The

International Journal
of the

Platonic Tradition

The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

brill.nl/jpt

The Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

Dennis Clark
2133 Shy Bear Way NW, Issaquah, Washington 98027, USA dioklerikos@comcast.net

Abstract The origin of the Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads has been imputed to Iamblichus, mostly on indirect evidence found in later Neoplatonists, chiey Proclus. Is there any trace of this concept to be found in the extant works or fragments of Iamblichus himself? The best candidates among his surviving texts are the excerpts in Psellus of his volume on Theological Arithmetic from his Pythagorean series, and the rst book of de Mysteriis, where Iamblichus answers Porphyrys questions on the nature 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 of vocabulary appear as technical usages that form the basis for arguing that Iamblichus already has in mind if not the explicit concept henad at least its functional equivalent: the term monoeides occurring in both the Psellan excerpts and de Mysteriis, and in the latter, mostly in Book I, the stated attributes of a high, divine principle uniting the gods which are also designated by Proclus as typical of the divine henads, particularly in the propositions of the Elements of Theology dening the henads. Iamblichus in Book I also ascribes to the gods the same role in the process of ellampsis as 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 on the polemical nature of de Mysteriis and his relationship to Porphyry. Keywords Henad, Iamblichus, Porphyry, Psellus, Pythagorean,Theological Arithmetic, de Mysteriis, Proclus, Syrianus, Marsilio Ficino, Elements of Theology, Gods, The Good, One Existent, Participation, Monoeides, Akrotes/Summit, Ellampsis/Illumination

The late Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads receives its most formal denition and treatment from Proclus in propositions 113-165 of his
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/187254710X492901

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

55

Elements of Theology. The henads are presented elsewhere in his writings, especially Book III of the Platonic Theology and Book VI of his Commentary on the Parmenides, as fundamental elements of his philosophical system, and, as is well known, are of great concern also to other later Neoplatonists, such as Damascius. Their relatively late emergence has naturally given rise to a desire to determine their historical origin, unheralded as they appear to be in a fully developed form in any philosopher earlier than Proclus. E.R. Dodds attributed their conception to Proclus teacher Syrianus, but over 30 years ago John Dillon proposed to ascribe the introduction of the henads rather to Iamblichus, drawing chiey on evidence provided by Proclus in the Commentary on the Parmenides.1 At least one serious objection to this proposal has been raised and in turn persuasively countered, and much of the focus of the debate has centered on the arguments provided by Proclus in that particular work, and not unnaturally so, given the fragmentary state of Iamblichus own writings.2 Is there, however, more support for the provenience of the doctrine of the henads among any of Iamblichus remaining works, even if perhaps not oered in the form of an expressly terminological reference or unambiguous denition? If indeed Iamblichus did expound a theory of the henads in his written works, unfortunately some of those no longer extant, namely the Commentary on the Parmenides, his On the Gods, and perhaps the Commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles, are, given the nature of their subject matter, likely to emerge as the most suitable platforms for such a discussion. In fact it could be argued that the critical problem in determining his possible involvement in their creation is the loss of these works whose skopos would be the most appropriate one within which to explicate such a doctrine. Likewise any expectation to see the concept dened in the contexts of his other works may well be counter or highly tangential to the stated aims of those 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) 412416, and Dillon (1987) 883-884. 2) For the argument contra, based mostly on the fact that the gods for Iamblichus would also be dened as objects of intellection and as such could not qualify as the henads of Syrianus and Proclus, see Proclus ed. Sarey and Westerink (1978) ix-xl, especially xxvi , 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.

56

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

henads elsewhere could in reality be something to be expected, though admittedly this argument is one from silence. Failing even any relevant passages in the fragments of those likely texts, the next most promising source of evidence would be indirect or subsidiary references in his other extant works, since it is certainly clear that in none of the existing texts does Iamblichus ever explicitly use the term henad as later dened. Promising candidates for such a search would include some of the treatises in his Pythagorean series, especially Book VII, On Theological Arithmetic, represented now only by the excerpts made by Psellus, and the longest extant work of Iamblichus, the De Mysteriis.3 If for no other reason, the Pythagorean concern with the Monad promotes the likelihood of the former work, and the fact that in later Neoplatonism the gods are considered henads, the latter. Psellus excerpts are by nature condensed, but nonetheless they may in fact retain, in spite of their somewhat terse and disjointed overall content, Iamblichus own words and thus potentially oer authentic Iamblichean terminology.4 One passage of possible relevance starts at line 53 of On Ethical and Theological Arithmetic, where Psellus begins the extracts on the theological arithmetic with the discussion of an arithmetic of higher natures, of numbers having their own proper nature transcendent even of being, just as ethical numbers and physical numbers have their own appropriate natures.5 As there is a physical cause of physical numbers, an ethical for ethicals, thus of divine number there is a uniform divine principle, prior as cause as to the causes of all numbers, a uniform [] unity pre-existing even all unied divine number itself. The rst then, the one properly speaking, God as we would say, is henad and triad (for the triad unrolls the beginning, middle, and end around the one) . . .6 Of note here is the appearance of the term monoeides, usually translated into English as uniform here and in other occurrences in Neoplatonic literature; but the common English uniform does not reect specically the philosophical sense carried in a more literal
The excerpts were rst recognized as such by Dominic OMeara; for a summary discussion see OMeara (1989) 57-60. There does not appear to occur any particularly relevant passage 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 the excerpts from the theological arithmetic, including their disjointedness, 81-85. 5) OMeara (1989) 227. 6) Ibid.
3)

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

57

translation such as in the form of singularity or in the form of apartness.7 That 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 on Fate preserved by Stobaeus (Anth. I 80, 11-81, 18 W-H) to describe the action of the concatenation of causal principles descended from the One in drawing up towards itself all things:
. The term monoeides

occurs quite frequently also in the other main extant candidate for any evidence of the concept of the henad, in Book I of De Mysteriis, and in a passage indeed already noted as sharing similarities with the Psellan excerpts on theological arithmetic.8 The purpose of De Mysteriis, it is important to bear in mind, is to provide answers to Porphyry often in rebuttal of the views framing those questions posed by him in his Letter to Anebo.9 For that reason, De Mysteriis cannot be viewed as Iamblichus denitive treatise on theology or rst principles, but since it is his main extant work touching on those subjects, faute de mieux, with care, it serves nevertheless as the best such available intact source, if used subject to the caveat of its true purpose, which likely aects not only its tone but also at times its content. Book I serves to respond to several of Porphyrys questions on the nature of the gods, and so any information to be found there regarding henads is most likely

The term appears rst in a philosophical context in Plato at Phaedo 78d5 and Symposium 211b1 applied to the idea of the Good, as noted by Hadot (1994) 81 and 145, commenting on its use to describe the One in Plotinus Enn. VI.9.3.43. Hadot interprets the word as being 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 la forme de lunicit, plutt que unique par sa forme (81) . Plotinus applies the term in fact to the One itself, but then immediately steps back, as it were, and qualies his usage to point out that the One itself rather is strictly without form, but his application of the term stands possibly as the Neoplatonic linkage between Platos seminal use of it, which Plotinus directly cites here reproducing Platos full expression , and the later uses of monoeides by Iamblichus under discussion and its usage by other later Neoplatonists, especially Proclus and Damascius. 8) OMeara (1989) 82-83. 9) The real title of the work, we must bear in mind, is The Reply of the `Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the Solutions to the Questions that it Contains. The popular title is that given to it by Marsilio Ficino.

7)

58

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

related to the divine henads.10 Whatever is to be gleaned furthermore must be inferred and extrapolated from the correctives to Porphyrys queries and what Iamblichus views as the frequent misperceptions behind them regarding the nature of the gods, since he has structured his text with these points driving the implicit dialogue between the two philosophers, with one speaking all but ex cathedra and the other present only as if in a sort of submitted and undefended brief, voluntarily or not, all in an unusual colloquy whose rather polemical and often condescending tone may likely also shape and limit the amount of neutral explication allowed to appear in the text.11 Despite the challenges raised by the character of this work, nonetheless it does oer several fundamental details of Iamblichus conception of the gods, which will be seen upon examination to show by virtue of the marked similarity of the language utilized in Book I much in common with the nature and function of the divine henads as laid out more formally by Proclus in his Elements of Theology, Platonic Theology, and Commentary on the Parmenides. First, as in the Psellan excerpts, Book I oers in fact many occurrences of the same term monoeides, in usages that can be shown to be relevant and central to this discussion of the divine which exhibits similar concerns addressed by later Neoplatonists via the mechanism of the henads. The rst occurrence of monoeides comes in connection with Iamblichus response to Porphyrys rst reported question which includes a concession

10) The distinction between divine and non-divine henads is formally made in prop. 64 of the Elements of Theology: And so not every unity is a god, but only the self-complete henad, Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 63. (All translations quoted from this work are those of Dodds.) 11) Ex cathedra also in the view of Trouillard (1972) 173. The tenor of the implied dialogue instills in the reader an impression of a private conversation where much may be unsaid but understood between the two participants, or spoken in so highly allusive a fashion that some points may not be explicitly and fully made. Its tenor often leaves moderns not party to the conict between the former teacher and pupil to wonder about certain details of doctrine, unfortunately now probably lost forever to non-cognoscenti of centuries later, as would also probably be the case for many of their own time as well, especially those not initiates of these particular philosophical mysteries, or not members of the inner circles of the two philosophers. For some recent discussion of the relationship between Porphyry and Iamblichus as reected in De Mysteriis, see Clarke (2002) 6-8, Iamblichus ed. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) xxvi , Bussanich (2005) 7-8, and Dillon (2007) 30-32.

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

59

that the gods do exist (DM I.3). Iamblichus oers a correction, however, to the eect that the existence of gods is something so basic as to be beyond deliberation, just as Plotinus denied knowledge of the One because of its utter simplicity and exaltedness, but he contends nevertheless there is a sort of connection to them, which he terms as .12 He continues the argument by adding that we cannot even question the existence of this connection, deny nor arm nor categorize it, and such actions are those typically deemed by Neoplatonists as impossible assertions concerning the One.13 Echoing his use of monoeides, Iamblichus then also reiterates the One-like characterization of this connection by describing it as . Later in I.3 he employs this specic language twice more, repetitively enough in all to imply a sort of terminological usage: (I.3.9.7) and . . . (I.3.10.3-7). The perspective here, due to his need to answer Porphyrys specic question, concerns any human knowledge of the divine rather than a denition of divinity itself, but the only method for any such knowledge in Iamblichus view is an indirect one based solely on the similarity of the gods to the One tapped into by a dependent connection with the gods in form like the One, accessible also by humanity because of its likeness to the One, in the soul. Proclus in ET prop. 123 uses notably similar language to declare knowledge of the gods as imparticipable henads to be impossible: All that is divine is itself ineable and unknowable by any secondary being because of its supraexistential unity, but it may be apprehended and known from the existents which participate it.14 He then elaborates in the proposition, using the

De Mysteriis I.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 at I.19.59-60 Iamblichus concludes that as humans approach the higher entities from below, from particulars to the more general, the unity of the gods becomes more apparent, joining together primary and secondary classes of gods, who all possess with each other a communion of indissoluble connection [ ], using the term symploke again as above at I.3.8.4-5. It appears also no less than three times in the passage from the Letter to Macedonius cited above to represent the combined, unitary action of the concatenation of causes descending from the One. For the function of symploke in theurgy, see Smith (1974) 85-86. 14) ET Prop. 123, Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 110.

12)

60

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

exact same term for dependency as Iamblichus has in I.3.8.4: Nevertheless from the beings dependent [ ] on them [the gods] the character of their distinctive properties may be inferred . . .15 Beings in both cases are farther down the chain of causality, but nonetheless specically dependent in both cases. The term monoeides by itself is clearly reminiscent or appropriate as an aspect of the concept of the henad, though admittedly it is used of the gods by Iamblichus in this passage rather to describe their divine function and not directly nominally; but clearly the term links them, just as henad does, to the One in a fundamental and crucial way. Further on in Book I at I.17 Iamblichus resorts again to the use of monoeides in his stipulation of the unity of the gods as his response to Porphyrys 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 diculty by declaring that the heavenly bodies are enveloped by the gods, which revert to their divine cause, and that such a body is no impediment; rather it is of its own initiative .16 He continues directly thereafter by stating that this heavenly body is itself closely related to that of the gods, being simple, without parts, indivisible, not subject to change, and then describes its energeia as monoeides. But Iamblichus then emphasizes the unity of the divine nature itself also, again making use of the same term: The gods of heaven are beings homogeneous in all respects, entirely united [] among themselves, uniform [] and non-composite.17 The word appears frequently in the works of every major later Neoplatonist and in similar contexts enough to allow it with some assurance to be taken as a Neoplatonic technical

15) 16)

Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 111. 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 out the appropriate types of oering to the dierent classes of gods, Iamblichus perhaps even more tellingly utilizes the term monoeides as the single determinant to contrast the higher gods from the lesser which are honored with physical sacrice of bodies: when, then, we oer cult to the gods who rule over soul and nature, it is not inappropriate to sacrice to them bodies . . . but when we set out to honour those gods that are in and of themselves uniform [], it is proper to accord them honours that transcend matter, V.19.226.7-8, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 259.

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

61

term, though in some cases it is to be sure employed in its more usual sense as conveyed in the English translation as uniform.18 Of these many occurrences, however, Proclus in his Platonic Theology would appear explicitly to give a denition of monoeides in the course of delineating two triads from the Phaedo, in the section of that work devoted to a series of divine attributes drawn from Plato (Sarey-Westerink I.27, p.118.20-24); monoeides is dened in the explication of the rst member of the second triad: T ,
. . . . The adjec-

tive is here raised to the level of a nominal concept as a member of the triad, which is fundamentally divine, at the highest level of being, and explicitly at the same level as the participable henads, specically below Proclus One, which is above being. This degree in the hierarchy of being is however the same as the one at which Iamblichus places the gods, as will be shown next. Iamblichus makes use of other specic language in Book I which is directly echoed in Proclus, particularly in the propositions in the Elements of Theology dening the henads. In I.5 Iamblichus appears as it were to step back and state some general principles about his view of the gods in preparation for further responses to Porphyrys questions, and in these assertions lies perhaps the most persuasive evidence that he is presenting the gods as very similar to the henads as described by Proclus. Iamblichus begins by stipulating, Well then, there is the Good that is beyond being, and there is 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

A number of relevant examples of its usage in Syrianus, Proclus, and Damascius may be cited; cf. Syrianus, in Met. 113, 23, where is one of the primary universal elements emanating from the archetypal Monad and in Met. 114,21, where monoeides is included among the attributes of the highest level of the divine Forms; Proclus, in Tim. I.136,16, where in the discussion of the lots assigned the gods the providence of the Father is described as monoeides and in Tim. II.59, 13, where the Paradigm is described as monoeides, all-perfect, and eternal; perhaps most signicantly Damascius, de Prin. W.-C. II.3,1 in the defense of Iamblichus view of the rst two hypostases, the level of the One after the Ineable and before the noetic triad is referred to simply as and similarly used at II.6, 8; Damascius in Phaed. Westerink I.312 and I.316, where one of the attributes of the real-existents is monoeides.

18)

62

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

particular feature of the gods.19 He then contrasts this highest divine principle 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 demons and heroes.20 If the rst and highest extreme is that of the Good but which also has being, explicitly below the Good that is above being, it would have to be placed very high in Iamblichus scheme of reality, since the Good is normally synonymous for the One, but not at any of the highest levels of the One, since he also claims being for it. Hence this divine principle would then most likely correspond to the One Existent ( ). But this level 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 dened by Proclus in the Platonic Theology.21 Iamblichus
I.5.15.4-5, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 21. See Sarey (1990) 287 for a table conveniently summarizing the contrasting attributes given 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 in Iamblichus scheme; cf. Bussanich (2002) 44-45, for the divine henads as hyperousioi and as unitary: The 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 transcendent One. Proclus, Inst. Prop. 113: the divine series has the character of unity, if the One is god. It should be pointed out that Proclus posits the divine henads as being above existence, as in Prop. 123 cited above, where he speaks of their supra-existential unity, and this variance at rst may appear as an obstacle to the thesis that Iamblichus is putting forth the gods as henads, since he certainly places them at the highest level of existence, but denitely existent and not supra-existent. In point of fact, Proclus does impart to the henads rather hyparxis, which Siorvanes translates as root-being, Siorvanes (1996) 170. But this inconsistency between Proclus and Iamblichus is likely related to the same clear dierence of philosophical opinion regarding the nature of the rst hypothesis of the Parmenides and the place of the gods in that schema, which, if Dillon (1993) is correct, is explained by the placement and function of the One Existent, and pertinently for this discussion the One Existent is, as just shown, the same level for the gods according to Iamblichus and for him the highest level of existence. So it is quite possible that Iamblichus and Proclus both see the gods as henadic but do not agree on this point concerning their relationship to being, especially not in this instance where Proclus makes such a sharp distinction with his predecessor regarding the nature of the rst two hypotheses of the Parmenides and the nature of the One as a completely isolated and simple hypostasis just below which for him appear the henads, and a rst hypostasis unlike that complex one apparently conceived of by Iamblichus. In fact in general, it could be said that while the two philosophers would likely agree on most of the particulars regarding the henads, they still might disagree on some few of them, and the evidence could still point overall nonetheless to an
20) 19)

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

63

then in I.5.18, 6-11 oers Porphyry as restatement of this highest divine principle the following: To approach the question from another perspective: on the one hand, unity in all its extension and all its forms, permanent stability in oneself, the quality of being the cause of indivisible essences, an immobility such as may be conceived of as being the cause of every motion, a superiority over all beings which precludes having anything in common with them and, furthermore, the conception of being unmixed and transcendent alike in essence, potency and activityall such characteristics should be attributed to the gods.22 Unity in all its extension is here expressed tellingly in the Greek as . . . . If the henads appear at the level of the One Existent in Iamblichus scheme, then they are also the rst object of intellection, also at the highest level of the second hypostasis: 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 this high principle, as present continuously and uniformly to the gods in contrast to the grasp available to the Soul, which is , multiform or of many Forms as opposed to monoeides (I.7.21.14), and from the juxtaposition Nous seems as well intended by Iamblichus to be the agent of that intellection. This higher principle is next described as at the 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 matters and 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 discussion of similar passages on the transcendence of the gods in Book III. 23) For the henads as the objects of Nous, see Dillon (1993) 50. There may be more proof for this concept at I.15.46.1-2 where Iamblichus states that the gods are absolutely superior to Nous; Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 57n81 ad loc suggest they may in fact here be regarded as henads. But since they are at the same level as the One Existent they also for Iamblichus would be the highest object of intellection, again superior to Nous itself. For the use of in reference to the One Existent cf. Dillon (2007b) 58. Later in chapter 15 further supporting evidence for the placement of the gods at this level may be found in his denial of Porphyrys contention that the gods are noeric; for more discussion of this passage, see note 39 below.

64

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

[] . . . [it], in a single swift moment, comprehends the supreme ends of all activities and essences . . . the gods have present to them throughout, concurrently with their essence, the measure [] of the universe or the cause of this . . .24 The preceding encompasses in one passage several concepts central to the henads as dened by Proclus. In his main discussion of the henads in his Commentary on the Parmenides, 1066, 22, several times he refers to them as (1043.26, 1047.20, 1049.37, 1050.14-15, 1066.22), and in the Platonic Theology III 4, p. 14.14, in the chapters dedicated to them in that work, he refers to the henad also as an . 25 Proclus in ET prop. 114, the second devoted to the denition of the henads, states that every god is a ; Iamblichus appears to impart a similar meaning to here, emphasizing the independence of the higher divine principle from subsidiary beings, in which dwells the lowest principle, contrasted repeatedly to the highest in this passage, and according to Dodds that same sense is the main one conveyed in by Proclus, as opposed to the of the higher principles which penetrate to the lower levels of being.26 Iamblichus further categorizes the higher divine
I.7.21.1-I.7.22.10, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 27-29. Sarey-Westerink (1978) 111-112n3 in their commentary to the cited passage in the Platonic Theology point out the relatively greater frequency of the term in Proclus as compared to the other two designations he gives the henads in that same section, and . The latter pair is denitely 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 deities rather low in the hierarchy of that system, the Iynges, according to Lewy (1978) 156. The term appears in frs.76, 82, and 84; see the notes ad loc, Majercik (1989) 172-73. Proclus in the Commentary on the Parmenides at 1049.37 pairs with , both taken to be Chaldaean (Proclus transl. Morrow and Dillon [1987] 408n16). Marius Victorinus paired the two terms also, Ad Arium, I, 62, 13-14 H.-H., summitates . . . et orem, des Places (1996) 86n3, and Hadot is of the same opinion in his note to a previous occurrence in 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 des Places ibid. He employs the pair to describe the noeric rays of the sun in a passage where in fact he appears to be citing doctrine of the Phoenicians (134A), which is to say rather Chaldaeans, but likely he is reproducing here as in most of the hymn some teaching of Iamblichus. What indeed did Iamblichus himself make of these verses in his Commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles and perhaps even the term itself or perhaps in his treatise On the Gods? 26) Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 260-261, note to prop. 114, referring also to prop. 64, note
25) 24)

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

65

principle as in a single swift moment, comprehend[ing] the supreme ends of 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 knowledge of things divided and a timeless knowledge of things temporal; he knows the contingent without contingency, the mutable immutably, and in general all things in a higher mode than belongs to their station.27 The key to the nature of this knowledge is that it is, also from prop. 124, and, from prop. 123, that the henad itself is unknowable to lower beings, as Iamblichus also describes the gods to be in response to Porphyrys rst question. The last common concept expressed by Iamblichus in this characterization of the higher divine principle is that the gods have concurrent with their essence the measure of the universe: prop. 117 states that Every god is a measure [] of things existent. At I.7.22.7 Iamblichus claims that these same superior classes of being possess essential order and essential beauty, or if one wishes to express it so, it is the causal principle of these that coexists with them and in I.7.21.6 the higher divine principle discussed above is said to pre-exist () all things. This sort of preexistence () is covered by Proclus in general in prop. 65 and more specically in relation to the henads in prop. 118.28 The latter proposition holds that every attribute of the gods pre-subsists [] in them in a manner consistent with their distinctive character as gods.29 In this single passage Iamblichus has included in his denition of this higher divine principle several key aspects fundamental also to the denition of henads as proposed later by Proclus in the Elements of Theology and has 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 in the gods, and the concept of ellampsis. The substance of every god is a
on pp. 234-35. He points out there that is originally an Aristotelian and Stoic term. It is also interestingly enough used of god by Alcinous (10.3) and of the Monad by Nicomachus ap. Theol. Ar. 3.18 De Falco, Alcinous transl. Dillon (1995) 104; cf. Alcinous ed. 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 principle of 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.

66

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

supra-existential excellence [], Proclus states in prop. 119, and in 122, For being pure excellences, by their very being they furnish to all things good without stint; they make no calculated apportionment, but the participants receive according to their own desserts what the gods bestow according to their own substance.30 In two passages Iamblichus characterizes in like terms the benecent actions of the gods; they [the gods as superior entities] give from themselves to bodies everything in the way of goodness that bodies can receive . . . (I.8.24.4-5) and For in fact all [the gods] alike are good and causes of good, and looking towards one single good the direct themselves unitarily [] to the Fine and Good alone. (I.18.53.2).31 One of the rst propositions of the group concerned with the henads, 116, establishes that every god is participable, except the One.32 Iamblichus alludes briey to the notion of participation () by lesser entities in the gods at I.8.29.1-2 and discusses it at greater length at I.18.54.5-I.18.56.2, citing specic examples of the inuences of Kronos and Ares. The nal major similarity can be found in I.9 as Iamblichus responds to what he views as Porphyrys misconception that the gods are localized and act as separate agents of power, some in the air, some in the water, some of earth, and some subterranean.33 The correct view is that the divine power manifested in each god is anything but divided in any way, that they hold a which is , , and and that their implicit could not be preserved if they were as separate as Porphyry deems them to be (I.9.29.13-I.9.30.6). The solution to this issue is oered not metaphorically, but literally as the ellampsis or illumination of the gods: regardless of spatial locality anywhere in the world, the fact is that divinity illuminates everything from without, even as the sun lights everything from without with its rays. Even as the sunlight, then, envelops what it illuminates, so also does the power of the gods
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 105 and 109. 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 terrestrial and subterranean gods instead to those of the air and water, but the full list of divine categories given above for Porphyry comes from his Philosophy from the Oracles fr. 314-315 Smith; for a recent discussion of that work and Porphyrys classication of the gods, see Edwards (2006) 114-115.
31) 30)

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

67

embrace from outside that which participates in it . . . the light of the gods illuminates its subject transcendently [ ] (I.9.30.13-I.9.31.4). Ellampsis furthermore is the means for divine power to draw up the soul of the theurge (rather than Porphyrys notion of any drawing down of the gods by magical means), as Iamblichus states at I.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 how ellampsis is essential also to the workings of divination.34 On the other end of the spectrum, in Book VIII of De Mysteriis the One Existent is characterized as the preexistent source of being, god of gods: (VIII.2.262.3), and so may provide the origin in the vertical hierarchy for ellampsis penetrating downward throughout the lower levels of being.35 ET props. 70 and 71 are devoted to the principle of ellampsis and props. 125, 137, and 138 discuss its relevance to the divine henads. The former propositions state, All those more

On how ellampsis also reaches all the way into matter and allows the ecacy of the theurgic sunthemata, see Shaw (1995) 48-49. On the henads and ellampsis in Proclus, see also Bechtle (2006) 146-147. The concept appears also in Sallustius XIV.26-28, who likely is drawing somehow on Iamblichus; cf. Sallustius ed. Nock (1996) xcviii, where Nock describes in de Mysteriis as almost a technical term. 35) Bechtle regards the One Existent as Monad in Book VIII as tantamount to a divine henad already being employed by Iamblichus, Bechtle (2006) 158. Light used at least metaphorically in this manner hardly originates with Iamblichus and may be found in several passages in Plotinus, such as Enn. IV.5.6-7; cf. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 39n57, and Platos metaphor of the Sun in the Republic probably serves as the fount for all such Platonic imagery. For a comparison of the usage of such light imagery by Plotinus versus by Iamblichus 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 cites Julians Hymn to Helios (134a5-b7) as well on incorporeal light, the same passage where Julian typies the rays of the Helios as a sort of or in a likely Chaldaean usage. Cremer in fact takes ellampsis in de Mysteriis throughout to be in origin Chaldaean, Cremer (1969) 104-105. Blumenthal on the other hand suggests the term may arise from the Gnostic Sethian cosmogony as related by Hippolytus, Refutatio V.19.4 and X.11.3, though the use there seems metaphorical, Blumenthal (1971) 15n19. (Thanks to Giannis Stamatellos for pointing out this reference to me.) The important distinction to be made is that Iamblichus imparts to ellampsis a specic function fundamental to the nature of theurgy and the dispersion of gifts of the gods downward to all beings as well as a unicatory method among themselves, and with repeated allusions to the concept in de Mysteriis he in eect raises it to the level of a technical term within Neoplatonism.

34)

68

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

universal characters which inhere in the originative principles both irradiate [] their participants before the specic characters . . . and all those characters which in the originative causes have higher and more universal rank become in their resultant beings, through the irradiations [] which proceed from them, a kind of substratum for the gifts of the more specic principles . . .36 As for the henads, Proclus in prop. 137 observes how the henad cooperates with the One in producing the real-existents which participate it . . . at the same time the dependent existents are severally produced by the henads which irradiate [] them (prop. 125). To the One they owe simply their existence; their community of nature with a particular henad is due to the activity of that henad.37 As shown then by Iamblichus the 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
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 67-69. Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 121-123. The downward action of ellampsis in regards to the henads is referred to directly also in Prop. 136 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 120 line 28 and Prop. 138 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 122 line 15. Cf. Platonic Theology Sarey-Westerink I.18, p. 85.6-20, for a passage on the divine attributes drawn from the Republic concerning the propagation of the Good, which cites ellampsis ( I.18, p. 85.9) as a part of the explication, and includes much of the language under discussion here, such as two further relevant usages of monoeides. Ellampsis may also operate upon the soul; Olympiodorus points out in his Commentary on the Phaedo how it allows the soul to join with the One: for just as our eye, when illuminated by the sunlight, is at rst dierent from the source of the light, as its recipient, but is afterwards somehow united with it and joined to it, and becomes as it were one with it and sun-like, so our soul is at rst illuminated [] by intelligence and its actions are directed by the contemplative virtues, but afterwards it becomes in a way identical with the source of the illumination [ ] and acts in union with the One [ ] by the exemplary virtues. The object of philosophy is to make us intelligence, that of theurgy to unite us with the intelligible principles and conform our activity to the ideal examples (Westerink 46, 14-20, his translation). In the corresponding section of the Commentary on the Phaedo of Damascius, Westerink 143, 1-5, Damascius similarly describes the exemplary, or paradigmatic, vis--vis intelligence (Nous) and in that text explicitly attributes some renement of the denition of the paradigmatic virtues to Iamblichus in his lost treatise, On Virtues. For more on the development of the Platonic virtues by Iamblichus, see Westerinks note ad loc to the text in Damascius, and also Sarey (1971) 237-238. Olympiodorus language here is suggestive and quite reminiscent, particularly in the use of the analogy to the sun, of the passage from DM I.9 discussed above; has he perhaps actually echoed or even reproduced in his Commentary Iamblichus own text from the lost On Virtues?
37) 36)

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

69

hierarchy all the way to the lowest levels, through this process termed by both ellampsis. In a passage in De Principiis of great importance to the argument for Iamblichus as the originator of the henads, under the heading from Westerink-Combs of Les pluralits externes: illuminations ou subsistences?, the second response to the rst aporia concerning the Procession of the One (pp. 62-65), Damascius discusses the process of ellampsis in some detail, and specically contrasts Iamblichus concept of the gods in this regard with that of the majority of his predecessors. Those before him had seen the gods as owing their existence merely to an ellampsis from the One, so that they had not viewed them rather, in the implied opinion of Iamblichus, as a . . . (De Prin. III 64,12-13). The distinction then is between the gods as only . . . (III 64, 11) versus self-complete (autoteles, again) levels above being; since this denial comprises the half of the contrast between the earlier philosophers and what Iamblichus believed, it is very dicult to construe Damascius here as other than imputing to Iamblichus a belief in the divine henads, just as described by Proclus in the Elements of Theology and elsewhere and implied in Book I of his own de Mysteriis.38 Many then of the fundamental characteristics of the divine henads as dened by Proclus are already evinced of the gods by Iamblichus in Book I of de Mysteriis. First, he places them at the appropriate level in the hierarchy of being at the One Existent, which is itself in Book VIII termed the source of ellampsis, and which is most likely that of the divine henads. Both Iamblichus and Proclus declare the gods and divine henads to be directly unknowable, because of their level of unity, repeatedly referred to by Iamblichus, often via the same term as used in the Psellan excerpts, as monoeides, a term along with related forms such as henoeides which appears frequently also in Proclus in similar contexts. Good is imparted to lower beings by the gods and the divine henads, and both are described as summits, perfect or self-contained, and measures in regard to those
38) Sarey and Westerink, Proclus ed. Sarey-Westerink (1978) xxxix, are of the opinion that 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 attributes t the functional bill as henads. Hadot briey recognized the importance of this passage for Iamblichean authorship in Hadot (1961) 432, and it probably deserves more consideration in the debate over the origin of the henads than it has received.

70

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

lower beings which are seen in both cases as participating in the higher gods or henads. Finally, both philosophers cite the process of ellampsis as crucial to the workings of the gods and the divine henads in their roles in the chain of being.39 If however for the sake of argument it is granted that Iamblichus was the originator of the doctrine of the henads, and if it is conceded that he refers frequently to the gods in Book I in terms of that doctrine, it is nevertheless quite reasonable then to ask at this point, why would he not simply use the term itself explicitly in the course of his discussion?40 While, given the hypothetical 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)

Two other passages are of relevance to the argument that Iamblichus oers a henadic conception of the gods. In chapter 15 he disputes Porphyrys contention that the gods are pure intellect by distinguishing them as higher in his scheme of being, to be associated in the realm of Nous rather with the highest level within it, the intelligible, which in Iamblichus philosophy also serves as the lowest element of the hypostasis of the One, again the level of the One Existent, and furthermore these gods may identied with what Iamblichus 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 one above it, these entities may also be regarded as henads, the lowest element in the realm of the One, as they were later for Syrianus and the Athenian School, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 57n81. Secondly, in chapter 19 he responds to Porphyrys query what is it that attaches those entities possessing a body in the heavens to the incorporeal gods by repeatedly stressing the unity of the gods and reiterating that they have their origin at that level of the intelligible. His term of choice to emphasize this point in the passage, used no less than six times from I.19.59.1 to I.19.61.3, is henosis. 40) Two other likely reasons for the absence of the term from De Mysteriis again have to do with 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 stance alone might make it inappropriate to employ so technical a Neoplatonic term. The second reason may be even simpler: that Iamblichus would be aware that Porphyry would not subscribe to such a theory as that of the henads, so why bother to adduce it directly? Both these points I owe to John Dillon, to whom I am most thankful also for reading this essay and suggesting improvements to it. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for several comments which helped, it is hoped, sharpen the arguments presented, and in addition, to several kind and helpful correspondents who have in general given thoughtful encouragement over the last few years, I would express my thanks: Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Cosmin Andron, Nico Bader, Michael Chase, Stephen Clark, Beniamino di Dario, Christoph Helmig, Marilynn Lawrence, Melanie Mineo, Edward Moore, Jan Opsomer, Gregory Shaw, Anne Sheppard, and Harold Tarrant.

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

71

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 Mysteriis is the clear dierence of opinion about the basic nature of divinity between Porphyry and Iamblichus, and that variance includes also, signicantly for the history of the development of later Neoplatonism, the fact that Iamblichus apparently was much more concerned to create an accounting for the gods strictly consonant with that philosophical system. To integrate them fully rather than merely to synthesize them in any casual way represents more accurately his desire, though it does appear that both these philosophers were pious and sincere in their individual beliefs, whatever degree of devotion Porphyrys mentor Plotinus may have personally held. Is it conceivable then that this debate concerning the philosophical status of the gods in the Neoplatonic universe was in fact a main impetus for Iamblichus to develop his henadic view of divinity, and what is presented in De Mysteriis, with its limited skopos and polemical cast, represents rather a rst step in that process which may have produced at some later point the more formal denition 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 in De Mysteriisand the evidence of the text does seem to support that notion at the very least with some assurance as detailed in this present analysis but he simply had not yet devised and applied the term henad itself ? As admittedly extrapolative as such a hypothesis is, nevertheless it is required of any fundamental explanation of the historical development of Neoplatonism to account for what a modern critic with justication might term an extraordinary obsession with incorporating the Hellenic gods into the
41)

One intriguing question which unfortunately will nd no certain answer given the current state of Iamblichus textual remains is exactly how much does Book I of De Mysteriis correspond to that lost work, as well as what is the chronological relationship between the two. 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 character 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 for this analysis (Proclus direct reference to On the Gods found in Platonic Theology SareyWesterink I.11, p. 52.3 is of no help in determining this issue). Could Book I be a sort of preliminary for On the Gods which in the scenario as argued here is the later work? Or contra, if actually written later, does Book I consist largely rather of a summary or relevant excerpts of an already published and likely much more extensive On the Gods?

72

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

Neoplatonic system, and in the most intimate and integral fashion, not merely as ornament or afterthought. This pervasive concern had to be initiated by someone in the line of later Platonists, since it clearly is not a matter of any great interest to Plotinus and yet is obvious to even the most casual of observers of almost any major work of Proclus to be central to his conception of Platonic thought. That this development must precede his full blown theology in the history of Neoplatonism is well known, but the exact point at which the henads were introduced has been dicult to ascertain. This analysis of Iamblichus presentation of a henadic view of the gods in Book I of De Mysteriis will not yield for once and for all a specic date nor an author for the origination of that concept, but perhaps it will at least provoke further discussion by gathering and exposing the potential terminological and other evidence until now somewhat concealed in the antagonistic rhetoric of Iamblichus treatise, which itself has mostly been viewed as a defense of theurgy rather than any disquisition on the nature of the gods, whether they ultimately claim an assured place in his own Platonic theology as divine henads or not.42

42) Though certainly of no primary evidential value for determining the status of the henads in Iamblichus, the following passage of Marsilio Ficino from the rst section of his paraphrasing Latin version of De Mysteriis, titled De Cognitione Divinorum, based on several of the chapters of Book I discussed above, is of note for his choice of terms, in particular unitas: Essentialis cognitio divinorum, quae anima est perpetua ac re vera non est cognitio haec, qua deo fruimur. In cognitione enim est alteritas, sed contactus quidam essentialis et simplex. Non enim possumus attingere unitatem ipsam, nisi unitissimo quodam et unitate mentis, quae super animae mentisque proprietatem extat. Unitas ipsa deorum unit sibi animas ab aeterno per unitates earum secundum contiguitatem tam propriam et ecacem, ut esse continuitas videatur. Ficino in all likelihood was familiar with the Latin translation of Proclus Commentary on the Parmenides by William of Moerbeke (cf. Allen [1989] 14n4), and consistently in the passages in Book VI of that work dedicated to the discussion of the henads, William translates the Greek henas with unitas and at 1043 employs unitissimis for henikotatois, used above also by Ficino in his epitome. In his translation of Proclus Elements of Theology William again translates henas with unitas in the relevant propositions. In his own Platonic Theology, especially in Book II, Ficino will apply unitas as a chief attribute to his highest, single God, taking great pains as a Christian to render that singularity most strictly, but it appears that here in his interpretation of De Mysteriis he is expressing, already in the 15th century, what might be claimed as a henadic view of the gods in Iamblichus.

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

73

Bibliography
Oracles Chaldaques, edited and translated by douard des Places, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996. Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, Translated with and Introduction and Commentary by John 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 Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989. Bechtle, Gerald. Gttliche Henaden und Platonischer Parmenides in Iamblichus, Aspekte seiner Philosophie und Wissenschaftskonzeption: Studien zum spteren Platonismus, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2006: 135-159. Blumenthal, H.J. Plotinus Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul, The Hague: Martinus Nijho, 1971. Bussanich, John. Philosophy, Theology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus, in Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sptantiken Denkens, ed. T. Kobusch & M. Erler, Mnchen: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2002: 39-61. . New Editions of Iamblichus: A Review Essay, Ancient Philosophy 25.2 (2005), 478-494. Clarke, Emma. Iamblichus De Mysteriis: a Manifesto of the Miraculous, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Damascius. Trait des premiers principes vol. III, edited and translated by L.G. Westerink, J. Combs, and A.-Ph. Segonds (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1991. Dillon, John. Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of the Henads, Phronesis 17 (1972), 102-106. . Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Edited with translation and commentary by John M. Dillon, Leiden: Brill, 1973. . Iamblichus of Chalcis ANRW II.36.2 (1987), 862-909. . Iamblichus and Henads Again in The 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 Theurgy: Some Reections, The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 1 (2007), 30-41. . What Price the Father of the Noetic Triad? Some Thoughts on Porphyrys Doctrine of the First Principle in Studies in Porphyry ed. G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard, London: Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies Supplement, 2007: 51-59. Edwards, Mark. Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus, London: Duckworth, 2006. Festugire, A.J. La revelation dHerms Trismgiste vol. IV, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990. Finamore, John F. Iamblichus on Light and the Transparent in The 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, The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 2 (2008), 93-112.

74

D. Clark / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

Hadot, Pierre. Fragments dun commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parmnide, Revue des tudes grecques 74 (1961), 410-438. Iamblichus. On the Mysteries, translated by Emma C. Clarke, John Dillon, and Jackson P. 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. The 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 Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the later Roman Empire, new edition by M. Tardieu, Paris: tudes augustiniennes, 1978. Majercik, Ruth. The Chaldaean Oracles Text, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden: Brill, 1989. Marius Victorinus. Traits thologiques sur la Trinit, SC 68-69, edited by Paul Henry, introduction, 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: Clarendon Press, 1989. Plotinus. Trait 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. . The Elements of Theology, edited and translated by E.R. Dodds, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. . Thologie platonicienne vol. I, edited and translated by H.D. Sarey and L.G. Westerink (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968. . Thologie platonicienne vol. III, edited and translated by H.D. Sarey and L.G. Westerink (Collection des Universits de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978. Sarey, H.D. Abamon, pseudonyme de Jamblique, in Philomathes. Studies and essays in the Humanities in memory of Philip Merlan, edited by Robert B. Palmer and Robert Hamerton-Kelly, The Hague: Martinus Nijho, 1971, 227-239. . Plan des livres I et II du De mysteriis de Jamblique in Recherches sur le Noplatonisme 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. Theurgy and the Soul The 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 Tradition, The Hague: Martinus Nijho, 1974. Steel, Carlos G. Iamblichus and the Theological Interpretation of the Parmenides, Syllecta Classica 8 (1997), 15-30. Trouillard, Jean. LUn et lme selon Proclos, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972.