ON IAMBLICHUS V.P. 215-219

BY

C. J. DE VOGEL

In Iambl. V.P. 215 Pythagoras' courage is illustrated by a con- versation which took place between the philosopher while he was a

captive of the tyrant Phalaris, and Abaris, a Thracian. Abaris is

questioning Pythagoras in Phalaris' presence. The philosopher's answers are very frank. The stage setting is obviously fictitious

since Phalaris was the tyrant of Akragas some 25 years before

Pythagoras' arrival in S. Italy.

Boyance's suggestion 1) that the conversation was borrowed

from Heraclides of Pontus' Abayis has a high degree of probability in so far as it was very much in the manner of the Academician to

imagine such a dialogue. The topics discussed-the cult, the pro- vidence of the gods, the celestial phenomena-no doubt commanded Heraclides' interest. The occurrence of Platonic thoughts such as

the gods not being the cause of evil, diseases being the result of

ocxoxoca'tcx, and the poets saying much about the gods that is un-

worthy of them (ch. 218) is satisfactorily explained by this theory. The same ch. 218, however, also contains some terms and thoughts

that are doubtless of later origin. To start with a clear example, we find the contrast between the x6yoq and the x6yoq "that goes out". Boyanc6 claims that the terms x6yoq and aoYoS ?rPoc?op?xo5 are not exclusively Stoic, quoting in support a passage from Theo of Smyrna (p. 72-73 Hiller), where, according

1) P. Boyancé, Sur l'Abaris d'Héraclide le Pontique, Rev. Et. Anc. 36 (1934), 321-352. A century before Boyancé Krische had already stated that the meeting between Pythagoras and Abaris in Iambl. V.P. finds its source in the Abaris of Heraclides of Pontus (De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo politico, Diss. Gött. 1830, 38). Similarly Corssen in Rhein. Mus. 67 (1912), 29 ff., 38 ff., and Bertermann in De Iamblichi V.P. fontibus (Diss. Königsberg, 1913). Corssen realized that not the entire passage in Iamblichus (215-219) stems from Heraclides as it stands, and Bertermann likewise at least hesitated about some points in ch. 218 (on the soul and the ).

389

to him, only the term 7tpo<popLx6c; is ascribed to whereas

the term is "expressly ascribed to the Peripatetics". There is a misunderstanding here. Theo mentions many À6YOL. First comes "that which is called ?rpocpopcxo5 by the later ones", I

immediately followed by the phrase xon o xon o sv 8Locvot*

xellievoq <p66yyou xon the second being an explanation of

the first; then follows xon o «v«aoYi«S, explained as "proportion". The next item in the list is the grammatical meaning of À6yoç =

sentence: -' <05 À6you aTOCXEiwv viz. the explanation of the parts of the sentence. Then follows À6yoç in the sense of

"esteem" (o Twv xon then the meaning "con-

sideration" (xa6' 6v cpap.?v À6yov TcvoS E'ZeLv 1) then "dis-

course", such as Isocrates' or the speeches of De-

mosthenes and Lysias. Then we get the use of the term in its logical sense of "definition" in Aristotle (o 6poq o To Ti eLVOCL xat

oucylocv (3-Ilioctvcov), "and also syllogism and induction, fable 1), myth,

praise (o «woS) and proverb 7tOCpOL¡.tLOC) are called À6yoç; further-

more the À6yoc; denoting e?8o? (I <05 the À6yoc; and several others."

It can hardly be said that in this list everything after the first

item (the À6yoc; is "expressly" attributed to the Peri-

patetics. On the contrary, it is a list of all manner of meanings of

the word À6yoc;, some of which are specifically Aristotelian, some

belong to rhetorical or grammatical terminology, whereas others

are taken from daily usage or are used to denote literary genres. One of them is the Stoic term À6yoc; It must also be

noted that the author of the list is in the habit of .placing the verb

before the last item and making a pause after the item. Thus e.g. xoct Ó Ac uxo S xav 6 xoct 0 alvo S À6yoc; Àéye't'ocL xai ?7 eTC 8E xoct -. Therefore, when he says at the beginning: 6 re ¡.te-roc

7tpO<pOpLXOC; Ú7tO TMV XEy6(Jt.E?O<; Xod Ó èv8LcX.6E't'0C;, it does

not follow that ?rpocpopcxo5 alone has been expressly qualified as a

late term and not Ev8nx6ETo<;. Greek usage in general and the author's

usage in particular allow the words Ú7tO rcov Àey6¡.tevoc; to

be taken with o ÈV?LcX.6e't'0c; as well.

1) in Aristotle Rhet. II 19, 27 (1393 a 30) are mentioned together with Aesop. Similarly in Quintilian Inst. orat. V 11, 20.

390

Closer inspection of the entire passage in Iamblichus shows that it contains thought-patterns and terms which are Stoic and late Platonic. Boyanc6 implicitly admits this on two important points, for in explaining the curious statement of "Pythagoras" in Iam- blichus that there is a "passage from heaven to earth" (ch. 217, the

end) he first quotes a parallel from Plotinus 1) and secondly de- scribes this communication between heaven and earth in terms of

the Stoic c7U[jL7r<x6EL<x lxmv.

Two remarks must be made. (I) Iamblichus' phrase about a

"passage" - oÙP<XVÓ8EV ? elq Te '7('X aepcoc xocc Ta è7tíYE?<X

<pépEcr8<x? 7té<pUXE - does not recall Plotinus, who portrays the soul's

entry into the material world as a kind of radiation or mirror- effect and specifically not as a concrete descent through the medium of the air; (2) there is in Heraclides of Pontus a strong belief in the

providence of the gods and likewise in miracles and mantic, but

nowhere in the fragments is there any indication that he based this belief on the doctrine of cosmic sympathy. That doctrine

belongs to the physics of the Stoa.

What answers was Abaris given by Pythagoras according to these

chapters? Ch. 216: Touro ÈfJ-cX.V8iXVE (o "Ap«piq) OC'U'rO5

7tepL To5 oÙP<XVÓ8EV 7jpT7)o6(X!. xai olxovo>cic0«1 7tcX.v-r<x oc7t' 0"CUCOV Te

7tÀe?óvCùv xod CX7tO EvepyeiaS Abaris learnt that every-

thing depends on and is directed by heaven. The effectiveness of

sacrifices is one of the reasons given. In the framework of Stoic

thought the £v£pyei« row i?pwv may be easily understood. Since

everything in the cosmos is linked with everything else, the sacri-

ficial act must exert real influence and be felt as far as heaven itself. This is simply a physical necessity. Plotinus explains the

effectiveness of prayer in a similar fashion 2) : the words of a prayer when pronounced vibrate throughout the universe with an endless

reverberation and reach as far as heaven and the stars. There is no

need, he says, to attribute sense perception and will to the heavenly bodies: the effect is automatic.

Is this the background of the words which "Pythagoras" ad-

dresses to Abaris? If one lives in the spiritual climate of Stoicism

1) Enn. IV 3, 11. 1-6. 2) Enn. IV 4, 41-42.

391

and late Platonism, the term svepyEKx iepwv in fact creates these

associations. In our passage, however, the train of thought is

apparently a different one, since "the effectiveness of sacrifices"

serves as proof that everything depends on and is directed

by heaven: is to be taken with But does not this

mean that the "effectiveness" of sacrifices is not thought as a

purely physical process, which reaches so to speak from "down

here to up there", but in fact as the intervention of personally active gods in the affairs of the world?

If that is the meaning, the background is neither Stoic nor

Neoplatonic but pure Heraclides of Pontus. This is precisely how he

interprets the things that happen on earth, at least those that are

slightly unusual. He opposes the physical explanation of a disaster

as the one that struck the city of Helice in his own time and ex-

plains it as the effect of divine anger-in this case the irate Poseidon who has inundated the city 1). On closer inspection, then, these lines strongly confirm Boyance's hypothesis. Notwithstanding the

fact that the passage cannot have been taken from Heraclides of

Pontus in its entirety, as we will see presently, there can be no

doubt that his Abayis in some way or other is the source of the

story of this meeting.

Boyance himself, however, gives a different explanation of the

words &7tO £vepyei«q Twv tep,5v. He thinks that the miraculous

power present in holy objects-e.g. statues of gods-is meant. He

refers to a treatise, quoted in Suidas, IIepi 6e:LWV ?vepYeiwv, of the late 2nd century orator Claudius Aelianus as dealing with mira-

culous statues. A miracle performed by a divine statue is mentioned in the history of the catastrophe of Helice as told by Strabo (VIII 384). Ionian exiles from Helice had demanded the ancient statue

of Poseidon, but their request had not been granted, nor had the

authorities acted on the suggested alternative that the statue

should be placed in the sanctuary. The following winter a flood had

struck the city ... The title of Aelianus' treatise, however, was not flepl 6E?wv

evepyetwv, but flepl 6dwv È:v(Xpydwv, which might be rendered by "Divine manifestations" or "The clarity of divine presence". No

1) Heraclides of Pontus, fr. 46 Wehrli.

392

doubt the subject was divine intervention in human life. The word

£vepyeimv might have been used, but the activity was not empha- sized so much as "presence" or "clear manifestation". At any rate, the title cannot be used as parallel to the phrase &1tO £vepyei«q Twv cepcw in Iamblichus 216.

Aelianus' 5 èVrí.pYEL<XL are described by Iamblichus (217) as Toc

1t(XaL "what everybody can see before his eyes", such as unbearable wars, incurable diseases, crop failures, plague, etc. Aelianus treats these principally as divine punish- ments ; Iamblichus speaks of of gods and demons during such disasters against which human beings are powerless. However this may be, both the one and the other may be understood as 0ei«1

svapY?cac. We have no reason to suppose that the miraculous effect of divine

statues was meant in particular, even if there is no doubt that the

Ancients believed in such miracles. They had in mind such things as nodding, weeping or sweating statues. It seems improbable, however, that Heraclides of Pontus was, in the case of Helice's

inundation, thinking of the direct effect of a statue. Poseidon's

anger was roused by the city's refusal either to give up the statue or to place it in the sanctuary. It is far-fetched to say that this

anger is attributed to the "effect" of the statue.

The expression 5eve'pyetcx <13v tepwv is more readily explained as

"the effect of sacrifices". When this effect is cited as proof that all

things depend on heaven and are governed by heaven, in fact the

belief is expressed that the gods intervene in person, which is the

very belief we find in the fragments of Heraclides of Pontus'

Let us continue with the text of Iamblichus; 216 - the end.

Against Pythagoras' exposition Phalaris denies the value of mantic and ritual acts. Abaris in turn refers to "what everybody can see

before his eyes". Phalaris again reacts in a shameless fashion and

Pythagoras, knowing that the tyrant will not kill him, starts on

another frank exposition. He says first of all that "by nature the

passage from heaven runs to the atmosphere and the realm of

earth" 1), then explains that everything on earth depends on heaven

1)

393

(cXxoÀou6(cx. Tbv oùpcx.v6v - denoting causal dependence) 1), shows indisputably that the power of free will lies in the soul 2), and further speaks with sufficient clarity about the perfect activity of reason and spirit (vog4).

Next he frankly discusses the power of tyrants and all advantages that fall to man by accident, injustice and all manner of human

greed, explaining that there is no value in any of these things. He

then gives a 6eia about the best way of life (1tEpt rou

«piaTOU contrasting it with the worst life. He speaks of the

soul, its powers and emotions, and, best of all, he shows that the

gods are not the cause of evil.

The second part of this speech in which the tyrant's life as the

epitome of and 1tÀEOVEÇ(cx. is contrasted with the good life,

again strongly recalls Plato. The preceding section, however, shows

characteristics that unmistakably belong to a later period.

(i) The passage from heaven that "runs by nature to Toc

xod in fact recalls the Stoa and later Platonism in which

there is a Stoic influence. The atmospheric zone as an intermediary between heaven and earth through which the descent and ascent

of the soul takes place is not a feature that belongs in Plato, but it

is one of Platonizing Stoicism as found in Cicero Tusc. I 42-43 and the myth at the end of Plutarch's De facie in oybe lunae (chap- ters 28-30). Together with some other passages (to be found in my Greek Phil. III, nr. 1192) this points to Posidonius as the source. -

This is the proper background of the etq TE 'roc oceptot xon 'rOC

as mentioned in Iamblichus. The prefix 8ca- clearly empha- sizes the intermediary character of the air. Cf., in later Platonism, the descent of the soul from the Milky Way through the planetary

spheres to the earth, as described by Macrobius in Somnium Sci-

pionis I I I, z z (p. 529 Eyss.) 3).

(2) is not a classical term. We know

followed by a dative for "following" from Plato 4). Galen

construed it with 5).

1) 2) 3) Gr. Phil. III, nr. 1356 b. 4) Crat. 437 c (for "accompany", not "agree"). 5) Galen Nat. fac. I, 16 &. (filling up a vacuum).

394

(3) The adjective oc'ure?oucrloq is late, too. It is not found before

Chrysippus who uses To IXÙ-rEÇOÚ<1?OV 1). (xuTs?oucr?of; is found in Plotinus 2).

(4) Finally, I Tou Xoyou x«1 Tou vou Tsaeia ÈVépYE?1X is certainly post-Stoic, probably a late Platonic phrase.

After the exposition about tyranny and the best life in contrast with it, follows a passage about the and the of the soul. These terms belong likewise to a later period. Platd, of course, often uses them, but in a more original sense 3). The doctrine of the

plays an important role in Aristotle's ethics, but it is not

before the Stoa that and become much used terms in the doctrine of the soul.

The remarks of "Pythagoras" on the cause of evil in general and of diseases in particular take us back to Plato, as does the criticism of literary authors. No doubt some modern interpreters will be

inclined to say that the criticism of the poets for "what they had

said about the gods" was already practised by Pythagoras. How-

ever, the passage of Hieronymus of Rhodes 4) on which this as-

sumption is based, must be handled with certain reservations, as I

explained in my work on Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism 5), ch. VI, sect. i, when commenting on Iambl. V.P. 39. Though

granting that Pythagoras made selections from the poets for

educational purposes, I do not think that there are serious grounds for ascribing to him the kind of criticism we know from Xenophanes and Heraclitus.

Next, Phalaris is admonished VeT' £x£yxmv-which has a nice

Socratic ring-whereupon we get a discussion of the power of

heaven 6), the justification of legal punishment (illustrated by

many examples), the difference between human beings and animals,

1) SVF II 284. 2) Enn. VI 8, 20. 3) Fr. 42 in Wehrli, Aristoteliker X ; from Diog. Laert. VIII 21. 4) Bertermann, De Iambl. V.P. fontibus, 48, thinks that

of the soul refer to punishments in Hades, which is a very classical use of but what is one to do with The combination

rather recalls Stoic psychology. 5) The book will be published by Van Gorcum, Assen, towards the end

of 1965. 6) This is the reading of the Laurentianus F. Deubner altered the (per-

fectly understandable) text and wrote instead of

395

the and "that which goes out", the nous "and the

knowledge going out from it in downward direction",-all of them

interesting subjects treated in an even more interesting terminology. If we keep the traditional text, we find first " Tou oup«vou

Ó7tOLCX TiS x«1 6ur, which is demonstrated 8c' £pymv. Deubner was apparently disturbed by the fact that this power had been

treated repeatedly and felt that now the power of a human ruler

had its turn. What we have here, however, is a list of briefly mentioned points. Was it not fitting to follow up the admonition

of Phalaris ([ter' £x£yxmv) by a reference to the power, the nature and the strength of heaven, and was it not appropriate for the

"speaker" to illustrate this power with EpY« ? I think it was.

The difference between human being and animal was often discussed by the Stoics. Unlike early-Pythagorean thought, which

emphasized the kinship of all living beings, the Stoics elaborated

their difference in principle. Enough has been said about À6yoç and 7tpocpopLX.6ç; they are Stoic terms. The following

point is even more interesting: 7t?pL re vou xurou

Yvw6ewS. We have here an obviously Neoplatonic view: knowledge

(YvwacS as a general term for all manners of knowing, including sense-perception) proceeds from vo5q in a downward line. Doubtless

this agrees with Plato's thought, but it is not his language.

"Pythagoras" continues with "many other connected moral

principles and precepts", and then the climax follows: "he

distinguished between that which happens <xocr('X x«B

x«6' 1) and that which is done on the basis of reasonable

insight (vosq)". Though the terms are old and the distinction was

made by Plato, here, too, the terminology belongs to Stoicism and late Platonism. Plato used different terms in the Timaeus when

speaking of physical

Finally "much wisdom" aocpa) about the demons and

the immortality of the soul. The omission of the article (7iepL

8CXLfJ.6v(¡)v ... 7cep't &8cxvcxcrLCXÇ) is one of the many small

indications of a later usage, of which many instances are found in

Iamblichus (Deubner, Sitz. ber. Berl. 1935).

1) Deubner's necessary emendation is discussed in Berl. Sitz. ber. 1935, 666.

396

It may be concluded that these chapters do derive from Hera-

clides of Pontus' Abaris, but that Iamblichus probably did not

borrow them directly. He may have found them either in

Nicomachus or in Apollonius of Tyana, who presumably recast

and supplemented the conversation as found in Heraclides ac-

cording to the notions and usage of their time. We cannot be

certain which of these two authors, who were Iamblichus' main

sources, had the story. Rohde certainly went too far in saying that

"such a nonsensical story" of course belongs in Apollonius, but

seeing its biographical character it must be admitted that the story most probably is to be ascribed to him as Iamblichus' direct

source. I am inclined to think that certain phrases are Iamblichus'

own, e.g. (probably) an' aviou

UTRECHT, Nieuwe Gracht 79 bis

DE PSEUDOSCHOLIO MOSCHOPULI AD NUBES

Inter scholia, quae in editione Nubium Ernestii-Hermanni (Lipsiae r83o) post textum adduntur, ad v. 995 annotatio solito longior occurrit, in qua sermo figuratus huius versus explicatur collato loco Demosthenis orationis contra Aristogitonem I (XXV 35); quam annotationem, in cuius fine "Manuel Moschopulus" adscribitur, a Creuzero "ad Plotinum de pulchritu-

dine p. 370" editam esse in calce paginae legimus. Scholiorum editores Dindorf et Dfbner haec repetere satis habuerunt (Dubner partim in Adnota- tione) ; inquisitionem in huius scholii originem non instituerunt. Ego hoc negotio suscepto diu molesto impedimento detinebar, cum Creuzer codicem, ex quo illam annotationem descripsit, non indicaverit (,,in codice nondum antea excusso", F. Creuzer, Plotini liber de Pulchyitudine ... Accedunt Anecdota Graeca ..., Heidelberg r8r4, p. 370). Illud tamen scholiorum editores ex editoris principis verbis discere poterant eo iudice certum non esse Moschopulum eam annotationem composuisse (,,uti videtur" Creuzer).

Tandem aliquando mihi contigit, ut codicem reperirem; est Darmstadinus 2773 miscellaneus graecus. Quae hic codex, qui permultos locos ex diversis auctoribus excerptos ad lexicologiam et grammaticam utiles amplectitur, contineat, diu cognitum est. Plenissima enim et accuratissima eius descriptio legitur in Centralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen XIV (r897), p. 537-571 ; quam confecerunt L. Voltz et W. Cr6nert, qui codicem a variis scribis exaratum s. XIV exeunti vel XV ineunti attribuerunt. Quae huc faciunt, leguntur f. 40-60; ex inscriptione in initio addita Tou Moaxo7tOúÀou xupog Mavou?7? Ta 7tpoo't'Ct. TCJV <X7tOXpú<p(.¡)v (manu posteriore; unde Creuzeri "uti videtur", ut opinor) auctorem cognoscimus. Haec collectio variarum notularum lexicolo- gicae et grammaticae indolis, quae saepe locis auctorum antiquorum illus- trantur, aetate Voltzii et Cr6nertii inedita erat; nescio, an adhuc hoc tempore. Pseudoscholium illud agmen claudit (f. 6v; in indice auctorum Voltzii et