Difference between revisions of "Iamblichus" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m ({{Contracted}})
Line 2: Line 2:
 
:''For the Greek novelist, see [[Iamblichus (novelist)]] (165-180).''
 
:''For the Greek novelist, see [[Iamblichus (novelist)]] (165-180).''
  
−
'''Iamblichus''', also known as '''Iamblichus Chalcidensis''', (ca. [[245]] - ca. [[325]], [[Greek language|Greek]]: Ιάμβλιχος) was a [[neoplatonism|neoplatonist]] [[philosopher]] who determined the direction taken by later Neoplatonic philosophy, and perhaps [[Roman mythology|western]] [[Paganism]] itself.  He is perhaps best known for his compendium on [[Pythagoras|Pythagorean]] philosophy.
+
'''Iamblichus''', also known as '''Iamblichus Chalcidensis''', (ca. 245 - ca. 325, [[Greek language|Greek]]: Ιάμβλιχος) was a [[neoplatonism|neoplatonist]] [[philosopher]] who determined the direction taken by later Neoplatonic philosophy, and perhaps [[Roman mythology|western]] [[Paganism]] itself.  A student of Porphyry, he played an important role in the transmission of Platonic ideas into the thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.  He is perhaps best known for ''Collection of [[Pythagoras|Pythagorean]] Doctrines,'' ten books comprised of extracts from several ancient philosophers. 
 +
Iamblichus was primarily concerned with the salvation of the soul, and did not believe, like Porphyry, that it could be achieved by elevating the intellect through reason alone.  the point where it could unite with the divine Intellect. Instead he emphasized the development of a spiritual oneness with God
  
−
== Iamblichus' life ==
+
== Life  ==
−
Iamblichus was the chief representative of [[Assyrian]] Neoplatonism, though his influence spread over much of the ancient world.  The events of his life and the details of his creed are very imperfectly known, but the main tenets of his belief can be worked out from extant writings.  According to the [[Suda]], and his biographer [[Eunapius]], he was born at [[Chalcis (Syria)|Chalcis]] (modern [[Quinnesrin]]) in [[Syria]].  He was the son of a rich and illustrious family, and he is said to have been the ancestor of several [[priest-king]]s of [[Emesa]].  He initially studied under [[Anatolius]], and later went on to study under [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], a pupil of [[Plotinus]], the founder of Neoplatonism.  It was with Porphyry that he is known to have had a disagreement over the practice of [[theurgy]], the criticisms of which Iamblichus responds to in his attributed ''[[De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum]]'' (''On the Egyptian Mysteries'').
+
According to the [[Suda]], and the Neoplatonic biographer Eunapius, Iamblichus was born at Chalcis (modern Quinnesrin) in [[Syria]].  He was the son of a rich and illustrious family, and is said to have had several priest-kings of Emesa as his ancestors.  He never took a Greek name, as was the custom, but kept his Semitic name.  He began his studies  under Anatolius, and later went on to study under [[Porphyry]], a pupil of [[Plotinus]], the founder of Neoplatonism.  He is known to have had a disagreement with Porphyry over the practice of theurgy (rituals performed to invoke the actions of God), and ''De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum'' (''On the Egyptian Mysteries'') is believed to be his response to the criticisms of Porphyry.
  
−
Around 304, he returned to Syria to found his own school at [[Apamea (Syria)|Apameia]] (near [[Antioch]]), a city famous for its Neoplatonic philosophers. Here he designed a curriculum for studying Plato and Aristotle, and he wrote grand commentaries on the two that survive only in fragments. Still, for Iamblichus, Pythagoras was the supreme authority.  He is known to have written the ''Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines'', which, in ten books, comprised extracts from several ancient philosophers.  Only the first four books, and fragments of the fifth, survive.   
+
Around 304, Iamblichus returned to Syria to found his own school at Apamea (near Antioch), a city famous for its Neoplatonic philosophers. Here he designed a curriculum for the study of Plato and Aristotle, and wrote commentaries on both of them, of which only fragments survive. He also wrote the ''Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines,'' ten books comprised of extracts from several ancient philosophers.  Only the first four books, and fragments of the fifth, survive.   
  
−
Iamblichus was said to be a man of great culture and learning and was renowned for his charity and self-denial.  Many students gathered around him, and he lived with them in genial friendship. According to [[Johann Albert Fabricius|Fabricius]], he died during the reign of [[Constantine I (emperor)|Constantine]], sometime before [[333]].  
+
Iamblichus was said to be a man of great culture and learning and was renowned for his charity and self-denial.  In his biography, Eunapius reported that many accomplished students gathered around him, including Theodorus and Aedesius, and that his company was so pleasant  and his conversation so charming that they never gave him any peace and wanted to be with him continually.  Eunapius also refers to Iamblichus’ practice of religious rites, and recounts two incidents attesting to his mystical powers. According to [[Johann Albert Fabricius|Fabricius]], Iambichus died during the reign of [[Constantine I (emperor)|Constantine]], sometime before 333.  
  
−
Only a fraction of Iamblichus' books have survived, most of them having been destroyed during the [[Christianization]] of the [[Roman Empire]]. For our knowledge of his system, we are indebted partly to the fragments of writings preserved by [[Stobaeus]] and others.  The notes of his successors, especially [[Proclus]], as well as his five extant books and the sections of his great work on Pythagorean philosophy also reveal much of Iamblichus' system. Besides these, Proclus seems to have ascribed to him the authorship of the celebrated treatise ''Theurgia'', or ''On the Egyptian Mysteries''.  However, the differences between this book and Iamblichus' other works in style and in some points of doctrine have led some to question whether Iamblichus was the actual author.  Still, the treatise certainly originated from his school, and in its systematic attempt to give a speculative justification of the [[polytheism|polytheistic]] cult practices of the day, it marks a turning-point in the history of thought where Iamblichus stood.
+
== Thought and Works ==
  
−
As a speculative theory, Neoplatonism had received its highest development from Plotinus. The modifications introduced by lamblichus were the detailed elaboration of its formal divisions, the more systematic application of the Pythagorean number-symbolism, and, under the influence of Oriental systems, a thoroughly mythic interpretation of what Neoplatonism had formerly regarded as notional. Iamblichus introduced the idea of the soul's embodiment in matter, believing matter to be as divine as the rest of the cosmos.  This was the most fundamental point of departure between his own ideas and those of his Neoplatonic predecessors, who believed, that matter was corrupt.  It is most likely on this account that lamblichus was looked upon with such extravagant veneration.
+
Iamblichus was the chief representative of [[Assyrian]] Neoplatonism, though his influence spread over much of the ancient world. Most of Iamblichus’ written works were destroyed during the [[Christianization]] of the [[Roman Empire]] and only a fraction of them have survived.  Five of the ten books of Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines are extant, including a Life of Pythagoras, the Protreptic, "De communi mathematica scientia," In Nicomachi (Geraseni) mathematicam introductionem, a treaty with the meaning of the numbers, and maybe the anonymous work Theologumena arithmeticae. Fragments of his commentaries on Aristotle and Plato are preserved in the writings of other philosophers; and also excerpts from De anima, the Letters About destiny addressed to Macedonius and to Sopater, and  About dialectic, addressed to Dexippos and to Sopater.  Proclus left notes about the ideas of Iamblichus and ascribed to him the authorship of the treatise De mysteriis (On The Mysteries), or ''Theurgia.'' Differences in style and points of doctrine between De mysteriis and Iamblichus' other works have led some to question whether Iamblichus was the actual author.  The treatise certainly originated from his school, and attempted to give a speculative justification of the [[polytheism|polytheistic]] cult practices of the day.   
  
−
Iamblichus was highly praised by those who followed his thought.  By his contemporaries, Iamblichus was accredited with [[miracles|miraculous]] powers, which he, however, disclaimed.  The Roman emperor [[Julian the Apostate|Julian]], not content with Eunapius' more modest eulogy that he was inferior to Porphyry only in style, regarded Iamblichus as more than second to Plato, and claimed he would give all the gold of [[Lydia]] for one epistle of Iamblichus. During the revival of interest in his philosophy in the [[15th century|15th]] and [[16th century|16th]] centuries, the name of Iamblichus was scarcely mentioned without the epithet "divine" or "most divine".
+
Iamblichus established a Neoplatonic curriculum which was followed for the next two centuries.  He suggested that the Platonic dialogues be studied in a specific order, and defined principles for their allegorical interpretation. He regarded Plato’s dialogues as divine inspiration; the study of each dialogue was supposed to effect a specific transformation in the student’s soul.
  
−
== Iamblichus' Cosmology ==
+
Iamblichus apparently felt that the Greeks did not retain sufficient respect for ancient tradition, and devoted twenty-eight books to theurgy and the interpretation of the Oracles of Chaldea, a collection of inspired verses from the second century.
 +
For the Greeks are naturally followers of novelty and are carried off everywhere by their volatility, neither possessing any stability themselves, nor preserving what they have received from others, but rapidly abandoning this, they transform everything through an unstable desire of seeking something new. (Iamblichus, DM VII.5)
 +
Neoplatonism had been highly developed as a speculative theory by Plotinus. Iamblichus introduced modifications such as the detailed elaboration of its formal divisions, a more systematic application of Pythagorean number-symbolism, and, under the influence of Oriental systems, a thoroughly mythic interpretation of what Neoplatonism had formerly regarded as notional. He departed from his Neoplatonic predecessors, who regarded matter as corrupt, by declaring matter to be as divine as the rest of the cosmos.  He believed that the divine soul was embodied in matter, and that even the coarsest aspects of matter had an element of divinity.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Cosmology ==
 
[[Image:Monad.svg|thumb|The [[Monad]]]]
 
[[Image:Monad.svg|thumb|The [[Monad]]]]
−
On first approach, the ideas and writings of Iamblichus seem almost impenetrable due to their being couched in dense neoplatonic jargon.  Many of the ideas, however, are quite intelligible (some even familiar) to a [[21st century]] reader.  With a familiarity of the terminology and mindset of the times, interpretation becomes much easier.
+
At the center of his cosmology, Iamblichus placed the transcendent incommunicable "One," the ''monad'', whose first principle is intellect, ''nous''.  Immediately after the absolute One, lamblichus introduced a second superexistent "One" to stand between it and 'the many' as the producer of intellect, or soul, ''psyche''.  These two formed the initial ''dyad''.  The first and highest One (''nous''), was distinguished by Iamblichus into spheres of intellective (domain of thought) and intelligible (objects of thought). These three entities, the ''psyche,'' and the ''nous'' split into the intelligible and the intellective, formed a ''triad.''
−
 
 
−
At the head of his system, Iamblichus placed the transcendent incommunicable "One", the ''[[monad]]'', whose first principle is intellect, ''nous''.  Immediately after the absolute One, lamblichus introduced a second superexistent "One" to stand between it and 'the many' as the producer of intellect, or soul, ''psyche''.  This is the initial ''dyad''.  The first and highest One (''nous''), which Plotinus represented under the three stages of (objective) being, (subjective) life, and (realized) intellect, is distinguished by Iamblichus into spheres of intelligible and intellective, the latter sphere being the domain of thought, the former of the objects of thought. These three entities, the ''psyche'', and the ''nous'' split into the intelligible and the intellective, form a ''triad''.
 
  
 
[[Image:Dyad.svg|thumb|The [[Dyad (symbol)|Dyad]]]]
 
[[Image:Dyad.svg|thumb|The [[Dyad (symbol)|Dyad]]]]
−
Between the two worlds, at once separating and uniting them, some scholars think there was inserted by lamblichus, as was afterwards by Proclus, a third sphere partaking of the nature of both. But this supposition depends on a merely conjectural emendation of the text. We read, however, that in the intellectual triad he assigned the third rank to the [[Demiurge]]. The Demiurge, the Platonic creator-god, is thus identified with the perfected ''nous'', the intellectual triad being increased to a ''hebdomad''.  As in Plotinus, ''nous'' produced nature by mediation of the intellect, so here the intelligible gods are followed by a triad of psychic gods.  
+
Some scholars think that Iamblichus, like Proclus, inserted a third sphere between the two worlds, partaking of the nature of both and simultaneously separating and uniting them. In the intellectual triad he assigned a third rank to the Demiurge, the Platonic creator-god, identified with the perfected ''nous,'' thus creating a ''hebdomad''.  In the cosmology of  Plotinus, ''nous'' produced nature by mediation of the intellect; according to Iamblichus, the intelligible gods were followed by a triad of psychic gods.  
  
−
[[Image:Triad.svg|thumb|The [[Triad (symbol)|Triad]]]]The first of these "psychic gods" is incommunicable and supramundane, while the other two seem to be mundane, though rational. In the third class, or mundane gods, there is a still greater wealth of divinities, of various local position, function, and rank. Iamblichus wrote of gods, angels, demons and heroes, of twelve heavenly gods whose number is increased to thirty-six or three hundred and sixty, and of seventy-two other gods proceeding from them, of twenty-one chiefs and forty-two nature-gods, besides guardian divinities, of particular individuals and nations.  The realm of divinities stretched from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul in fact descended into matter and became "embodied" as human beings.  Basically, Iamblichus greatly multiplied the ranks of being and divine entities in the universe, the number at each level relating to various mathematical proportions.  The world is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings.
+
[[Image:Triad.svg|thumb|The [[Triad (symbol)|Triad]]]]The first of these "psychic gods" was incommunicable and supramundane, while the other two seem to be mundane, though rational. In the third class of mundane gods, there was a wealth of divinities associated with various localities, functions, and ranks. Iamblichus wrote of gods, angels, demons and heroes, of twelve heavenly gods whose number is increased to thirty-six or three hundred and sixty, and of seventy-two other gods proceeding from them, of twenty-one chiefs and forty-two nature-gods, besides guardian divinities of particular individuals and nations.  The series of divinities emanated from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul became "embodied" in human beings.  At each level, the number of divinities related to various mathematical ratios.  The world was thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who were all accessible to prayers and offerings.
  
−
The whole of Iamblichus's complex theory is ruled by a [[mathematics|mathematical]] formalism of triad, hebdomad, etc., while the first principle is identified with the monad, dyad and triad; symbolic meanings being also assigned to the other numbers. The theorems of mathematics, he says, apply absolutely to all things, from things divine to original matter.  But though he subjects all things to number, he holds elsewhere that numbers are independent existences, and occupy a middle place between the limited and unlimited.
+
Nature was said to be bound by indissoluble chains of necessity called [[destiny|fate]], and was distinguished from elements of the divine realms that were not subject to fate. Yet because nature itself resulted from the higher powers becoming corporeal, a continual stream of elevating influence from these higher powers interfered with its necessary laws to turn the imperfect and [[evil]] towards a good outcome.
−
 
+
The individual soul was a microcosm, or image of the cosmos.  Love (desire) was conceived of as a deity (firstborn of the One) and as a cosmic force that drew the multiplicity of the universe into unity.  The indissoluble principle of love “retains and preserves both things that are in existence and such as are coming into being" (DM IV.12), and “… connectedly contains all things, producing this bond through a certain ineffable communion" (DM V.10). Since there could be no desire without an object to be desired, it was necessary for the One to emanate a material universe and human beings embodying individual souls.  Human beings therefore had an essential role in the creation of the cosmos.
−
Another difficulty of the system is the account given of nature. It is said to be bound by the indissoluble chains of necessity called [[destiny|fate]], and is distinguished from divine things that are not subject to fate. Yet, being itself the result of higher powers becoming corporeal, a continual stream of elevating influence flows from them to it, interfering with its necessary laws and turning to good ends the imperfect and [[evil]]. Of evil no satisfactory account is given; it is said to have been generated accidentally in the conflict between the finite and the [[infinite]].
+
Plotinus had scorned pagan religiosity, believing that “likeness to God” meant the perfection of one’s own divine nature through reason.  Iamblichus placed humankind in a position subordinate to the divine, and held that religious practices could make human beings “who through generation are born subject to passion, pure and unchangeable" (On the Mysteries I.12.42; in Fowden 1986, p. 133).
  
 
== [[Theurgy]] ==
 
== [[Theurgy]] ==
−
Despite the complexities of the make-up of the divine cosmos, Iamblichus still had salvation as his final goal.  The embodied soul was to return to divinity by performing certain rites, or theurgy, literally, 'divine-working'.  Some translate this as "magic", but the modern connotations of the term do not exactly match what Iamblichus had in mind, which is more along the lines of religious ritual.  Still, these acts did involve some of what would today be perceived as attempts at 'magic'.
+
Iamblichus sought "purification, liberation, and salvation of the soul." While Porphyry taught that mental contemplation alone could bring salvation, through ultimate unity with the divine intelligence, Iamblichus held that the transcendent was supra-rational and could not be grasped through reason alone. Embodied souls were dominated by physical necessities, but they were still essentially divine and rational.  This created a contradiction which caused the personal soul to lose touch with its deeper, divine nature and become self-alienated.  The study of philosophy was important because it led to a rational understanding of the cosmic order, but the embodied soul was to return to divinity by practicing theurgy (god-work), a series of rituals aimed at recovering the transcendent essence by retracing the divine 'signatures' through the layers of being. Since the material world (matter) had been organized by the Demiurge, the Platonic creator-god, according to the eternal Forms, material objects revealed these forms and could be used by the soul as a means of unifying itself with divinity.
  
−
Though the embodied souls are dominated by physical necessities, they are still divine and rational.  This contains a conflict, being part of an immortal, divine nature, as well as genuinely part of a material, imperfect mortal domain.  The personal soul, a kind of 'lost' embodied soul, has lost touch with its deeper, divine nature and has become self-alienated.  In this conflict can perhaps be glimpsed Iamblichus' ideas about the origin of evil, though Iamblichus does not comment on this himself.
+
A theurgic rite made use of certain symbols (signs, tokens), which god had imprinted with the Forms, and which awakened the human soul to an awareness of its own divine nature.  The masses of people were to perform rituals with physical objects corresponding to various aspects of their essential divine nature, while those at a higher level could understand divinity through purely mental contemplation and spiritual practices. The highest form of theurgy was the contemplation of sacred geometric shapes and ratios.
−
 
 
−
This was also the area where Iamblichus differed from his former master, Porphyry, who believed mental contemplation alone could bring salvation.  Porphyry wrote a letter criticizing Iamblicus' ideas of theurgy, and it is to this letter that ''On the Egyptian Mysteries'' was written in response.
 
−
 
 
−
Iamblichus' analysis was that the transcendent cannot be grasped with mental contemplation because the transcendent is supra-rational. [[Theurgy]] is a series of rituals and operations aimed at recovering the transcendent essence by retracing the divine 'signatures' through the layers of being. Education is important for comprehending the scheme of things as presented by Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoras but also by the [[Chaldaean Oracles]].  The theurgist works 'like with like': at the material level, with physical symbols and 'magic'; at the higher level, with mental and purely spiritual practices. Starting with correspondences of the divine in matter, the theurgist eventually reaches the level where the soul's inner divinity unites with God.
 
−
 
 
−
Clearly, Iamblichus meant for the masses of people to perform rituals that were more physical in nature, while the higher types, who were closest to the divine (and whose numbers were few), could reach the divine realm through contemplation.
 
  
 +
== Legacy ==
 +
[[Julian the Apostate|Julian]] (331-363 C.E.), the last non-Christian Roman emperor, attempted an unsuccessful revival of paganism based on the theurgy of Iamblichus, regarding him as more than second to Plato, and claiming that he would give all the gold of [[Lydia]] for one epistle of Iamblichus.  Iamblichus' philosophy and cosmology had a powerful influence on later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus (c.410-485). In the sixth century, a Syrian Christian wrote several works which he claimed had been authored by Dionysius the Areopagite, a figure from the New Testament.  Pseudo-Dionysius adapted Iamblichus’ system to Christianity, reinventing his spiritual hierarchy as nine “angelic choirs” and replacing theurgy with Christian faith and the performance of religious rites such as the eucharist (the taking of bread and wine symbolizing Christ’s body).  Instead of the universe, he viewed the Church as the manifestation of divinity.  The works of Pseudo-Dionysius were translated in to Latin by Duns Scotus Erigena (800-880) and played a significant role in the shaping of Roman Catholic theology.
 +
Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), a Renaissance Neoplatonist, translated On the Mysteries into Latin and kindled an interest in mysticism which helped to inspire the Italian Renaissance and which inspired a number of Christina thinkers, including Giordano Bruno.  During the revival of interest in his philosophy in the fifteenth and sixteenth  centuries, the name of Iamblichus was scarcely mentioned without the epithet "divine" or "most divine".
 +
More recently, Iamblichus' ideas have influenced the psychological theories and practices of C. G. Jung (1875-1961) and his followers.
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
 
*[[Numenius of Apamea]]
 
*[[Numenius of Apamea]]
Line 52: Line 54:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
*Iamblichus: ''De mysteriis'', Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill 2003. ISBN 158983058X / 90-04-12720-8.
+
 
−
*Fowden, Garth. ''The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind.'' Princeton, Princeton University Press 1986 (Has an excellent section on Iamblicus' and the Neoplatonists' relation to the works attributed to [[Hermes Trismegistus]].)  
+
*Blumenthal, H. J. & Clark, E.G. The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1993.
−
*Shaw, Gregory. ''Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus''. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press 1995
+
*Clarke, Emma C., Iamblichus' De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2001
−
*{{1911}}
+
*Dillon, John M., Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
 +
 
 +
*Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
 +
*Finamore, J. F. Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1985.
 +
*Fowden, Garth. ''The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind.'' Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986.
 +
*Iamblichus, Iamblichus On the Mysteries and Life of Pythagoras. Transl. Taylor, Vol. XVII of the Thomas Taylor Series. Somerset: Prometheus Trust, 1999. Classic 19th century translation.
 +
*Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians: The Reply of the Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo. Text, translation and notes by Clarke, E.C., Dillon, J.M., & Hershbell, J. Atlanta: Scholars, 2003. ISBN 158983058X / 90-04-12720-8.
 +
*Neusner, J.; Frerichs, E. S.; Flesher, P. V. M. (Eds.) Theurgy and Forms of Worship in Neoplatonism", in, Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and in Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 185-228.
 +
*Shaw, Gregory. ''Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus''. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press 1995.*Van Riel, G. "The Transcendent Cause: Iamblichus and the Philebus of Plato", Syllecta Classica, 1997, 8, pp. 31-46.
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 14:04, 23 October 2006

For the Greek novelist, see Iamblichus (novelist) (165-180).

Iamblichus, also known as Iamblichus Chalcidensis, (ca. 245 - ca. 325, Greek: Ιάμβλιχος) was a neoplatonist philosopher who determined the direction taken by later Neoplatonic philosophy, and perhaps western Paganism itself. A student of Porphyry, he played an important role in the transmission of Platonic ideas into the thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He is perhaps best known for Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines, ten books comprised of extracts from several ancient philosophers. Iamblichus was primarily concerned with the salvation of the soul, and did not believe, like Porphyry, that it could be achieved by elevating the intellect through reason alone. the point where it could unite with the divine Intellect. Instead he emphasized the development of a spiritual oneness with God

Life

According to the Suda, and the Neoplatonic biographer Eunapius, Iamblichus was born at Chalcis (modern Quinnesrin) in Syria. He was the son of a rich and illustrious family, and is said to have had several priest-kings of Emesa as his ancestors. He never took a Greek name, as was the custom, but kept his Semitic name. He began his studies under Anatolius, and later went on to study under Porphyry, a pupil of Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism. He is known to have had a disagreement with Porphyry over the practice of theurgy (rituals performed to invoke the actions of God), and De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum (On the Egyptian Mysteries) is believed to be his response to the criticisms of Porphyry.

Around 304, Iamblichus returned to Syria to found his own school at Apamea (near Antioch), a city famous for its Neoplatonic philosophers. Here he designed a curriculum for the study of Plato and Aristotle, and wrote commentaries on both of them, of which only fragments survive. He also wrote the Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines, ten books comprised of extracts from several ancient philosophers. Only the first four books, and fragments of the fifth, survive.

Iamblichus was said to be a man of great culture and learning and was renowned for his charity and self-denial. In his biography, Eunapius reported that many accomplished students gathered around him, including Theodorus and Aedesius, and that his company was so pleasant and his conversation so charming that they never gave him any peace and wanted to be with him continually. Eunapius also refers to Iamblichus’ practice of religious rites, and recounts two incidents attesting to his mystical powers. According to Fabricius, Iambichus died during the reign of Constantine, sometime before 333.

Thought and Works

Iamblichus was the chief representative of Assyrian Neoplatonism, though his influence spread over much of the ancient world. Most of Iamblichus’ written works were destroyed during the Christianization of the Roman Empire and only a fraction of them have survived. Five of the ten books of Collection of Pythagorean Doctrines are extant, including a Life of Pythagoras, the Protreptic, "De communi mathematica scientia," In Nicomachi (Geraseni) mathematicam introductionem, a treaty with the meaning of the numbers, and maybe the anonymous work Theologumena arithmeticae. Fragments of his commentaries on Aristotle and Plato are preserved in the writings of other philosophers; and also excerpts from De anima, the Letters About destiny addressed to Macedonius and to Sopater, and About dialectic, addressed to Dexippos and to Sopater. Proclus left notes about the ideas of Iamblichus and ascribed to him the authorship of the treatise De mysteriis (On The Mysteries), or Theurgia. Differences in style and points of doctrine between De mysteriis and Iamblichus' other works have led some to question whether Iamblichus was the actual author. The treatise certainly originated from his school, and attempted to give a speculative justification of the polytheistic cult practices of the day.

Iamblichus established a Neoplatonic curriculum which was followed for the next two centuries. He suggested that the Platonic dialogues be studied in a specific order, and defined principles for their allegorical interpretation. He regarded Plato’s dialogues as divine inspiration; the study of each dialogue was supposed to effect a specific transformation in the student’s soul.

Iamblichus apparently felt that the Greeks did not retain sufficient respect for ancient tradition, and devoted twenty-eight books to theurgy and the interpretation of the Oracles of Chaldea, a collection of inspired verses from the second century. 

For the Greeks are naturally followers of novelty and are carried off everywhere by their volatility, neither possessing any stability themselves, nor preserving what they have received from others, but rapidly abandoning this, they transform everything through an unstable desire of seeking something new. (Iamblichus, DM VII.5)

Neoplatonism had been highly developed as a speculative theory by Plotinus. Iamblichus introduced modifications such as the detailed elaboration of its formal divisions, a more systematic application of Pythagorean number-symbolism, and, under the influence of Oriental systems, a thoroughly mythic interpretation of what Neoplatonism had formerly regarded as notional. He departed from his Neoplatonic predecessors, who regarded matter as corrupt, by declaring matter to be as divine as the rest of the cosmos. He believed that the divine soul was embodied in matter, and that even the coarsest aspects of matter had an element of divinity.


Cosmology

The Monad

At the center of his cosmology, Iamblichus placed the transcendent incommunicable "One," the monad, whose first principle is intellect, nous. Immediately after the absolute One, lamblichus introduced a second superexistent "One" to stand between it and 'the many' as the producer of intellect, or soul, psyche. These two formed the initial dyad. The first and highest One (nous), was distinguished by Iamblichus into spheres of intellective (domain of thought) and intelligible (objects of thought). These three entities, the psyche, and the nous split into the intelligible and the intellective, formed a triad.

The Dyad

Some scholars think that Iamblichus, like Proclus, inserted a third sphere between the two worlds, partaking of the nature of both and simultaneously separating and uniting them. In the intellectual triad he assigned a third rank to the Demiurge, the Platonic creator-god, identified with the perfected nous, thus creating a hebdomad. In the cosmology of Plotinus, nous produced nature by mediation of the intellect; according to Iamblichus, the intelligible gods were followed by a triad of psychic gods.

The Triad

The first of these "psychic gods" was incommunicable and supramundane, while the other two seem to be mundane, though rational. In the third class of mundane gods, there was a wealth of divinities associated with various localities, functions, and ranks. Iamblichus wrote of gods, angels, demons and heroes, of twelve heavenly gods whose number is increased to thirty-six or three hundred and sixty, and of seventy-two other gods proceeding from them, of twenty-one chiefs and forty-two nature-gods, besides guardian divinities of particular individuals and nations. The series of divinities emanated from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul became "embodied" in human beings. At each level, the number of divinities related to various mathematical ratios. The world was thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who were all accessible to prayers and offerings.

Nature was said to be bound by indissoluble chains of necessity called fate, and was distinguished from elements of the divine realms that were not subject to fate. Yet because nature itself resulted from the higher powers becoming corporeal, a continual stream of elevating influence from these higher powers interfered with its necessary laws to turn the imperfect and evil towards a good outcome. The individual soul was a microcosm, or image of the cosmos. Love (desire) was conceived of as a deity (firstborn of the One) and as a cosmic force that drew the multiplicity of the universe into unity. The indissoluble principle of love “retains and preserves both things that are in existence and such as are coming into being" (DM IV.12), and “… connectedly contains all things, producing this bond through a certain ineffable communion" (DM V.10). Since there could be no desire without an object to be desired, it was necessary for the One to emanate a material universe and human beings embodying individual souls. Human beings therefore had an essential role in the creation of the cosmos. Plotinus had scorned pagan religiosity, believing that “likeness to God” meant the perfection of one’s own divine nature through reason. Iamblichus placed humankind in a position subordinate to the divine, and held that religious practices could make human beings “who through generation are born subject to passion, pure and unchangeable" (On the Mysteries I.12.42; in Fowden 1986, p. 133).

Theurgy

Iamblichus sought "purification, liberation, and salvation of the soul." While Porphyry taught that mental contemplation alone could bring salvation, through ultimate unity with the divine intelligence, Iamblichus held that the transcendent was supra-rational and could not be grasped through reason alone. Embodied souls were dominated by physical necessities, but they were still essentially divine and rational. This created a contradiction which caused the personal soul to lose touch with its deeper, divine nature and become self-alienated. The study of philosophy was important because it led to a rational understanding of the cosmic order, but the embodied soul was to return to divinity by practicing theurgy (god-work), a series of rituals aimed at recovering the transcendent essence by retracing the divine 'signatures' through the layers of being. Since the material world (matter) had been organized by the Demiurge, the Platonic creator-god, according to the eternal Forms, material objects revealed these forms and could be used by the soul as a means of unifying itself with divinity.

A theurgic rite made use of certain symbols (signs, tokens), which god had imprinted with the Forms, and which awakened the human soul to an awareness of its own divine nature. The masses of people were to perform rituals with physical objects corresponding to various aspects of their essential divine nature, while those at a higher level could understand divinity through purely mental contemplation and spiritual practices. The highest form of theurgy was the contemplation of sacred geometric shapes and ratios.

Legacy

Julian (331-363 C.E.), the last non-Christian Roman emperor, attempted an unsuccessful revival of paganism based on the theurgy of Iamblichus, regarding him as more than second to Plato, and claiming that he would give all the gold of Lydia for one epistle of Iamblichus. Iamblichus' philosophy and cosmology had a powerful influence on later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus (c.410-485). In the sixth century, a Syrian Christian wrote several works which he claimed had been authored by Dionysius the Areopagite, a figure from the New Testament. Pseudo-Dionysius adapted Iamblichus’ system to Christianity, reinventing his spiritual hierarchy as nine “angelic choirs” and replacing theurgy with Christian faith and the performance of religious rites such as the eucharist (the taking of bread and wine symbolizing Christ’s body). Instead of the universe, he viewed the Church as the manifestation of divinity. The works of Pseudo-Dionysius were translated in to Latin by Duns Scotus Erigena (800-880) and played a significant role in the shaping of Roman Catholic theology. Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), a Renaissance Neoplatonist, translated On the Mysteries into Latin and kindled an interest in mysticism which helped to inspire the Italian Renaissance and which inspired a number of Christina thinkers, including Giordano Bruno. During the revival of interest in his philosophy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the name of Iamblichus was scarcely mentioned without the epithet "divine" or "most divine". More recently, Iamblichus' ideas have influenced the psychological theories and practices of C. G. Jung (1875-1961) and his followers.

See also

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Blumenthal, H. J. & Clark, E.G. The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1993.
  • Clarke, Emma C., Iamblichus' De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2001
  • Dillon, John M., Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
  • Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
  • Finamore, J. F. Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1985.
  • Fowden, Garth. The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986.
  • Iamblichus, Iamblichus On the Mysteries and Life of Pythagoras. Transl. Taylor, Vol. XVII of the Thomas Taylor Series. Somerset: Prometheus Trust, 1999. Classic 19th century translation.
  • Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians: The Reply of the Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo. Text, translation and notes by Clarke, E.C., Dillon, J.M., & Hershbell, J. Atlanta: Scholars, 2003. ISBN 158983058X / 90-04-12720-8.
  • Neusner, J.; Frerichs, E. S.; Flesher, P. V. M. (Eds.) Theurgy and Forms of Worship in Neoplatonism", in, Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and in Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 185-228.
  • Shaw, Gregory. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press 1995.*Van Riel, G. "The Transcendent Cause: Iamblichus and the Philebus of Plato", Syllecta Classica, 1997, 8, pp. 31-46.

External links

de:Iamblichos von Chalkis el:Ιάμβλιχος fr:Jamblique it:Giamblico nl:Iamblichus (filosoof) pt:Jâmblico ru:Ямвлих sk:Iamblichos fi:Iamblikhos

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Iamblichus&oldid=126531

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki