Iamblichus and His Circle

When Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 242-325) came to study with Porphyry, he was already an advanced student of philosophy.^[88] Earlier, Plotinus and Porphyry had differed over their reception of the Aristotelian categories; Iamblichus found himself disagreeing with Porphyry at the same intersection of logic and metaphysics. Like Porphyry, Iamblichus commented on Aristotle's Categories , but his interpretations tended to devalue the philosopher's system as a whole. He wrongly supposed that Aristotle had derived his ideas from the work of a Pythagorean named Archytas; that where their ideas coincided, Aristotle borrowed from the Pythagorean; and that where they differed, Aristotle corrupted the an-

[85] Vita Plotini 13.6-8 (Armstrong, ed., 1:39).

[86] See T. M. Bauchich, "The Date of Eunapius' Vitae sophistarum ," GRBS 25 (1984): 183-92; R. Goulet, "Sur la chronologie de la vie et des oeuvres d'Eunape de Sardes," JHS 100 (1980): 60-72, at 60-64. Though I also consulted J. Giangrande's edition of Eunapii Vitae Sophistarum (Rome, 1956), I will cite from Wright's more widely accessible Loeb edition throughout, modifying for clarity when necessary.

[87] See now R. J. Penella, Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century, A.D.: Studies in Eunapius of Sardis , ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 28 (Leeds, 1990).

[88] See J. Bidez, "Le philosophe Jamblique et son école," REG 32 (1919), 29-40; PLRE 1:450-51, s.v. "Iamblichus I"; J. Dillon, "Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 240-325 A.D.)," ANRW 2.36.2 (Berlin, 1987), 862-909, who gives an excellent treatment of the philosopher's life and works.

cient tradition.^[89] Iamblichus thus subordinated the Aristotelian logical enterprise to a more venerable and ancient Pythagorean science. This approach harmonized well with Iamblichus' noted pythagoreanizing tendencies and with his theory of the progressive decline of divine wisdom in a passage about astronomy: "This is true for all forms of knowledge that passed from the gods to men. With the inevitable passage of time, they, having commingled with much that is mortal, began to lose the divine character of knowledge."^[90]

In his Protrepticus , a general exhortation to the philosophical life based on the traditional genre of the protreptikos logos , Iamblichus blended Platonic, Aristotelian, and Neopythagorean teachings to form a new synthesis. In line with traditional philosophical thought, he began with an introductory philosophical manual that stressed the need for the exercise of reason () in the purification of the soul.^[91] But, although his system accommodated elements from the full range of philosophical and scientific knowledge, Iamblichus placed the personal judgment of the wise holy man () at the apex of philosophical attainments.^[92] Interestingly, it was precisely as a wise holy man that Iamblichus himself appeared in Eunapius' Vitae sophistarum .^[93]

"Of Iamblichus' circle of disciples we know nothing save what Eunapius tells us, and most of that is anecdotal."^[94] Eunapius represented Iamblichus' relationship with his student-companions () as a rather peculiar one: a skeptical group of students always putting their teacher to the test. Once, after Iamblichus directed his group to detour from a road on which a dead body had been carried to avoid ritual pollution, some of his more testy companions () resolved to take the original route.^[95] Eunapius likened these Thomases to dogs going after the proof ().^[96]

[89] Iamblichus has been credited with giving a decisive theurgic impetus to the Neoplatonic tradition. One of his major contributions was to formally establish the centrality of a Pythagorean way of life for Platonist philosophers. Of course, Porphyry had already written a vita of Pythagoras, but Iamblichus' De vita pythagorica was not so much a personal biography as an exposition of a Pythagorean way of life. See the discussion in D. J. O'Meara, Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 1989), 96-97.

[90] Iamblichus, De mysteriis 9.4, 277.1-18 (Des Places, ed., 204-5); my translation.

[91] See Iamblichus, Protrepticus 13.

[93] This is just how Iamblichus portrayed Pythagoras in his De vita pythagorica ; see esp. 28.142.

[94] Fowden, "Platonist Philosopher and his Circle.," 373.

[95] Eunapius, VS 459.

They should not have wasted their effort by doubting Iamblichus' premonition, as they soon encountered the mourners returning from the funeral.

Eunapius' use of the language of philosophical demonstration in the context of "miraculous" proof is highly suggestive and to the point. These competitive and skeptical students continued to put their master to the test after this episode until Iamblichus acceded to their wish, saying: "It is irreverent to the gods to give you this demonstration (), but for your sakes it shall be done."^[97] Iamblichus then demonstrated how spirits from the springs could be summoned, a deed vividly narrated by Eunapius, who admitted he learned it as hearsay. After this incident, the disciples desisted from seeking proof of Iamblichus' power; instead, convinced by the revealing demonstrations (), they began to believe him in all matters.^[98]

Like the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, the traditional Iamblichus was repeatedly tested by others. His contemporary Alypius of Alexandria, a renowned philosopher and "consummate dialectician" ( ),^[99] was. usually attended by a large entourage of disciples. The paths of the two men and their students often crossed, and one such chance meeting, compared by Eunapius to the intersection of orbiting luminaries, became an occasion for a public contest.^[100] A gathering crowd looked on as the spectacle () unfolded before them:

Iamblichus was waiting to have questions put to him rather than to ask them, but Alypius, contrary to all expectations, postponed all questioning about philosophy since an audience had gathered and asked: "Tell me, philosopher, is a rich man either unjust or the heir of the unjust, yes or no? For there is no middle course."^[101]

[97] Eunapius, VS 459 (Wright, ed., 368-69).

[99] This is precisely the epithet the historian Sozomen chose to apply to Arius of Alexandria in Hist. eccl . 1.15.

[100] See J. C. Faris, "'Occasions' and 'Non-Occasions,'" in M. Douglas, ed., Rules and Meanings (New York, 1973), 45-49; idem, "Validations in Ethnographical Description: the Lexicon of 'Occasions' in Cat Harbour," Man n.s. 3 (1968): 112-24.

In his preference to receive rather than pose a philosophical question, Iamblichus resembled the legendary Apollonius of Tyana.^[102] Presumably he planned to use the question as a springboard for a continuous, epideictic discourse on a given philosophical theme. But because their meeting had turned into a public spectacle, Alypius decided against the customary practice of proposing a philosophical theme (); instead, he asked Iamblichus to solve a logical dilemma.^[103] Eunapius' stress on the fact that Alypius' action was contrary to accustomed usage () tells us, by inversion, the cultural norms of philosophical interactions.

As described in the narrative, Alypius confronted Iamblichus with a request for a dialectical premiss. His further invocation of the phrase , expressing the logical principle of the excluded middle, left Iamblichus no room to modify the limited choices presented to him.^[104] Iamblichus was asked to give an answer of yes or no (;) to a cunningly fashioned proposition: in neither case could he avoid offending the well-to-do among the audience. Once a particular proposition had been chosen by Iamblichus, it would become a thesis for Alypius to contradict or render meaningless. It is significant that the "consummate dialectician" Alypius allegedly refused to apply his dialectical skills to a discussion of metaphysics but instead aimed to impress his audience by sophistically posing an ethical dilemma.

Iamblichus so resented the limitation of the two admissible pre-misses in Alypius' petitio principii that he declined to respond. But after departing from the scene, Iamblichus reflected on the encounter and came to be impressed by Alypius' astuteness. He later cultivated a friendship with Alypius and held him in such high regard that, when the latter died without committing any of his teachings to writing, he composed a biography in commemoration.