dennis clark - the gods as henads in iamblichus
DESCRIPTION
Dennis Clark - The Gods as Henads in IamblichusTRANSCRIPT
-
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
cula
ted
appo
rtio
nmen
t, bu
t th
e pa
rtic
ipan
ts re
ceiv
e ac
cord
ing
to t
heir
own
dess
erts
wha
t th
e go
ds
besto
w a
ccor
ding
to
thei
r ow
n su
bsta
nce.
30 I
n tw
o pa
ssag
es I
ambl
ichu
s ch
arac
teriz
es in
like
ter
ms
the
bene
cen
t ac
tions
of t
he g
ods;
the
y [th
e go
ds a
s sup
erio
r ent
ities
] giv
e fro
m th
emse
lves
to b
odie
s eve
ryth
ing
in th
e w
ay o
f goo
dnes
s tha
t bod
ies c
an re
ceiv
e . . .
(I
.8.2
4.4-
5) a
nd
For i
n