THE 'APOLLONIOS' OF THE

NEOPLATONIC BIOGRAPHIES OF PYTHAGORAS

BY

PETER GORMAN

It will be demonstrated in the following that the Apollonios

quoted by the two Neoplatonic biographersl) of Pythagoras is not

the Neopythagorean from Tyana to whom about one quarter of

lamblichos' De Vita Pythagorica has been attributed. If this is so, then

Rohde's two source theory for Iamblichos' work will have to be

modified, necessitating a reappraisal of the sources behind those

passages in lamblichos assigned to Apollonios of Tyana. Before examining the arguments of Rohde and his followers for

the identity of Iamblichos' Apollonios with the Tyanaean, the

results of the investigation of Iamblichos' sources may be sum-

marised as follows: Rohde2) recognized two main ones, Apollonios of Tyana and Nikomachos of Gerasa, both writers of the first cen-

tury A.D.3). Bertermann4 )substantially agrees with Rohde in his

conclusions about Iamblichos' proximate sources, but stresses

remoter influences such as Timaios and Androkydes, concluding that Iamblichos' work is a cento nequissimus5). Lévy6) also adopted Rohde's two sources, adding a third, some learned handbook 7) which accounted for about a quarter of Iamblichos' material, Nikomachos contributing one half, Apollonios one quarter.

Burkert8) learnedly summarised the earlier findings.

1) Iam. VP. 254 and Por. VP. 2. 2) E. Rohde, Kleine Schriften II (New York and Hildesheim 1969), 102-72. 3) Cf. F. Levin, The Harmonika of Klaudios Ptolemaios, Hermes 108 (1980), 206,

n. 4. 4) G. Bertermann, De Iamblichi vitae Pythagoricae fontibus (diss. Koenigsberg). 5) Ibid., 5. 6) I. Lévy, Recherches sur les sources de la légende de Pythagore (Paris 1926). 7) Ibid., 111. 8) W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft (Nuremberg 1962), 86 ff.

131

Against these authorities M6autis9) and Carcopinol°) disagreed with the identification. Philip 11) also contended that Nikomachos

did not write a biography of Pythagoras and hence was not a major source for the Neoplatonists. It will be argued here that the case for

the Tyanaean being the 'Apollonios' of Iamblichos and Porphyry is even weaker than that for Nikomachos being contributory to half

the Iamblichean biography. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether Apollonios of Tyana even

wrote a biography of Pythagoras, the only evidence for this being a notice in the Suda 12), the sole authority for which seems to be

Philostratos' life. The author in the Suda probably assumed that

Apollonios wrote a biography of Pythagoras because of the many references in Philostratos' work to alleged biographical data about

Pythagoras. However, Philostratos does not attribute a life of

Pythagoras to Apollonios of Tyana, whilst Iamblichos and Por-

phyry only name an Apollonios once. Porphyry 13) cites an

Apollonios for the name of Pythagoras' mother, Pythais, a descen-

dant of Ankaios the argonaut, a story also found in Iamblichos 14), but does not qualify this Apollonios with the epithet 'Tyanaean', as he regularly does elsewhere). As long ago as the eighteenth cen-

tury Wittenbach 16 ) refused to identify the Neoplatonic 'Apollonios' with the Tyanaean, suggesting that the Suda confused the A6i«t

I1U9iXYÓPOU (ap. Philost. hit. Apoll. VIII, 19) with a life of

Pythagoras written by another Apollonios. Wittenbach also noticed

the absurdity of Apollonios of Tyana reprehending Xenokrates,

Epimenides, and Eudoxos (ap. Iam. VP. 7) for calling Apollo

Pythagoras' father.

9) G. Méautis, Recherches sur le pythagorisme (Neuchâtel 1922). 10) J. Carcopino, La basilique pythagoricienne (Paris 1927), 168. 11) J. A. Philip, The Biographical Tradition-Pythagoras, TAPA 90 (1959), 185. 12) Suda, ed. Bernhardy, I, 623-4. 13) Por. VP. 2. 14) Iam. VP. 3-4. 15) Cf. De abstin. III, 3; de Styge, ap. Stob. Anthol. I. 3.56, p. 70, Wachsmuth;

and Chr. Fr. 60, ed. Harnack, Abh. Ber. Akad., p. 83. 16) cf. H. Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the

Hellenistic Period (Abo 1965), 172. B. L. Van der Waerden (RE Suppl. Vol. 10, col. 856) suggests that another Pythagoras wrote this work, whereas Pliny (N.H. 37, 24) assigns it to a Ptolemaei praefectus, perhaps Orthagoras (cf. RE XVIII, 2, col. 1425) who penned a

132

Before examining the sections of Iamblichos' De Vita Pythagorica ascribed to an Apollonios by modern scholars, a few objections to

the identification of this Apollonios with the Tyanaean must be

stated. Since the Apollonios of Porphyry ( VP. 2) names Pythagoras' father 'Mnesarchos', it is surprising that Apollonios of Tyana (ap. Philost. Vit. Apoll. VIII, 7) called him The Philostra-

tean passage comes from Apollonios' apologia to Domitian and may be the Tyanaean's ipsissima verba. Secondly, Philostratos ( ITit. Apoll.

II, 17) has Damis speak about a book by Pythagoras on Indian

geography, probably the spurious work on the Red Sea 16) (sc. Ara-

bian Sea), as though Pythagoras had visited India, whereas in

Iamblichos ( VP. 2-24), a section attributed to Apollonios of Tyana, one finds no mention of the Samian's journey to India.

Now a few sections of Iamblichos' De Vita Pythagorica assigned to

the Tyanaean must be explored to discover whether this is in fact

the case. Rohde assigns the following paragraphs of Iamblichos to

Apollonios of Tyana: VP. 2-25; 28-30; 68-73; 90-93; 122-28; 144; 148 (?); 177-78; 185; 215-22; 254-64; and 265-6. While this is a

considerable portion of the work, Iamblichos only mentions an

Apollonios by name once, at VP. 254.

Before examining VP. 254-64 to test whether this Apollonios could be the Tyanaean, let it be stated at the outset that Apollonios of Tyana spoke and wrote a pure Attic (cf. Vit. Apoll. I, 7), Philostratos' verdict being confirmed by Apollonios' extant letters, on the supposition that a few of them are genuine 1'). Likewise, ac-

cording to Rohde and Bertermann, Iamblichos' work is a cento so

that the latter's style and language are not obtruding themselves in

sections 254-64. Thus Hellenistic forms in the text cannot be due

to Iamblichos or Apollonios of Tyana. Some of the views of this 'Apollonios,' of Iamblichos do not seem

to harmonize with those of the Tyanaean. For example, he claims

that Pythagoras simply died ( hP. 255), when we know that some

17) On the authenticity of Apollonios' letters, cf. F. Lo Cascio, Sulla autenticità delle epistole di Apollonio Tianeo (Palermo 1978), a work which is now superseded, according to G. W. Bowersock (Class. Rev. 31, 1981), who is probably right in rejecting letters 81 and 58 as spurious, although the philological and historical arguments of Penella (The Letters of Apollonios of Tyana, Mnem. Suppl. 56, Leyden 1979; cf. the review of this work by P. Nautin, REG 94, 1981, 273-4) are not ab- solutely convincing.

133

of Philostratos' sources 18 ) allege that the Tyanaean disappeared

mysteriously from a temple in Crete. This suggested to L6vy'9) that similar legends about Pythagoras may have been current in anti-

quity, perhaps too in the work of the Tyanaean. Considering

Apollonios' conception of Pythagoras2°), a mysterious disap-

pearance of Pythagoras' mortal remains was to be expected of any end of the Samian narrated by the Tyanaean. Moreover, a frequent

saying of the historical Apollonios of Tyana was: El

yfi 16v«to, À<x9t

Style too militates against Apollonios of Tyana being behind VP.

254-64: in two paragraphs (254-5) one encounters Hellenistic forms and words such as Jvv«yqox6Jtv (more usually Jvvqx6Jtv), the un-

Attic 8u<y<xpe<jTOU{jL&vir), Eüpcxa9cxt (middle voice, more normally and xcx'tcxxÀT}pouXT}9fíviXl. An Atticist could not have written

these paragraphs; and neither could Iamblichos, to judge from his

extant works.

In VP. 2-25, attributed by Rohde 22) to Apollonios of Tyana, one

discovers three passages which refute the theory that the Tyanaean wrote these paragraphs. The first one begins with Pythagoras' birth

in Sidon and continues with Iamblichos' statement that it is wrong to suggest that Pythagoras was the son of Apollo. Wittenbach 23) at-

tributed this passage to lamblichos, correctly contending that the

denial of Apollo's paternity confutes the theory that Apollonios of

18) Vit. Apoll. VIII, 28. The epigram on Apollonios of Tyana (ap. N. J. Richardson and P. Burian, The Epigram on Apollonius of Tyana, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22, 1981, 283-5) seems to confirm Apollonios' ascent into heaven:

W. Peek (Epigramm auf Apollonius von Tyana, Philologus 125, 1981, 298) prefers:

In the third line of the epigram I should like to read:

19) I. Lévy, La légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine (Paris 1927), 63-72. 20) Cf. Apollonios' letter 50 ap. Hercher, 119, wherein the Tyanaean avers:

'Ev cf. also Penella, op. cit., 116. 21) Vit. Apoll. VIII, 28. 22) Op. cit., 122 and 127. 23) Ap. De Vita Pythagorica, ed. M. Th. Kiessling, Vol. 1 (Leipzig 1815), 13.

134

Tyana is behind these sections. Rohde 14) could not explain this

disclaimer and hints that the disavowal 'in geheimnisvollem

Euphemismus' really affirms that Apollo is Pythagoras, whereas

'Apollonios' proceeds to aver that Pythagoras is a 'companion' of

Apollo; and Philostratos nowhere attributes to Apollonios any such

identification of Apollo and Pythagoras. In fact, at I, 1 of the Vita

Apollonii, Philostratos states that Apollo appeared to Pythagoras. Previous commentators have also failed to notice the Neoplatonic

terminology of VP. 2-25: fiysy6vsq (cf. Phaedrus 246 e 4) for the gods

implies a chain of being from the henads or gods through the orders

of intelligible and intellectual deities to the planetary divinities and

their accompanying souls 25) so that Pythagoras being a aUV01tiXÔÓÇ of Apollo 26) means that he is a follower of the sun, with astrological

overtones27); such metaphysics being alien to someone like

Apollonios of Tyana. The second passage (lam. VP. 14) is that describing Pythagoras

on Carmel, the 'Phoenician' mountain, where there was a temple

(lsp6v). Mt. Carmel in Palestine was not, strictly speaking, a

'Phoenician' mountain at all, for during the Graeco-Roman period it formed part of Galilee and for a brief time during the first century A.D. came under the rule of Tyre 28). Apollonios of Tyana would not have called Carmel 'Phoenician' since in one of his letters 29) he

described Caesarea, just south of Carmel, as being part of

Palestine. Besides, Apollonios, judging by his attitude to the Jews in Philostratos (cf. Vit. Apoll. V, 27) would not have invented a

story about his hero Pythagoras dwelling on a Jewish (sc. Galilean) mountain, the site of Elijah's destruction of the priests of Baal (cf. 1 Kings 18: 40).

Moreover, on Carmel in the first century A.D. there was no tem-

ple, only an altar3°), suggesting that the Tyanaean could not be

24) Ibid., 140. 25) Cf. Phaedrus 248 c 3: 26) Cf. De myst. I, 3: ... 27) According to Proklos (ap. H. Lewy, The Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, Cairo

1956, 224, n. 16), Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato had 'Apollonian' souls, the Neoplatonist comparing Pythagoras' soul to the 'hidden sun', sc. the One.

28) Cf. Jos. B.J. III, 3, 1. 29) Cf. letter 11, ed. Hercher, 112. 30) Cf. Suet. Vesp. 5, 6; Tac. Hist. II, 78; Dio lxvi, 1; Scylax, Peri plus 42.

135

behind VP. 2-25, as he would have written if indeed he

made the pilgrimage to Carmel from Caesarea. Iamblichos, himself

a Syrian from Chalkis and so familiar with the geography and

history of Phoenicia and Palestine is not the inventor of this story since Carmel in his day was part of Palestine.

Thirdly, there is the apparent affirmation in VP. 10 that

Pythagoras was the son of a god: ... ?E?cxmua9cxt To 9wû 1tCXLôiX aurov

etvoct. The term 8eou 1tCXLÇ is, according to Norden3l), a liturgical utterance of many Hellenistic cults and later became part of

Gnosticism and Christianity, being interchangeable with to

occurring often in the LXX (cf. Dan. 10:17; II Es. 11 :7), but is real-

ly much older than that and was used of the children of the Greek

gods, such as Orpheus and Linos (cf. Tim. 40 d 9-10: 9EWV

Moreover, there may be a polemical tone in Iamblichos' use of the

formula since Porphyry in Against the Christians (Chr. Fr. 48) thus

employs it, as does Plotinos in his critique of the Gnostics (II 9, 9, 59, ed. min. H-S). Apollonios of Tyana, unfamiliar with Gnostics

and Christians, could not have used it in this way. VP. 28-30, assigned to the Tyanaean by Rohde, continues

Iamblichos' narrative of VP. 2-25 and so may be ascribed to

Iamblichos, using sources other than Aristoxenos who attributed

Pythagoras' departure for Italy to other causes33). Therefore, the

same arguments urged against VP. 2-25 are also valid for VP.

28-30. In VP. 29, ascribed by Rohde34) to Apollonios, Pythagoras' ar-

rival in Kroton and his conversion of six hundred followers are

described, the parallels in this passage with Porphyry ( VP. 20, ex-

cerpted from Nikomachos) having prompted Rohde to regard most of VP. 29 as being from Nikomachos. However, there are many subtle differences between Iam. VP. 29 and Por. VP. 20 which led

Rohde to suppose the influence of Apollonios of Tyana, especially for the information about the six hundred 'koinobioi'. VP. 29 is in-

terconnected with both 30 and 31 which form a coherent whole; and

31) E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig/Berlin 1913), 193, n. 1. 32) Cf. J. F. Phillips, The Universe as Prophet: A Soteriological Formula in Plotinus,

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22 (1981), 273, n. 9. 33) Ap. Por. VP. 9. 34) Op. cit. , 131.

136

in 31 Iamblichos quotes Aristotle, probably 1tEPL rCov IIu9aYo-

petWV 35), Iamblichos referring to it as 1tEPL IIu9iXyoptxfíc; a quotation defining Pythagoras and similar to the

definition at VP. 143 36). This Aristotelian 'logos' of Pythagoras' nature (VP. 143) looks like a continuation of VP. 30 and its conjec- tures about Pythagoras, some of the Krotoniates having called him

the Hyperborean Apollo37). It is probable that VP. 29-31 come

from Concerning the Pythagoreans38), an assumption supported by Iamblichos' use of the particle xai in the sense of 'also': 'ta-cope7t 8e

xai as though that quotation were a continuation of in-

formation in VP. 29-30. Moreover, VP. 29 has the verbal form

La'tOptL'tCXt introducing it, like VP. 31, implying perhaps that Aristo-

tle's words are not mere hearsay Another reason for not attributing VP. 29 to Apollonios of Tyana

is the fact that in VP. 29 six hundred followers of Pythagoras are

mentioned, whereas at VP. 254, by 'Apollonios', only three hun-

dred disciples were in the society39). The same author could not

have written both VP. 29 and VP. 254. The estimate of six hundred

followers is also found in Diogenes Laertios (VIII, 15) who may be

citing Aristoxenos, himself having derived it from Aristotle, his

teacher.

As for VP. 68-73, it should be attributed to Iamblichos on both

linguistic and philosophical grounds. VP. 68-9 is a summary by Iamblichos using Aristoxenos since VP. 69 is repeated verbatim at

VP. 229 (assigned by Rohde 40) to Aristoxenos) so that if VP. 229

is from Aristoxenos, then so is VP. 69. VP. 68 is certainly Iamblichos summarizing his procedure at VP. 31-2 which Rohde 41 )

unhesitatingly assigned to the Neoplatonist. VP. 70 is

35) Cf. J. A. Philip, Aristotle's Monograph on the Pythagoreans, TAPA 94 (1963), 185-198.

36) Cf. Ross, Fr. Sel. 131-2. 37) Iam. VP. 30; cf. also the same information in Aristotle, ap. Ross, Fr. Sel.,

Fr. 1, 130. 38) Ross, Fr. Sel., Fr. 2, 132 includes VP. 30-1 in the fragments from Aristotle's

lost monograph. 39) The number three hundred also occurs in Justin xx. 4, attributed by von

Fritz (Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy, New York 1940, 34) to Timaios who is allegedly behind VP. 254 ff. too.

40) Op. cit., 166. 41) Ibid., 131.

137

'N eoplatonic', according to De Voge142), since the term io voq<6v in this passage is part of the metaphysical hierarchy of

Neoplatonism; and Apollonios of Tyana never mentions the in-

telligible, let alone as a separate hypostasis. The voq<6v as a separate level of reality is Neoplatonic, and the passage from Plato (Rep. 527 d ff.) quoted by Iamblichos does not say anything about To voirjrov. Iamblichos is echoing Plotinos' dying words: ... 1tttp&a9iXt rov Èv 9tov avaYwv To £v TM 1tCXV'tL 9tLOV43). The 9tLOV 6yy« of VP. 70

is again Neoplatonic, as De Vogel") realised, since Porphyry describes Plotinos turning his divine eye toward his tutelary demon: cxù'toç 6tere'Xet &vá:ywv aurou io 9Eiov 6yy« 1tpOç èXELVOV45) (sc. his divine demon).

An analysis of VP. 71-73 shows that these paragraphs are derived from Aristoxenos' IIEpL flvb«y6pov xa'LTCov yvmpiymv «1<06 since the

mention of Yvwp??,ot5 in 72, of physiognomy in VP. 71 (Por. VP. 54 also having an allusion to physiognomy, the source there being Aristoxenos, as a comparison with Iam. VP. 248 proves), of special categories of Pythagoreans such as 'politikoi' and 'oikonomikoi' at VP. 7 2 46), and the lack of any reference to vegetarianism 47), all

confirm that Aristoxenos is behind these paragraphs. The unique historical information about Perillos the Thurian and Kylon, the

exarchos of the Sybarites48), lends additional support to the

hypothesis that Aristoxenos is here Iamblichos' source.

Paragraphs 90-93 also contain statements which contradict other

passages in Iamblichos attributed to Apollonios of Tyana. VP. 92 insists that Pythagoras is Apollo, something denied at VP. 8, a con- tradiction that prompted Rohde's unconvincing rationalization49). VP. 90-93 also have many Neoplatonic words used in a late sense

42) C. J. de Vogel, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Assen 1966), 300. 43) Ap. Por. Vit. Plot. 2, 26-7, ed. min. H-S. 44) Op. cit., 300. 45) Cf. Por. Vit. Plot. 10, 29-30 ed. min. H-S. 46) Cf. similar classifications at VP. 97, attributed by Rohde (op. cit., 142) to

Aristoxenos. 47) Aristoxenos, ap. Aulus Gellius, N.A. IV, 11, had denied that Pythagoras

was an abstainer from animal flesh. 48) Perhaps this Kylon was a military governor of the Sybarite territory an-

nexed by Kroton after the battle of the Traeis. 49) Op. cit., 140.

138

unknown to Apollonios

of Tyana. Iamblichos says that Abaris was

skilled in ra LePot-Ttxa ( VP. 91), which seems to mean not just priestly lore, a meaning attested in both Plato and Aristotle, but also

'theurgy', a Neoplatonic signification. Although most of VP. 90-93

is the ipsissima verba of Iamblichos who comments that Pythagoras wrote a book On the GOdS50), much of the material in VP. 90-93 is

derived from Aristotle's Concerning the Pythagoreans, not only because Iamblichos uses the more confidence-inspiring word La'topEL'tiXt ( VP.

92) which introduced Aristotle's quotation at VP. 31, but also

because VP. 90-93 has much in common with VP. 140-43, included

by Ross (Fr. Sel. 131) amongst the fragments of Concerning the

Pythagoreans: in both sections Abaris cures plague at Sparta, the

opening sentence of VP. 92 describing this cure appearing to a ver-

batim quotation from Aristotle as the verb 1tCXpEtÀ1¡cpCX¡.LEV seems to be

from the perspective of a fourth century source close to the event rather than a much later one; Abaris too marvels at Pythagoras'

golden thigh. Finally, lamblichos seems to have been oblivious of

the irony of his source who suggests that Pythagoras, having made

Abaris confess his godhead, ordered the Hyperborean to give all his

gold collected for Apollo's temple to the disciples who were sure to

share it equably. All this shows that Apollonios of Tyana is not

behind VP. 90-93.

VP. 122-28, anecdotes about ancient Pythagoreans, probably come from a source book like Aristotle's Concerning the Pythagoreans or Aristoxenos' Concerning Pythagoras and his disciples. If Apollonios of Tyana composed a life of Pythagoras, he would not have needed

to pad out the work with stories about anonymous Pythagoreans. Iamblichos includes these tales because his book is not primarily a

biography of Pythagoras, but a 'systematische Darstellung' S1) of

the Pythagorean way of life. Although Iamblichos is mainly sum-

marizing his source, several Hellenistic forms which the

Neoplatonist would not have used (e.g. in 1. 24 of VP. 125) obtrude themselves, showing that the original was written in koine, a dialect eschewed by both Iamblichos and Apollonios of Tyana. Moreover, at VP. 129 lamblichos attributed these stories to

50) Cf. also Theol. Ar. IV, 17, P. 21 De Falco. 51) M. von Albrecht, Das Menschenbild in Jamblichs Darstellung der pythagoreischen

Lebensform, A.u. A. 12 (1966), 53.

139

Aristoxenos. Therefore, it seems certain that VP. 122-28 come from

Aristoxenos. Incidently, the vocabulary and style of these

paragraphs (especially VP. 126) have much in common with

Pythagoras' speeches recorded by Iamblichos who again is prob- ably using Aristoxenos.

Paragraph 144 is assigned by Rohde to Apollonios of Tyana, even though he attributes VP. 141-43 to Nikomachos (using Aristo-

tle, Rohde admits) who, as has been shown, probably did not write

a separate biography of Pythagoras so that Ross' inclusion of VP.

140-43 in the fragments of Aristotle's Concerning the Pythagoreans is

fully justified. VP. 144 seems to be a continuation by Aristotle of

VP. 143: one encounters in VP. 144 the notion of Pythagoras being a third kind of two-legged creature, an extension of the idea behind

Aristotle's definition of Pythagoras as a being midway between

man and god (cf. Iam. VP. 31; Fr. Sel., Fr. 2, 132). The story in

VP. 144 about the Pythagorean (named as Syllos at VP. 150) who

preferred a fine of three talents rather than take an oath, has an ar-

chaic ring about it and again may be Aristotle. VP. 147-50 seem to

be the work of Iamblichos summarizing Aristotle. Thus Ross' col-

lection of fragments from Concerning the Pythagoreans ought to include

VP. 144 and VP. 147-50, especially as VP. 148 and VP. 150 are

repetitions, with some additional information, of passages in VP.

140-43.

Since paragraph 148 is a repetition of VP. 139, assigned by Rohde to Nikomachos using Aristoxenos, it cannot be Apollonios,

although, admittedly, Rohde hesitates between Nikomachos and

Apollonios when making the attribution. It will be argued here that

because VP. 148 is virtually identical with VP. 139, the former is

from Aristotle, just as the latter is derived from Concerning the

Pythagoreans, VP. 137-39 forming an organic unity with VP. 140-43, attributed by Ross to Aristotle. VP. 137 is an exact replica of VP.

86-7, the latter being assigned by Burkerts2) to Aristotle.

Linguistically, VP. 137-9 form a homogeneous block with VP.

140-3 (from Aristotle) since the form où9Év (often found in Aristotle) occurs in both VP. 139 and VP. 141. The sceptical tone of VP. 138

52) W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, Mass. 1972), 166.

140

with the term yvboXoyo6ysv« used of the stories about Abaris and

Aristeas of Prokonnesos sounds like Aristotle, not Iamblichos or

some other author favourable to the Pythagoreans. Tc3 eu' in VP. 137

is Aristotelian (cf. Eth. Nic. 105 a 10 et pass.). Another Aristotelian

feature of VP. 137 is ?iXatÀEuO¡.LÉV1} Aristotle in his Politica

(1288 a 4 1 ) having spoken of a 1tóÀtV ... ?CXatÀEuO(lÉV1}v. Likewise, the

analytical intelligence displayed in VP. 138 is Aristotelian. The

words 1tpcxY¡.Lcxn(iX and ma'tEu'ttXwÇ in VP. 138 are Aristotelian (for the former, cf. Met. 987 a 29-30; for the latter, cf. Rh. 1372 b 29).

Paragraphs 177-8, attributed by Rohde to Apollonios of Tyana, relate the episode of the Sybarite envoys (cf. also Diodoros 12.9.2.) and come immediately after 174-5 from Aristoxenos who is also

responsible for 180-3, according to Rohde. It seems more likely that

lamblichos continued to use Aristoxenos in VP. 177-9 whom he is

copying out verbatim since he habitually uses the first person plural when addressing the reader, whereas the author of VP. 17 7 employs the first person singular (Epw). The convoluted style and language also look like Aristoxenos who found it difficult to tell stories (cf. VP. 122-8 and the 'speeches' of Pythagoras). The reference in VP.

178 to the È1tœvoooç of souls is not necessarily Neoplatonic because

Plato had already used it (cf. 532 b and Theol. Ar. P. 52, De Falco, in which Aristoxenos is cited as a source). The information at VP. 177 about Pythagoreans being murdered in Sybaris agrees with the

statement of the author of VP. 74 (scil. Aristoxenos, cf. supra) that

a governor of the Sybarites, one Kylon, was rejected by the

Pythagoreans, implying that the latter actively proselytized at

Sybaris. The author of VP. 178 characterizes as mythical the

bizarre theory that animals spoke the same language as men in the

beginning of the world, a theory which an Apollonios of Tyana or

the credulous Iamblichos would have believed implicitly. The ra-

tionalism of this writer is also apparent in VP. 179 where the post- mortem judgement of souls in Hades is described as being mythical, but useful for deterring mankind from injustice. This

author may even be denying the soul's immortality, a doctrine not held by Aristoxenos who regarded the souls as a harmony of the

body53). All this suggests that Aristoxenos is behind VP. 177-8.

53) Aristoxenos, ed. Wehrli, Fr. 120 a, 37.

141

VP. 185, the story of Euryphamos and Lysis, like the anecdotes in VP. 122-8, sounds like Aristoxenos. After Nikomachos had been

briefly quoted in VP 184 Iamblichos returned to Aristoxenos in 185 who is behind VP. 170-83. Similarly, paragraphs 215-22 have many Neoplatonic features, although Iamblichos is elaborating a source,

perhaps the pseudo-Epimenides mentioned in VP. 222. De

Vogel -14) pointed out the Stoic and late Platonic terminology in this Phalaris passage, although the framework of the anachronistic drama is not Iamblichos' work. De Vogel concludes that Iam-

blichos probably borrowed these paragraphs from either Niko-

machos or Apollonios of Tyana. Thesleff55) saw Xenokrates behind

Pythagoras' speech to Phalaris, while Boyance 56) preferred to find a paraphrase of Heraklides Pontikos' dialogue Abaris. Such

divergent views indicate that it is not a foregone conclusion that

Apollonios of Tyana is behind these paragraphs. Once one has ex-

amined the style, language, and themes of VP. 215-22, one must conclude that Iamblichos was the main contributor, although earlier sources had certainly linked Phalaris with Pythagoras (cf. Lucian, Phal. I, 10).

Again, as at VP. 90-3, Abaris is portrayed as a Neoplatonic

theurgist who, like Iamblichos and Porphyry, is concerned with

divine images VP. 215), both Iamblichos and Por-

phyry having written works entitled Mept Neither

Heraklides Pontikos nor Apollonios of Tyana were interested in

these theurgic images; and De Vogel s8) correctly rejects Boyanc6's s

suggestion that Heraklides explained certain miracles by magic statues. Furthermore, Abaris' distinction between the astral gods

xai' oupavov 6v<mv) and the terrestrial deities (rMV 1tEPL yfív

e7tta'rPECPO?tevwv) is purely Neoplatonic expressed in the exact

language of Iamblichos (cf. De myst. III, 16: OL xaT' oùpcxvov 9w( and

I, 9; cf. also Plotinos IV 4, 30, 26: 9twv 'twv lv oùpcxvêi», for a

54) C. J. de Vogel, On Iam. VP. 215-219, Mnemosyne 35 (1965), 388-96. 55) H. Thesleff, op. cit., 107. 56) REA 36 (1934), 321-52. 57) For lamblichos, cf. B. D. Larsen, Jamblique de Chalcis (Aarhus 1972), 60,

Larsen referring to VP. 215 as a possible reference to On Statues. For Porphyry, cf. P. Crome, Symbol und Unzulänglichkeit der Sprache, Jamblichos, Plotin, Porphyrios, Proklos (Munich 1970), 124.

58) Mnem. 35 (1965), 391.

142

favourite Homeric line of Plotinos (Od. 17, 486) was interpreted to refer to a certain class of Neoplatonic gods: 'AXX' ourot ylv oi 9w(, om 1tiXV'tOLOt nÀÉ90v'ttç È1tta'tpwcpwat Tas tLÇ 'exe7tvov (sc. vouv) be

at x6Xstq E?mip€cpov?cac xai 1t&aiX yfi xod olp«v6q ... The verb

&7i:KjTp&<povcon, played upon here by Plotinos, referring to both a

haunting of the earth and a return to 'nous', is used in a technical

sense by Iamblichos and designates the lower Neoplatonic divinities

(such as the archontes and demons) which govern matter: cf. De

myst. I, 7: ... To (sc. genus of demons) 8' lxst yt'iatv 17ctveo'etv xa't

È1tta'tplcpta9cxt 1tpOç To'c 'Y?6[jL&v<x n x«1 8?ovxou?,EVa; cf. also De myst. I, 17. Needless to say, none of all this metaphysical speculation could have been known to either Apollonios of Tyana or Heraklides

Pontikos. The following other Neoplatonic features prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that VP. 215-22 was written by Iamblichos.

The phrase in VP. 216 TMV ??PWV is another late

Neoplatonic periphrasis for 'theurgy' or the efficacy of the rites per- formed in the pagan temples (cf. De myst. III, 18: ivspysi«q and De myst. I, 11: TMV Yap Èv 'tOLÇ lspaq É.xá:a'ton cf.

also De myst. III, 18: ia 8pc??,EVa uno Tou and VP. 216, P. 117, 8 (Deubner)). In the first phrase quoted icw LEpWV certainly means 'temples', not 'sacrifices"9) since Iamblichos' regular word

for the latter is 9ua(cx (cf. De myst. V, 5 and V, 8 et pass.). The later

Neoplatonists and pagan apologists wished to keep the temples

functioning during the rule of the Christian emperors and stressed

the occult powers of the fames of the old gods with the implicit sug-

gestion that the rites and edifices themselves protected the city of

Rome and the empire as a whole6°). That the true meaning of 'ef-

fectiveness of the temples' is 'theurgy' can be also seen from

59) Ibid., 390. De Vogel translates the phrase in question as 'effectiveness of sacrifices', appealing to Stoicism.

60) Cf. Symmachus' Relatio, ap. Ambros. Ep. P.L. 16, col. 1008: Cui enim magis commodat quod instituta majorum, quod patriae jura et fata defendimus, quam templorum gloriae: quae tum major est, cum vobis contra morem parentum intelligitis nil licere? Repetimus igitur religionum statum, qui reipublicae diu profuit; cf. also Porphyry, Chr. ed. Har- nack, Fr. 81: religiones ritusque valuere templorum; the latter phrase being echoed by the fifth century Neoplatonist Hierokles: In Carm. Aur. ed. Mullach, Fr. Ph. Gr. Vol. 1, 479. Zosimos (Hist. Nov. II, 5) also stresses that the rites of the temples protected the empire.

143

Hierokles who describes 'telestic' (another name for theurgy)6') as

being exemplified in the temples of the cities: A«yy« 8E ou ytxp6v ... 8e <sXsJ<ixiq ia TMV x6Xswv

In fact, Iamblichos may be consciously employing the

anachronistic duel between the pious 'theurgists' Abaris and

Pythagoras and the 'atheist' Phalaris to allegorize the battle be-

tween paganism and Christianity in the early fourth century A.D., since Phalaris, perhaps a symbol of 'atheistic' Christianity, may be

a caricature of Constantine. Iamblichos in the De mysteriis (III, 31)

speaks of the Christians as 'atheists' who like Phalaris rejected the

oracles of the gods and divination in genera 162). Thus the Phalaris

episode may in fact be a tendentious allegory of the struggle be-

tween pagan theurgy and Constantine's Christianity, a theory sup-

ported by the Neoplatonic terminology throughout the sections VP.

215-22.

For example, lam. VP. 217: oÙPCXVÓ9EV 1¡ ôtœ?cxatç stq n o'ce'pta xai È1t(YEtCX cpÉpEa9iXt 1tÉCPUXE, ... is echoed in the De mysteriis (III,

16): 8E XiXL 1¡ iou xat 71 xiX91¡xouacx To5 ot')pocvo5

16v«ytq ELÇ Tov a€pa ... Other specifically Neoplatonic terms include

VP. 218: «1<siovJiov which presupposes a knowledge of

Plotinos' treatise VI 7 on the freedom of the the

hypostasization of vo5; and X6yoq in VP. 218; the concern with

theodicy that the gods are innocent of causing evil ( ITP. 218,

alluding to Rep. 617 e 5); and finally, the distinction between ac-

tions done in accordance with fate and those conforming to nous

( VP. 219), a problem discussed by Plotinos in VI 7. As opposed to

the overwhelming evidence adduced above that VP. 215-22 was

written by Iamblichos, not Apollonios of Tyana, Rohde 4) can only

point to the phrase in VP. 217: oux stq <l>iXÀœptOt y6pJtyoq which is

Homeric (Il. 22, 13), as being an echo of Apollonios' speech before

Domitian. If there is any literary dependence, it is more likely to

be that of Iamblichos on Philostratos and not a case of Apollonios

61) Cf. E. R. Dodds, Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism, JRS 27 (1947), 55 f.

62) For the Christians as atheists, cf. Porphyry, Chr. Fr. 1; and Julian Ad Arsac. 430 B.

63) C. J. de Vogel, Mnem. 35, op. cit., 394. 64) Op. cit., 165.

144

of Tyana putting his own famous words into the mouth of his hero

Pythagoras. Lastly, to Apollonios of Tyana Rohde attributed VP. 265-7

which is probably Aristoxenos since the chronological viewpoint of

the author is the fourth century B. C., as can be seen from his trac-

ing the Pythagorean school down to the time of Diodoros of Aspen- dos (first half of the fourth century B.C.). Not using Olympiads, the source reckons back to the time of Pythagoras from that of Plato

by seven generations, about two hundred years, a procedure vague-

ly reminiscent of the Anonymus Photii (Phot. cod. 249, 438 b ff.) who states that Plato was the ninth successor of Pythagoras, Aris-

totle the tenth. The author also mentions Epicharmos, as had

Aristoxenos at VP. 241. The only apparent conflict in these

paragraphs with what one knows about Aristoxenos' view of

Pythagoras is the author's contention that Pythagoras died when he

was ninety-nine, whereas, according to Apollodoros s), quoted by Eusebios, Pythagoras died in 497/6 B.C., having been born accord-

ing to Aristoxenos, in the fifty second Olympiad (circa 570 B.C.), giving the Samian a lifespan of only seventy-three years. However, it is not absolutely certain that either Apollodoros or Eusebios is

reflecting the tradition of Aristoxenos at all. Moreover, much of the

historical data in this block cannot be verified, such as the date of

the sack of Kroton in the time of Boulagoras. If such unique historical information in fact stems from a reliable fourth century source such as Aristoxenos, one could do worse than trusting it.

In conclusion, therefore, the attribution of one quarter of

Iamblichos' De Vita Pythagorica to Apollonios of Tyana by Rohde

and by many other scholars is not warranted either by any similari-

ty in the views and literary style of the Tyanaean and those of the

'Apollonios' of VP. 254 or by any evidence that other sections of

Iamblichos' work were written by Apollonios of Tyana. On the

contrary, most of the sections assigned to Apollonios of Tyana are

the work of Iamblichos himself using a variety of unknown sources

which still need to be determined.

MELBOURNE, Parkdale, 59 Rennison St.

65) Ap. Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, 278.