, and that even the terminology employed betrays this fact. In short, according to these two scholars DCMS IV cannot be used as a source for the reconstruction of Speusippus' thought.

Happ, Hyle, esp. pp. 208-241 and passim; Schofield, MH 28 (1971), p. 14; H. A. S. Tarrant, Phronesis 19 (1974), pp. 130-145; Kullmann, Wissenschaft und Methode, pp. 147 with nn. 37-38 and 150 with nn. 47-48; Guthrie, History, V, pp. 460 with nn. 3-5 and 462 with nn. 1-2. Some of these publica tions will be referred to in connection with the interpretation of individual passages. 410 E.g. Armstrong, Mind 64 (1955), pp. 273-274; Moreau, Rev. Beige de Philo!. et d'Hist. 34 (1956), pp. 1164-II67; Loenen, Mnemosyne N.S. IV, 10 (1957), pp. 8o-82. 411 Rabinowitz, Aristotle's Protrepticus, I, pp. 85-92 and in an unpublished mimeographed paper "Numbers and Magnitudes: An Iamblichean Deriva tion Theory and Its Relation to Speusippean and Aristotelian Doctrine," delivered to the Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy meeting in Washing ton, D.C. on December 29, 1957· (In a letter to Merlan [cf. From Platonism•, p. 129, second note] Rabinowitz informed him that he had independently discovered the Speusippean character of DCMS IV.) Isnardi Parente, "Proodos in Speusippo ?"Athenaeum, N.S. 53 (1975), pp. 88-no ( = Proodos).