Life of Hierocles (Print)

7/27/2019 Life of Hierocles (Print)

1/41

P A R T I

The Life and Philosophy

of Hierocles


2/41


3/41

1

The Life of Hierocles

a . d a t e s

For the life of Hierocles we have only two chronological points ofreference. Both derive from his treatise On Providence, which hasbeen preserved in short summaries and extracts by Photius, theninth-century Byzantine scholar and Patriarch of Constantinople,in his monumental compendium of learning, the Bibliotheca.According to Photius, Hierocles dedicated On Providence to thehistorian Olympiodorus of Thebes (in Egypt), whose work is inturn dedicated to the Emperor Theodosius II and covers the yearsad 407 to 425.1 In 412 Olympiodorus led a successful embassy tothe Huns, and he generally enjoyed such renown among thebarbarians that around 418 he was invited to visit the Blemmyes(a nomadic Egyptian tribe).2 These events appear to be incorp-orated in the praise given him by Hierocles: `He brought manygreat barbarian nations into the sphere of Roman inuence, whichcaused him to earn the greatest honours among them.'3 The OnProvidence should therefore be dated to some time after 418.4

The second date comes from the seventh and last book of OnProvidence, in which Hierocles covers the school (h2 diatribh3) ofAmmonius:

Plotinus and Origen, and also Porphyry and Iamblichus and theirfollowers, as many as were born (as Hierocles himself says) of the sacred

1 A summary of Olympiodorus' lost work is given by Phot. Bibl. cod. 80 pp. 16687. On

Olympiodorus see Blockley (1981), 2747.2 Cod. 80. 58b 3559a 2 p. 173 = fr. 19 Blockley; 62a 922 p. 182 = fr. 35. 2 Blockley. The

Blemmyes wished to meet Olympiodorus expressly `because of his reputation' (th9w e1ntyxi3away1toy9). The date of this visit is disputed. Haedicke (1939), 201, makes it as late as 423 (so alsoHenry ad cod. 80. 62a 910 p. 182 n. 2), but I have followed Blockley (1983), 164 n. 21, who

places it in the period from 415 to 418.3

Cod. 214. 1, 171b 269 p. 125; cf. Blockley (1981), 27, Chuvin (1990), 945. The indirectdiscourse shows that these words belonged to Hierocles, not to Photius.4 Elter (1910), 177, and Aujoulat (1976), 20, settle for 415, though neither take into account

Olympiodorus' visit to the Blemmyes.


4/41

race, up to Plutarch of Athens, whom Hierocles describes as his own guidein such doctrines; all these thinkers agree with the philosophy of Plato inits puried form. (Cod. 214. 8, 173a 3440 pp. 12930)

Here we learn that Hierocles was a student of Plutarch of Athens.Plutarch died an old man in 431/2. As we do not know how manyyears Hierocles survived his teacher, it seems the safest course tolocate the main activities of Hierocles' lifehis studies, his teach-ing, his writingin the rst half of the fth century ad, corres-ponding to the reign of Theodosius II (40850).5 How far he livedon into the second half of the century is a matter of speculation.6

b . p h i l o s o p h i c a l h e r i t a g e a n d s t u d i e s

a t a t h e n s

The above summary of Book VII ofOn Providence also gives us thephilosophical lineagea wholly Platonic oneof which Hieroclessaw himself a descendant. It is therefore appropriate, as part of anattempt to portray the philosophical heritage of Hierocles, that weallow his predecessors to pass in review before we reach theculminating point with his studies under Plutarch of Athens.

Ammonius (sometimes surnamed `Saccas') is an enigmatic gurein the history of philosophy.7 He lived from about ad 175 to 243.Porphyry tells the story that when Plotinus, at the age of 28, rstheard Ammonius lecturing, he said: `This is the man I was seeking.'Plotinus thereupon spent the next eleven years with Ammonius inAlexandria (from c.231/2 to 242),8 but he never refers to him in hiswritings, and little is known of Ammonius' teaching. It is fairlycertain, however, that Ammonius engaged in an exegesis of Plato'sParmenides that was taken up by Plotinus.9 In the eyes of Hierocles

Ammonius was a key gure in the history of Platonism for having

The Life and Philosophy of Hierocles4

5 Cf. Zeller (1923), 812 n. 3, who places Hierocles' period of teaching between 415 and 450.6 In both Damascius' Vit. Isid. (ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 54, 338b 28339a 7 p. 18 = p. 80

Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi)) and Aeneas of Gaza's Theophr. (p. 2, 910, 1920 Colonna)

Hierocles is spoken of as one who has already passed away. But this does not give us a denite

teminus ante quem for Hierocles' death, since neither work can be dated with precision. The

Vita Isidori was written somewhere between 497 and 526; the Theophrastus falls anywhere

between 484 and 534, though, as Hadot (1978), 2034, points out, the setting of the dialogue

points rather towards the end of that period.7 The surviving testimonia are collected and discussed by Schwyzer (1983); on Ammonius

see also Baltes (1985), Schroeder (1987), Goulet (1989b), 1658.8

Vit. Plot. 3, 1021. Thereto Schwyzer, ap. Dodds (1960), 55: `Wer einen Plotin in diesemAlter so lange zu fesseln wusste, muss eine Perso nlichkeit von einem erstaunlichen Charisma

gewesen sein.'9 See Sarey (1987), 32, Schwyzer (1987), 478. Cf. Ch. 2, n. 39.


5/41

demonstrated the unity of thought between Plato and Aristotle. Asthis bit of information derives from Hierocles' On Providence, wewill return to Ammonius in our examination of Hierocles' writings.

The `most illustrious' (e1pifane3statoi) pupils of Ammonius, asHierocles calls them in Book VI ofOn Providence (cod. 214. 8, 173a201 p. 129), were Plotinus and Origen. Of Origen there onlysurvive references and testimonies found in other authors.10 Hisdoctrine on intellect as the supreme metaphysical principle isthought by some to have inuenced Hierocles and will thereforebe discussed in the chapter on Hierocles' philosophy. Origen'scolleague, Plotinus, after his studies with Ammonius (followed byan expedition with the Emperor Gordian III against the Persians),

returned to Rome in 243/4 and became the founder of a school ofphilosophy referred to in modern times as Neoplatonism.11

Plotinus died in 270. The propagation of his fame and phil-osophy was secured by his close disciple Porphyry (c.234305),who some thirty years after Plotinus' death edited and publishedthe master's works (known as the Enneads after Porphyry'sarrangement of them in six books of nine treatises). Porphyrywrote several important works of his own, among which we shouldmention not only the biography of Plotinus that prefaces theEnneads, but also a short Life of Pythagoras and a treatise indefence of vegetarianism, On Abstinence.12 These compositionsevince Porphyry's enthusiasm for Pythagoreanism and the moral-ascetical dimensions of Platonic thoughtthemes that received lessattention from Plotinus but were of increasing signicance to laterNeoplatonists, including Hierocles. Porphyry's pupil Iamblichus(c.240325) also turned to Pythagorean topics, writing a lengthydisquisition On Pythagoreanism. After his studies with PorphyryIamblichus set up his own school in Syria.13 In his writingsIamblichus took Neoplatonism in new directions, particularly in

his pronounced `Pythagoreanizing' of Platonic philosophy and inemphasizing the practice of sacred rites (theurgy) as a necessaryingredient in the philosophical life (on this topic he did not refrain

The Life of Hierocles 5

10 For a reconstruction of Origen's philosophy see Weber (1962). This Origen is

considered by most scholars of Neoplatonism to be a dierent person from the famous

Christian apologist of the same name; see Schroeder (1987) with a summary of the

scholarship. Patristic scholars generally argue, not convincingly in my view, for the case of

a single Origen; cf. Beatrice (1992).11 On Plotinus' school and his professorship in Rome see Goulet-Caze (1982), 23176. For

an accessible introduction to Plotinus' thought see O'Meara (1993a).12

On Porphyry see Smith (1987).13 On Iamblichus' choice of Apamea see Fowden (1982), 401; cf. Dillon (1987 a), 86970.

According to Larsen (1972), 3942, Iamblichus lived, studied, and taught for a considerable

time in Alexandria.


6/41

from some harsh polemics against his former teacher as well asagainst Plotinus).14

The inuence of Iamblichus made itself felt in Athens. The

traditional home of philosophy, the city that housed Plato's Acad-emy and Aristotle's Lyceum and in the Hellenistic age became thefocal point for Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, Athens had,however, suered a stark decline since its conquest by Sulla in87/86 bc. The last notable philosopher that we hear of in the rstcentury bc is Antiochus (Cicero attended his lectures); from thenuntil the fourth century of the Christian era Athens was a shrinewhich one visited to remember the ghosts of philosophers past.15

New life came with Plutarch.16 It was probably through followers of

Iamblichus that Plutarch was led to embrace Neoplatonism.

17

Ashead of a Platonic school in Athens, he enjoyed a position thatallowed him to disseminate Neoplatonic teaching with authority.18

His writings, largely interpretations of Plato and Aristotle, do notsurvive, but we know from references in the works of his studentsthat his philosophy was in many respects Iamblichean.19 Plutarch isthus an important link between Iamblichus and Hierocles.Although Hierocles could have had independent recourse to theworks of Iamblichus, it is undoubtedly during the time that hespent with Plutarch that the signicance of Iamblichus' philosophyin all its manifestations (e.g. Pythagoreanism, theurgy) wasimpressed upon him. We do not know when and for how longHierocles studied with Plutarch, but the fact that he pays expresshomage to him as his `guide' (kauhghth3w) in Platonic doctrinesindicates that the inuence of Plutarch on Hierocles' philosophicalformation was considerable. The role of the kauhghth3w (similarlykauhgemv3n or h2gemv3n) in the ancient philosophical schools extendedfar beyond the teacher/student relationship such as we are used to in


14

Iamblichus' Pythagorean programme and the concomitant mathematization of phil-osophy are excellently treated by O'Meara (1989). On Iamblichus and theurgy see Ch. 2,

n. 236.15 Cf. Cic. De n. 5. 12 (= DorrieBaltes I, Baustein 43.1a); Habicht (1995), 3278.

Though Habicht, 328, stresses that the lectures of Academics, Epicureans, and Stoics

apparently continued to take their regular course in the 1st cent. bc, it is incontrovertible

that the philosophical heyday of Athens lay in the past.16 This is not to say there was no philosophical life in Athens before Plutarch (cf. n. 15

above), but it was of minor importance in comparison with the renewal that Plutarch achieved

by taking up Neoplatonism; cf. Fowden (1982), 434. For a short philosophical history of

Athens from the late 2nd to the beginning of the 5th cent. see SareyWesterink (1968),

xxxvxlviii.17

SareyWesterink (1968), xlvii.18 Cf. Glucker (1978), 1534. Plutarch's personal wealth may have also been a factor; see

Blumenthal (1978), 3735.19 Cf. O'Meara (1989), 11011.


7/41

our times and came much closer to the function of what we would

call a `spiritual director' or `guru'; for as philosophy was a way of

life, so it was the teacher's task `to show the way' (kauhgei9suai) by

initiating his or her student not only in theoretical philosophy butalso in the spiritual practices and religious rites that were part and

parcel of the philosophical life.20 Another disciple of Plutarch was

Syrianus. He is not mentioned by Hierocles in his list of philo-

sophical succession, probably because he was Hierocles' fellow-

student. Plutarch appointed Syrianus as his successor, and Syrianus

in turn became the mentor of Proclus.

Before we return with Hierocles from Athens to Alexandria, it is

necessary to say a few words about Proclus. Born in Constantinople

c.411/12, Proclus was about 19 years old when he came to Athensaround 430/431 to hear Plutarch. The scholarch was now an old

man, shortly to die. The most he could still do for the young

Proclus, after giving him a few lessons in Aristotle and Plato, was to

entrust him to the care of Syrianus.21 It is not likely that Proclus

met Hierocles in Athens, since the latter must have left the city

many years before.22 Yet even if we cannot arrange a historical

meeting, it is important to stress that Proclus shared the same

philosophical heritage. Indeed, the Platonic succession of phil-

osophers from Plotinus to Syrianus that Proclus establishes at thebeginning of his work on Platonic theology reads very similarly to

that of Hierocles, especially in its religious tone;23 inter alia, where

Hierocles speaks of the `sacred race' (i2era4 genea3), Proclus speaks of


20 Cf. Hadot (1989), 4445; Fowden (1982), 39; P. Hadot (1989b), 13 (Rist (1965), 219,

misses this point when he says that Hierocles' reference to Plutarch `need only mean that

Hierocles accepted Plutarch as one of his eminent predecessors'). That Hierocles in turn

initiated his students in the accompanying rituals of philosophy is indicated by a character in

Aeneas' Theophr. (see n. 41 below), who asks if there are still in Alexandria `those who reveal

the rites (teletai3) of philosophy, such as Hierocles the professor used to be?'21 SareyWesterink (1968), xiii; Siorvanes (1996), 5.22 It is possible, as Aujoulat (1986), 2, speculates, that they met earlier in Alexandria when

Proclus went there to gain a footing in Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics before going

on to higher studies in Athens (cf. SareyWesterink (1968), xii). But if there ever was such

an encounter, it seems to have left no impact on Proclus, and we have no indication of it from

his many known works in which Hierocles is never mentioned. The points of contact between

Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus and Hierocles' Commentary on the Golden Verses, which

for Mullach (1853) constituted proof that Proclus was in some sense complementing the work

of Hierocles, seem to rest rather on a common foundation of Pythagorean and Platonic

teaching; see Aujoulat (1976), 228.23 Theol. Plat. I 1 pp. 6, 167, 8 SareyWesterink; on the mystery language used here by

Proclus see Dillon (1982), 735. For a comparison of this passage with the Platonic diadoxh3(succession) given by Hierocles see Fowden (1982), 334, who uses both texts as the starting-point for his discussion of the philosopher qua holy man and of Neoplatonic piety in late

antiquity. Cf. also Glucker (1978), 31113, 320.


8/41

the `divine chorus' (uei9ow xoro3w),24 and where Hierocles singles outPlutarch as his spiritual guide (kauhghth3w), Proclus singles outSyrianus as his (h2gemv3n). Philosophy as a sacred vocation had

been assumed by Plotinus and Porphyry, but the impetus `towardsa more explicit hieraticism'25 came from Iamblichus, who took hisexample from Pythagorean writings and the Chaldean Oracles.Iamblichus' understanding of philosophy as a sacrosanct task andof its practitioners as holy men of god was handed on to Hieroclesby Plutarch, and to Proclus by Syrianus. Having studied withSyrianus, Proclus went on to a productive career, writing numerouscommentaries on Plato and elaborate syntheses of Platonic thought.His distinction as the great systematizer of (Neo-) Platonic doctrine

and his voluminous output are the reasons why he has eclipsedHierocles in the subsequent history of Neoplatonism. Hierocles,less prolic, less inclined to complex metaphysical schematizations,naturally suers in comparison with his younger contemporary, buthe was none the less a clear thinker and not devoid of originality. Asan able professor of philosophy he enjoyed, as we shall see next,considerable popularity in his native city, where he attracted anumber of disciples.

c . t e a c h i n g i n a l e x a n d r i a

When Hierocles came back to Alexandria he was returning to a citywhose intellectual history had run along very dierent lines fromthose of Athens.26 In Athens philosophy had more or less laindormant from the time of Antiochus (died 68/67 bc) until re-awakened by Plutarch in the late fourth/early fth century, whereasin Alexandria, from the rst century bc, when it had taken the place

of Athens as the philosophical centre of gravity, it had never slept.27

Eudorus the Platonist ( . 35 bc), Philo the prominent Jewish


24 Hierocles also refers to the true philosophers before Ammonius as a `great chorus' ( poly4wxoro3w); see cod. 214. 2, 172a 23 p. 126 and n. 7.

25 Fowden (1982), 37.26 For an engaging essay on the philosophical movements in Alexandria from the 1st cent.

bc until the period of Hierocles' activity see Kremer (1981). In view of the importance that

Kremer assigns to the school of Ammonius, he sees Alexandria as `the cradle of Neoplatonic

philosophy'. See also Blumenthal (1993a) on the later philosophical developments at

Alexandria.27 Even before the 1st cent. bc Alexandria was a city ourishing with intellectual activity.

Thanks to the founding of the famous Museum and Library by Ptolemy I (367/6283/2 bc),Alexandria became the chief centre of learning in the ancient world, producing a series of

distinguished scholar-poets, philologists, and scientists. The rst philosophers, though, did

not appear until the end of the pre-Christian era. Cf. Larsen (1972), 39.


9/41

theologian and Platonist (died c. ad 50), the Christian philosophersClement (c.150215) and Origen (c.185253) and their catecheticalschools, and above all Ammonius and his students, who included

not only Origen the Platonist ( . c.250) but perhaps also theChristian Origen just mentioned28these are only some of thenames we need to invoke as representatives of the strong Platoniclegacy in Alexandria during the centuries preceding Hierocles.Eudorus and Philo, moreover, who both saw in Pythagoras aforerunner of Plato, mixed their Platonism with Pythagoreaningredients and may thus be seen as Alexandrian witnesses to thegeneral revival of an intellectual Pythagoreanism.29 Let us alsorecall that Alexandria in the second century was a hotbed of

Gnosticism, a syncretistic religious movement ercely combatedby Christian and pagan philosophers alike, and that by ad 300 theinuence of Manichaeism too had made itself felt in upper Egypt.30

Within these ongoing currents and cross-currents of pagan, Jewish,and Christian philosophizing and polemical disputing, which onlysaw a temporary cessation under Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla),31

what place did Hierocles come to occupy?As even this brief survey has shown, the Alexandrian


28 Porph. ap. Eus. Hist. eccles. VI 19, 6 p. 114 Bardy, refers to Origen the Christian as a

`hearer' (a1kroath3w) of Ammonius, implying at the least that Origen once attended Ammonius'lectures. According to Schwyzer (1983), 37, this experience had not the slightest consequence

on Origen's teachings and later writings, but I would rather suppose with Waszink (1965),

160, that Origen's early discipleship with Ammonius, even if he was only a `casual pupil'

(Schroeder (1987), 508), at least contributed to making Platonic conceptions a matter of

course in his thinking. Cf. Kremer (1981), 43, Dillon (1988), 216 n. 1.29 Eudorus, as the rst Alexandrian Platonist, deserves additional comment (see the still

valuable article by Dorrie (1944)). His appearance must be seen in the light of Antiochus'

break with academic scepticism. As Dillon suggests (1977), 612, 115, it was probably one of

Antiochus' pupils active in Alexandria, like Dion, who transmitted Antiochus' teaching to

Eudorus. While Eudorus' philosophy took a dierent turn from the dogmatic, stoicizing

Platonism advanced by Antiochus, it none the less owed much to Antiochus' call `to follow

the ancients' and the consequent renewal of interest in the original works of Plato, particularly

the Timaeus, which now came to be seen as virtually a Pythagorean tractate. (Thus Hierocleswill later, citing Plato's dialogue, refer to the character Timaeus as `that keen teacher of

Pythagorean doctrines', Proem 2 (6, 2).) Signicantly, Eudorus stands out as one of our

earliest commentators on the Timaeus. His Pythagoreanism is well illustrated by a fragment in

which Socrates and Plato are said to agree with Pythagoras that the goal of life is likeness to

god (see ch. 2, n. 280). The idea, shared by many later Platonists, that Pythagoras was a

forerunner of Plato is not to be dismissed out of hand, especially when we consider that

Plato's indebtedness to Pythagorean and Orphic writings (cf. Procl. Theol. Plat. I 5 p. 26, 24

SareyWesterink) has a core of truth; see Kingsley (1995), ch. IV, esp. 1303; cf. below,

Ch. 2, n. 281. As for the theme of `likeness to god', it resurfaces frequently in the ethical

thought of Middle and Neoplatonists and takes a prominent place in Hierocles' philosophy.30 Kremer (1981), 41, 44; Haas (1997), 150 and n. 30 (on Gnostics, Hermetics, and

Manichaeans). See in particular the Platonist refutation of Manichaeism by Alexander ofLycopolis, trans. by van der Horst and Mansfeld (1974).31 On Caracalla, `the common enemy of mankind' (Gibbon), and his persecution of the

Alexandrians in 215, particularly the philosophers, see Kremer (1981), 40.


10/41

philosophical scene prior to Hierocles was by no means stagnant.Yet for the period immediately before his appearance we know ofno truly outstanding Neoplatonic philosopher in Alexandria. To

be sure, there were individuals whose names are linked to thephilosophy of Plato in our sources, but nothing specic about theirphilosophical teaching has come down to us. Thus we read inEunapius of one Antoninus who settled at the Canopic mouth ofthe Nile, where many students and pilgrims, `desirous of phil-osophy', ocked to him from nearby Alexandria; those who posedhim a logical problem were `immediately lled with an abundanceof Platonic wisdom'. Yet Eunapius tells us no more aboutAntoninus' philosophy, preferring to linger over his religious

devotions, occult rites, and feats of clairvoyance.

32

Alexandriaitself could of course boast of Hypatia. But again, very little isactually known of her philosophy.33 Although she lectured onPlato and Aristotle, her renown on the whole seems to havedepended more on her work in mathematics than in Neoplatonicphilosophy and ultimately on her famous martyrdom (in 415).Hypatia's interests in mathematics, as those of her father Theon,who was associated with the Museum and composed mathematicaland scientic treatises, accord with Alexandria's status as auniversity town celebrated for mathematics, astronomy, and med-icine. That Hypatia and Theon dedicated themselves to scienticstudies did not rule out a concomitant interest in occult subjects.Theon wrote on divination.34 Hypatia's student Synesius showed akeen interest in the Chaldean Oracles, which he undoubtedly owedto her.35 The religious-theurgical activities of Antoninus tooattracted a great deal of attention.36 All this indicates that Alex-andria was not just known as a place to study Aristotle and theexact sciences. Iamblichus' philosophy with its emphasis ontheurgy had surely found a footing in Alexandria and its environs

even before Hierocles. He shared in this Iamblichean tradition,


32 Antoninus appears passim in Eunap. Vit. soph. VI 10. 611. 12 Giangrande. He died

c.390/1, shortly before the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria (thereto see n. 107

below), an event he had supposedly predicted. In relating the religious and prophetic

practices of Antoninus, Eunapius means to stress that Antoninus was following in the

footsteps of his spiritually gifted mother, Sosipatra of Pergamum, on whom see Penella

(1990), 5862.33 For discussions of Hypatia's teaching, writings, and her inuence upon the philosopher-

bishop Synesius see Bregman (1982), 205, Cameron and Long (1993), 4058, Dzielska

(1995), 4679.34

Suda s.v. Ue3vn (II 702 Adler); Dzielska (1995), 74.35 Cameron and Long (1993), 52; cf. Dzielska (1995), 625.36 Even Hypatia in her youth may have studied with Antoninus; cf. Cameron and Long

(1993), 51. On Antoninus' theurgical practices cf. n. 139 below.


11/41

though, like Proclus, he probably received it in Athens. But if wesingle out Hierocles and contrast him with Antoninus or Hypatiaand members of the Museum, it is because he pursued a more

strictly philosophical programme whose Neoplatonic content ismanifest. When the intellectual history of Alexandria is seen inthis light, it is perhaps not an exaggeration to claim that Hieroclesgave a renewed impetus to Neoplatonic studies in that city.

Hierocles' lectures, both for their style and content, created quitean impression on their Alexandrian hearers. For this we have animportant testimony found in Damascius' Life of Isidorus:

Hierocles, who adorned the schools in Alexandria with his lofty spirit andelevated speech, was exceptional in combining rmness and magnicence

with the breadth of his thought; he distinguished himself by his netongue and facility with the most beautiful names and terms so that heeverywhere astounded his hearers, ever rivalling the elegant language andcopious thought of Plato.37

From the continuation of Damascius' account we also get someinsight into Hierocles' curriculum:

Once he was expounding Plato's Gorgias to his retinue. One of hisauditors, Theosebius, wrote down the exposition. When, as is customary,

Hierocles arrived a second time at the Gorgias after a certain interval,Theosebius wrote down the exposition again. Comparing the rst exposi-tion with the second, he found no repetitions, as it were, but neverthelesseachwhich is surprising to hearadhered as closely as possible to Plato'spurpose. Now this shows how great was this man's ocean of thoughts.38

This anecdote not only gives us an inkling of Hierocles' originalityin his exegetical method (any modern university professor will allowhow dicult it is to come up with something new when lecturingrepeatedly on the same material), but it also reveals that Hierocles

taught suciently long in Alexandria to be able to repeat his courseof studies: for him to return a second time to the Gorgias may wellmean that in the interim he had covered a major portion, if not all,of the Platonic corpus and possibly even some of the works of


37 Ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 54, 338b 2835 p. 18= p. 80, 15 Zintzen (fr. 45A

Athanassiadi); cf. Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 47 Adler) = fr. 106 p. 81, 1215 Zintzen.38 Cod. 242. 54, 338b 35339a 7 p. 18 = p. 80, 512 Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi). Plato's

Gorgias was an integral component of the Neoplatonic curriculum; see DorrieBaltes III

1956. According to Iambl. ap. Anon. Proleg. 26, 25 p. 49 Westerink (cf. xxxviixl), of the

Platonic corpus the Gorgias should be one of the rst dialogues read, since it is of a political

nature (v2 w politiko4n o5nta), i.e. deals with the ethical/social virtues (cf. 22, 910 p. 41). ToTheosebius we owe this further remnant from Hierocles' lectures: `Hierocles once explainingthe words of Socrates likened them to cubes, for wherever they fall, they land faultlessly';

Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 911 Adler) = fr. 106 p. 83, 24 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi).


12/41

Aristotle, which were considered propaedeutic to the study of Platoin the Neoplatonic schools.39 Theosebius, it is worth while adding,became a moral philosopher in his own right. In Damascius' Life of

Isidorus he is characterized as `a man who more than anyone knownto us was accustomed to look into the souls of men' and is called `theEpictetus of our times'.40

Another indication of Hierocles' inuence as a teacher and lastingreputation is furnished by Aeneas of Gaza in his Theophrastus. Atthe beginning of this dialogue one of the characters, Euxitheus,complains to his friend, Aegyptus, that on his sea voyage to Athenshe has been forced by contrary winds to put to port in Alexandria.Aegyptus, a native of Alexandria, reminds Euxitheus that he has

landed among friends and asks him to remember the philosophy ofHierocles with whom they both studied in their youth (p. 2, 910Colonna). Euxitheus, in turn, questions Aegyptus whether there arestill among the Alexandrians `those who reveal the rites of phil-osophy, such as Hierocles the professor (o2 dida3skalow) used to be'.41

Aegyptus sadly has to respond that those beautiful times are past.From these passages it has often been surmised that Aeneas himselfwas a student of Hierocles, but this cannot be said with certainty.42

The only certainty is that Aeneas knew of Hierocles and knew hiswork On Providence.43 Important for our evaluation of Hierocles'reputation is to note the respectful tones of the references to himand that he takes the stage as the primary representative of phil-osophy in Alexandria.44 Passages in Damascius corroborate the


39 Cf. Hadot (1978), 18. On Aristotle as a preliminary to Plato and on the Alcibiades,

Gorgias, and Phaedo as preparatory for the study of Plato's metaphysical dialogues see Lloyd

(1970), 315, cf. Goulet-Caze (1982), 2789.40 Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 89 Adler)= fr. 106 p. 83, 12 Zintzen (fr. 45B

Athanassiadi); o2 toy9 kau h2ma9w xro3noy Epi3kthtow, Suda s.v. Epi3kthtow (II 366, 45 Adler) = fr.109 p. 87, 5 Zintzen (fr. 46D Athanassiadi). See also the short sketch of Theosebius in

Martindale (1980), 1110.41

P. 2, 1920 Colonna. At p. 18, 14 Colonna Hierocles is likewise called o2 dida3skalow,where this simple identication serves to distinguish him from another Hierocles, an

otherwise unknown writer of marvellous tales.42 Hadot (1978), 203; cf. Segonds (1989), 83.43 Hadot (1978), 20. For possible points of contact between Hierocles and Aeneas see

Wacht (1969), 367, 64 n. 7 (see also his index locorum s.v. `Hierocles'), but it is to be

doubted, contra Wacht, that Aeneas undertook a point-by-point refutation of Hierocles. As

Aujoulat (1987) has shown, the doctrinal dierences on metempsychosis, providence, and

creation are of a general nature, and, I would add, only those to be expected between a

Christian and a pagan author. It should be cautioned, moreover, that Wacht none the less sees

in Hierocles' theology an `Annaherung des Platonismus an das Christentum'. But the thesis,

originally put forward by Praechter (1910 and 1912), followed by Kobusch (1976) and, more

guardedly, by Aujoulat (1986), that Alexandrian Neoplatonism, in contrast to AthenianNeoplatonism, approximated Christianity has been eectively repudiated by Hadot (see

Ch. 2, n. 107).44 That is, until the end of the 5th cent. when the school of Ammonius, the son of


13/41

impression that Hierocles assumed a prominent position in thephilosophical circles of his city. Thus for Damascius to summarizea newer generation of philosophers it suces to speak of `Hierocles

and those like him', and in general we hear mention of his `hearers'and `retinue'.45 Hierocles then had no lack of students who weredevoted to him for his teaching and lecturing. Can this phenomenonbe explained simply by his gifts for language and elegant ex-pression, or should we not also assume that he `adorned the schoolsof Alexandria' by his thought, particularly as a renewer of Neo-platonic philosophy?

d . w r i t i n g s

It is no less reasonable to suppose that Hierocles made an impact onthe contemporary philosophical scene through his literary eorts aswell, even though he appears to have written only two works. Theseare described in the Suda as follows:

It is possible to learn about Hierocles' grandness of thought from thetreatises he wrote on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans and from

another series of books On Providence. In these the author is revealed to belofty-minded in his way of life, but not accurate in his knowledge.46

The mixed praise the Suda accords Hierocles is based upon ajudgement found in Damascius, whose validity we will examine indue course. For now let us simply introduce Hierocles' writings, inthe order given in the Suda.


Hermeias, began to ourish in Alexandria. Hadot (1978), 204, suspects that it is Ammonius

who is hiding behind the gure of Theophrastus in Aeneas' dialogue.45 tv9 n de4 nevte3rvn Ierokle3a te kai4 ei5 tiw o7moiow . . ., ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 36, 337b 334

p. 15 = p. 62, 56 Zintzen; oi2 a1krov3menoi, oi2 e2tai9roi, cod. 242. 54, 338b 33 and 36 p. 18 = p. 80,4 and 6 Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi); cf. oi2 plhsia3zontew, Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 18Adler) = fr. 106 p. 83, 11 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi)

46 e5jesti de4 mauei9n th4 n Ierokle3oyw megalognv3mona fro3nhsin a1po4 tv9 n syggramma3tvn, vnge3grafen ei1w ta4 Xrysa9 e5ph tv9 n Pyuagorei3vn kai4 e2te3rvn bibli3vn peri4 pronoi3aw syxnv9 n: e1n oiwfai3netai o2 a1nh4 r th4 n me4n zvh4 n y2chlo3frvn, th4 n de4 gnv9 sin oy1k a1kribh3w, Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616,1822 Adler) = Dam. fr. 106 p. 83, 1215 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi). Concerning e2te3rvnbibli3vn peri4 pronoi3aw syxnv9 n, Aujoulat (1986), 12, rightly insists that the phrase is not to betranslated `other numerous books on providence', since syxnv9 n points to the continuity thatunites the seven books composing the single treatise On Providence. Whether or not

Hierocles wrote other works besides On Providence and the Commentary is simply notknown. (Aujoulat, ibid. 2, also refers to the extracts found in Stobaeus under the name of

Hierocles. This, however, is not our Hierocles but a Stoic philosopher of the 2nd cent. ad;

cf. Balleriaux (1988), 458.)


14/41

1. Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans

Many of the manuscripts that have transmitted to us Hierocles'

Commentary have also preserved the text of the Golden Verses of thePythagoreans (in 71 verses). It naturally suggests itself that weshould say a few words about this poem before we turn to Hierocles'Commentary on the same. From Hellenistic times until late an-tiquity and even into the Byzantine era the Golden Verses wereimmensely popular.47 The poem appears to have been known toChrysippus in the third century bc, and it is frequently referred toor alluded to by subsequent authors.48 Chrysippus' quotation fromthe poem also furnishes us a conceivable terminus ante quem for its

composition.

49

The familiar title, Golden Verses, appears, however,to be a comparatively late appellation; it occurs rst in the thirdcentury ad with the sophist Alciphron and Iamblichus.50 Eventhereafter references to the poem still contain `a consciousness ofthe descriptive value of the title'.51 Hierocles accepts the title at leastas a byname (e1pvnymi3a). He refers to `the Pythagorean verses, theso-called ``golden'' verses' (Proem 2 (5, 1213)) and adds his own

justication of the title by making an analogy to the `golden age' ofmankind (Proem 5 (7, 114)). No author is attested for the poem,but its anonymity was probably intentional, in order that it might beseen as the common property of the Pythagorean community.52


47 For a detailed treatment and just appreciation of the Golden Verses see now the

introduction, text, translation, and commentary by Thom (1995).48 For a collection of the testimonia see Thom (1995), 1314.49 Chrysippus ap. Aul. Gell. VII 2. 12 (SVF II 1000= 62D LongSedley); for a

comparison of Chrysippus' interpretation of Golden Verses 578 with that of Hierocles see

pp. 14852 below. Concerning the date of the Golden Verses, Thom (1995), ch. 5, argues that

there are no cogent reasons why the poem could not have been known by Chrysippus (and

even, as Thom suggests, by Cleanthes before him); he therefore posits a date between c.350

and 300 bc. Baumgarten (1998), 154 n. 58, objects, on the grounds that Thom's arguments

apply only to particular verses and not the poem as a whole.50

See Thom (1995), 15. Before the 3rd cent. ad the poem `must have circulated without adenite title, and it was perhaps just vaguely referred to as ``Pythagorean verses'' . . . or

``Pythagorean precepts'' . . .' (Thom, ibid. 33). 51 Thom (1995), 34.52 Thom (1995), 312. The attribution of the poem to Pythagoras himself in some of the

testimonia is plainly wrong, mainly for chronological reasons, but cannot be ruled out on the

basis of the tradition that Pythagoras left no writings (cf. Thom, ibid. 15 n. 6). This tradition

has recently been put into doubt by Riedweg (1997). Hierocles himself generally refers to `the

text' (o2 lo3gow) and only once to the anonymous `composer' (o2 syggrafey3w, XX 20 (89, 1617)).As to the relation between the Golden Verses and the Ionian hexameter poem known as the

Sacred Text (Iero4w Lo3gow, possibly referred to by Hierocles in XX 5 (85, 212); see n. 9 adloc.), which was also attributed to Pythagoras, Delatte's attempts (1915) to reconstruct the

latter on the basis of the former, have been correctly criticized, most recently by Thom

(1995), 567, and Baumgarten (1998), 14859. My position here is that, while I do not ruleout altogether that isolated verses of the Golden Verses could have come from the Iero4w Lo3gow,I prefer to think that in many instances both poems drew on the same Pythagorean material,

which would naturally make for some overlapping.


15/41

This is also Hierocles' opinion: `You could in truth say they [theGolden Verses] are the most beautiful token of human nobility andthe memorial of not just one of the Pythagoreans, but of the entire

sacred assembly, and, as they themselves would say, an apophthegmcommon to all of the school' (XXVII 11 (122, 59)). As for itsstructure and contents, the poem can be divided into two parts: therst part (vv. 149a) sets out basic moral precepts and conditions,the second part (49b-71) transmits more esoteric insights, of bothan intellectual and religious nature, culminating in the promise ofimmortalization for the spiritually mature person.53 While the poemdenitely arose out of a Pythagorean-Orphic tradition, it embodiesat the same time a universal ethical and religious wisdom that

appealed to a wide readership, and its relatively simple and practicalprecepts would have added to its attractiveness as an introductoryguide to the spiritual life.54

Among Neoplatonists before Hierocles it was Iamblichus whogave special attention to the Golden Verses. In his Exhortation toPhilosophy (or Protrepticus, which forms Book II of his larger workOn Pythagoreanism), after having delivered a series of prose aphor-isms as part of an initial primary instruction, he introduces theGolden Verses as `another type [i.e. poetic]' of exhortative instruc-tion `which uses maxims' (3 p. 10, 14 Pistelli). He goes on to citeand comment on a number of verses from the second part of thepoem and concludes: `Hence it appears that the method of suchexhortations turns us to all the species of goods and to all the formsof the better life' (3 p. 16, 710 Pistelli). Like Hierocles later,Iamblichus considered the poem a propaedeutic to philosophy.55

Iamblichus supposedly also wrote a separate commentary on theGolden Verses. There is an Arabic version preserved in a singlemanuscript from the thirteenth century whose title names Iambli-chus as author. Although the editor and translator (into German) of

this Arabic commentary accepts the attribution to Iamblichus,56 theauthorship remains uncertain. But whether Iamblichus was theauthor or not, this work certainly originates from a Neoplatonicbackground and is therefore a further indication of the interest


53 See the outline and analysis in Thom (1995), ch. 6.54 See ch. 8, `Historical Locus and Value', in Thom (1995); in the preceding chapter Thom

links the Golden Verses to the genre of gnomic literature.55 According to O'Meara's analysis (1989), 41, of the Protrepticus, the Golden Verses would

belong to the rst of Iamblichus' three stages of protreptic: `a protreptic to philosophy in

general, not restricted to a specic system (chapters 23) . . .'. More narrowly, Iamblichus, in

a way similar to Hierocles, regarded the rst part of the poem an exhortation to civic virtue,the second part to contemplative philosophy; see further Thom (1995), 1718.56 Daiber (1995), 1532, argues for Iamblichean authorship on the basis of similarities

between the Arabic commentary and what is otherwise known from Iamblichus' works.


16/41

aroused among Neoplatonic philosophers by the Golden Verses.57

Much the same can be said of another commentary in an eleventh-century Arabic translation by Ibn-at

-T

ayyib, the Greek original of

which is attributed to Proclus.58

Again, while Proclus knew theGolden Verses, it cannot yet be determined with certainty that hewrote a commentary on them.59 Be that as it may, the Arabic text,like the commentary attributed to Iamblichus, does furnish at leastat several junctures material for comparison with Hierocles' Com-mentary.60

Hierocles' work is a running commentary, broken up into aproem and 27 chapters.61 It survives in its entirety.62 SinceHierocles interprets the Golden Verses as dealing rst with civic

philosophy, then with contemplative philosophy, and nally withtelestic philosophy (theurgy), he gives his Commentary a corres-ponding thematic structure.63 The following order results (with


57 Cf. O'Meara (1989), 2301, whose remarks concerning the purported Iamblichus

commentary have not been invalidated, in my view, by Daiber's publication (1995) of the

text in the meantime.58 Text and English trans. by Linley (1984).59 See Westerink (1987), O'Meara (1989), 2312, Thom (1995), 236. It should be added

that Proclus had considerable inuence on Arabic thinkers; see the brief remarks by Siorvanes

(1996), 312 (though without mention of the purported commentary by Proclus).60 In the notes to my translation I indicate some of the closer parallels between Hierocles'

Commentary and Ibn-at-T

ayyib's version. Generally, however, Hierocles' work, in detail and

complexity, far exceeds what is found in the Arabic commentary. In regard to the supposed

Iamblichean commentary, although it is far shorter than Hierocles' work (cf. O'Meara (1989),

230: `Where the [Arabic] commentary is fuller, it gives expression to rather banal moral

ideas.') and, as Daiber (1995), 33, remarks, was not used by Hierocles (an observation that

should raise some doubt concerning Iamblichus' authorship), it none the less contains a few

passages worth comparing, and contrasting, with Hierocles' Commentary. The most signi-

cant commonality among all three commentaries is that they see in Golden Verses 458 a

transition from human to divine virtue, from practical/ethical to theoretical/contemplative

philosophy; see Comm. XX 1 (84, 711), n. 1; cf. Westerink (1987), 68, O'Meara (1989), 231,

Thom (1995), 256.61 The word `commentary' (y2po3mnhma) appears in some of the titles preserved in the MSS,

as in the form `The Commentary of Hierocles the Philosopher on the Pythagorean Verses'(Z). Comparable is the loose description of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism as `Pythagorean

Commentaries' (Pyuago3reia y2pomnh3mata); thereto see O'Meara (1989), 32. Hierocles himselfdescribes his work as an `interpretation' (or `exegesis', h2 e1jh3ghsiw): Proem 6 (7, 19), XI 1 (42,16), XXV 15 (109, 15), XXVII 10 (121, 19).

62 But we have neither internal nor external clues as to its date (and place) of composition,

nor do we know if it preceded or followed On Providence. If, as Aujoulat (1976), 21 (cf. n. 4

above) supposes, On Providence was written around 415 when Hierocles was approximately

only 25 years old, then the Commentary would probably not have been his rst work. But I

have supposed a later date for On Providence, sometime after 418, and will therefore not

venture to say whether it came before or after the Commentary.63 That Hierocles attempted to impose a structural unity on the Golden Verses is to his

credit. Bernays' criticism (1866) seems to me excessively harsh: `Dieser Pythagoreer desfu nften Jahrhunderts n. Ch., welcher seinen Scharfsinn daran verschwendet hat, in die

unverbundenen Spru che der jetzt unter dem Titel ``Goldene Worte'' gehenden Sammlung

einen systematischen Zusammenhang hineinzudeutelen . . .'.


17/41

naturally some overlapping of material): (1) civic philosophy inchapters IXIX (on verses 144); (2) contemplative philosophyin chapters XXXXV (on verses 4566); (3) telestic philosophy in

chapters XXVIepilogue (on verses 6771). Hierocles clearly indi-cates his transitions within this threefold structure at the end ofchapters XIX and XXV.

There are three salient features that characterize the Commentary:its introductory nature, its mainly ethical import, and its Neo-pythagoreanism.

1. That Hierocles intended the Commentary to serve as anintroduction to philosophy is relatively clear from his referring tohis interpretation of the Golden Verses as `within measure a synopsis

of Pythagorean doctrines' (tv9 n Pyuagorei3vn dogma3tvn metri3an sy3no-cin, XXVII 10 (121, 201) ) and to the poem itself as `a compendiumof its [philosophy's] more central doctrines' (tv9 n kefalaivdeste3rvn. . . dogma3tvn e1pitomh3) and `a basic pedagogical exposition' (paidey-tikh4 stoixei3vsiw, XXVII 11 (122, 25); cf. XI 38 (54, 24)). In theProem he says of the Golden Verses: `the aim and arrangement of theverses is precisely this, to impress upon the students [lit. `listeners']a philosophic character before the other readings'.64 It is thereforeprobable that Hierocles began his oral teaching with the interpreta-

tion of the Golden Verses.

65

In line with this understanding of thepoem as a rudimentary teaching device would also be his descrip-tion of the Commentary as an account that, while not having to beconned to the brevity of the poem, still did not extend to `thewhole of philosophy', since he sought to keep his interpretation`proportionate to the intent of these verses', that is, conned to theprecepts laid down in the Golden Verses and matching their level ofdiculty.66

2. Its second feature follows closely upon the rst. Just as theusual Neoplatonic school curriculum began with studies in ethics,reserving metaphysical topics for advanced courses,67 so Hierocles'Commentary is for the most part an ethical composition, largelybased on Pythagorean-Platonic moral principles, but also incorpor-ating tenets from Aristotle and the Stoics. Although Hierocles in


64 See Proem 4 (6, 267, 1) and n. 12.65 As suggested by Westerink (1987), 72; cf. Thom (1995), 79, Mansfeld (1998), 56.66 XXVII 10 (121, 216). Cf. IV 4 (22, 810), in regard to the Golden Verses and probably

other, similar Pythagorean texts: their composers `have set down in writing for the common

good the basic teachings (ta4 stoixei9a) about the virtues and the standards of truth'. O'Meara(1989), 11415, compares Hierocles' Commentary, in its niveau and purpose, with the rst two

books of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism (cf. n. 55 above). In another study O'Meara (1992),504, points out that the Golden Verses, like the Manual of Epictetus, may be added to the

Gorgias, the Republic, the Laws, and the Politics of Aristotle, as texts that provided a

grounding in the political virtues. 67 See Hadot (1984), 201 n. 58.


18/41

the course of his extensive comments necessarily touches uponmetaphysical issues, such as the nature of god and man, it isimportant to realize, as we will have occasion to reiterate, that

the Commentary is not primarily a metaphysical disquisition. If theCommentary, as Hierocles says himself, does not extend to `thewhole of philosophy', it should not for that reason be esteemedthe less. Its great value lies in bringing to the fore and elucidatingsome cardinal Middle- and Neoplatonic themes: the function of thedemiurge, the threefold classication of beings, the signicance ofthe virtues, the vehicle of the soul, the role of theurgy, the pursuit ofgod, and the attainment of divine likeness.

3. While from the perspective of contemporary scholarship we

may broadly characterize these themes as `Platonic', to the minds ofHierocles and many of his predecessorsEudorus, Philo, Alcinous,Numenius, Nicomachus, Porphyry, and especially Iamblichusthey originated with Pythagoras and his followers, whereby Platowas seen as the most eminent adherent of Pythagorean teaching.This `Pythagoreanizing' trend in the later history of Platonism,which brings us to the third feature of Hierocles' book, is referredto by scholars, for convenience sake, as `Neopythagoreanism'.68

When therefore Hierocles chooses to comment at length on apopular Pythagorean poem, the Golden Verses, seeing them asencompassing `the universal doctrines of all philosophy, bothpractical and contemplative' (Proem 2 (5, 1415)), he standsforth as a major exponent of Neopythagoreanism in late antiquity.Before Hierocles it was Iamblichus in particular who had articu-lated a similar Pythagorean programme, notably in his multi-volume work On Pythagoreanism. Dominic O'Meara has madesome fruitful comparisons between that work and Hierocles'Commentary, though without positing Iamblichus' On Pythagor-eanism as the direct nor the sole source for Hierocles' treatise.69

O'Meara cautiously concludes: `If the Commentary, however, doesnot depend on On Pythagoreanism as its immediate source, itremains that Iamblichean Pythagoreanism provides a context forexplaining why a Neoplatonic teacher of the late fourth/early fthcentury would choose, as a way of initiating beginners to phil-osophy, to comment on the Pythagorean Golden Verses.'70 We mayadd our earlier suggestion that it was during Hierocles' period ofstudy with Plutarch of Athens that many of Iamblichus' Pythagor-ean concerns were transmitted to him.


68 For surveys of Neopythagorean thought and individual Neopythagoreans see Dillon

(1977), 34183, Reale (1990), 23572.69 O'Meara (1989), 11418. 70 Ibid. 118.


19/41

For the sake of an overview I summarize here Hierocles' Comment-ary chapter by chapter, indicating the main themes of each:

Proem. Denition of philosophy, divided into the practical and

contemplative. Introduction to the Golden Verses, which unveil theaim (skopo3w) of Pythagorean philosophy.

Chapter I. On piety. The creator-god and the three classes ofrational beingsimmortal gods, glorious heroes, and humansthatmerit honour according to their substance. The creative law thatpreserves the order and ranking of beings in the cosmos. Pietymanifested not in external sacrices but in inner purity.

Chapter II. On reverence for the oath as guarantor of divine lawand cosmic order. The divine and human manifestations of the

oath. On the proper use of oaths.Chapter III. On the honour towards glorious heroes. Denition

of glorious heroes as natural daemons who occupy the median rankof rational beings.

Chapter IV. On earth-dwelling daemons, dened as know-ledgeable and virtuous human beings who are daemons by relation,insofar as they resemble the daemonic class. We honour theseoutstanding human beings by following their way of life.

Chapter V. On the honour towards parents and kin. On caring for

one's parents. Divine law takes precedence when parents are notvirtuous.Chapter VI. On voluntary friendship. Whereas parents are

honoured by reason of natural ties, friends are to be sought forthe sake of a partnership in the virtues.

Chapter VII. On behaviour towards friends. Friendship is to bemaintained with all forbearance as long as a partnership in virtue ispossible or a lost friend is able to be recalled to virtue. Humankindness (filanurvpi3a) is extended to all men, but friendship only tothe good.

Chapter VIII. On controlling the irrational soul. On the conictsarising from its spirited and desiderative parts. The irrational andaective faculties must be habituated to obey reason.

Chapter IX. On avoiding shameful deeds, both when alone and incompany. Self-knowledge (i.e. respect of oneself as a rationalsubstance) and conscience act as guardians against shameful prac-tices.

Chapter X. On the four cardinal virtues, notably on practicalwisdom as chief of the virtues. How practical wisdom and right

reason are able to evaluate and bear misfortunes. On nding thecause of evils in ourselves and not blaming the superior beings.



20/41

Chapter XI. On `heaven-sent fortunes'. Providence, fate, anddeliberate choice are the primary causes of man's fortunes, in whichchance and accident play a subsidiary role. God is blameless of evils,

but man puts himself in a position to require the corrections ofprovidence. How to endure life's fortunes with virtue.

Chapter XII. On good and bad arguments. On nding the meanbetween a hatred and a love of speaking, and on the correct way torefute falsehoods.

Chapter XIII. On the steadfastness of the man of reason in theface of attering or threatening words and deeds. Denition of thehuman self as the rational soul; body and externals are instrumentsfor use of the soul. On guarding the soul with truth and virtue.

Chapter XIV. On good counsel and deliberate action proting thesoul. The value of corrective punishment to bring on repentance,`the beginning of philosophy'. Counsel and right reason opposethoughtlessness and procure the best way of life.

Chapter XV. On knowledge and the right evaluation of pleasures.True pleasure comes from a virtuous life.

Chapter XVI. On moderation in food, drink, and exercise. Healthand moderation are worth while as far as they serve the soul'sactivity of contemplation.

Chapter XVII. On moderation (continued). On avoiding theextremes of luxury and squalor, proigacy and miserliness, byfollowing the maxim `nothing too much'.

Chapter XVIII. On reecting before acting so as to avoid harm tothe philosophical life.

Chapter XIX. On the daily, threefold examination of conscience.On self-admonition with the aid of memory.

Chapter XX. On the transition from human (civic) virtue andpractical philosophy to divine virtue and contemplative philosophy.On the Pythagorean tetrad/tetractys, identied with the demiurge,

and its properties.Chapter XXI. On prayer. The eectiveness of prayer depends

upon both man's work and zeal and the cooperation of the divine.Chapter XXII. On the ordered relation (sy3ntajiw) of the three

classes of rational beings within the cosmos. On the division of thecosmos into an incorporeal order and the visible (physical) world.

Chapter XXIII. On nature and the visible cosmos. On man'samphibious nature between the incorporeal realm of intellect andthe irrational, corporeal world. Man should respect the divine

measures for creation and align his hopes according to the limitsimposed upon him in virtue of his worth and substance.

Chapter XXIV. On man's fall and the descent of the soul. On the



21/41

role of free will in both man's fall and deliverance. Miseries are self-imposed. On the evil and ignorance of the majority of men.

Chapter XXV. On the name and nature of god. On the deliver-

ance from evils, limited to a minority who voluntarily turn tophilosophy, while the majority fail to recognize their own sub-stance. God remains blameless.

Chapter XXVI. On the purication of the luminous body, alsocalled the vehicle of the soul. Its purication is intimated by thePythagorean symbols on abstinence. On telestic philosophy (i.e.theurgy), which, as a branch of practical philosophy along with civicphilosophy, is subordinate to contemplative philosophy.

Chapter XXVII. On the end of philosophy: the soul's deication

and its restoration, along with the congenital body, to the etherealrealm. Man's place in the cosmic hierarchy is ordained by divineprovidence. Epilogue.

2. On Providence

As noted at the outset, our knowledge of Hierocles' other work, OnProvidence, is limited to the resumes and extracts given byPhotius.71 In codex 214 Photius lists the title of Hierocles' bookas On Providence and Destiny and the Relationship of Free Will toDivine Governance,72 whereas in codex 251 he refers to it simply asOn Providence; the rst was probably the exact title.73 But whetherwe accept the full or the abbreviated version, from the title alone weshould never get a proper appreciation of the contents of Hierocles'work, since it was more than strictly a treatise about divineprovidence and human will. The summaries that Photius providesof each of the seven books add up, in eect, to a history ofphilosophy extending from archaic times to Hierocles' own day,from Homer to Plutarch of Athens. To get an idea of the scope of

Hierocles' treatise and to facilitate our discussion of its structure,contents, and methods, I give here a condensed version of Photius'summaries of the seven books (taken from cod. 214. 8, pp. 12830):


71 According to Treadgold's hypothetical analysis (1980) of Photius' method of composi-

tion, the rst part of the Bibliotheca (codd. 1233) contains general summaries and Photius'

personal opinion on the books read; these codices were dictated to his secretary. The second

part (codd. 23480) consists mostly of Photius' copious reading notes, usually in the form of

excerpts (signalled by a heading such as Ek toy9 b' lo3goy) copied by his secretary. Thus a bookintroduced summarily in the rst part might be reviewed at more length in the second part,

though without cross-references to the rst review. The characteristics of codd. 214 and 251,

containing the material on Hierocles' On Providence, appear to t this schema.72 peri4 pronoi3aw kai4 ei2marme3nhw kai4 th9w toy9 e1f h2mi9n pro4w th4 n uei3an h2gemoni3an synta3jevw, cod. 214.1, 171b 1921 p. 125.

73 Cf. Elter (1910), 1756.


22/41

Book I sets out Hierocles' research on providence, justice, andjudgement according to merit.

Book II collects Platonic opinions and proves them from Plato's

writings.Book III refutes opposing opinions.Book IV harmonizes the Chaldean Oracles and sacred laws with

Plato's teachings.Book V attributes to Orpheus, Homer, and all other well-known

gures before Plato a Platonic philosophy about Hierocles' subjectmatter.

Book VI treats the continuation of Platonic philosophy fromAristotle till Ammonius of Alexandria, showing that all reputable

philosophers were in accord with Plato while condemning thosewho deny the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle.Book VII covers the school of Ammonius: Plotinus, Origen,

Porphyry, and Iamblichus and their followers up to Plutarch ofAthens; all these thinkers agree with the philosophy of Plato in itspuried form.

This overview shows that On Providence was to a signicant extent athematic history of philosophy, written of course from a Neo-platonic perspective. The major themes of providence, free will,

and divine judgement also included, as we learn from other passagesin Photius and especially from the extracts in codex 251, suchrelated topics as the creation and structure of the rational world-order, the status of the material world, and the immortality andtransmigration of the soul.74 These topics are related because anexamination of providence naturally raises the question of all thatwhich falls and does not fall within its domain. Our survey fromPhotius further shows that Hierocles followed a chronologicalscheme. After an introduction of his own examinations (Book I),an exposition of Platonic doctrine (Book II), and a refutation ofnon-Platonic views (Book III), Hierocles gives the next four books abalanced chronological structure: two books (IV and V) are ded-icated to ancient material and major gures before Plato, who istreated as an axial point, and again two books (VI and VII) tophilosophers after Plato; tellingly, it is Ammonius who provides theaxis for post-Platonic thinkers.75


74 According to Phot. cod. 214. 2, 171b 358 p. 125, Hierocles' attempt to harmonize Plato

and Aristotle led him to consider their accounts not only about providence but also those `in

which they consider the soul to be immortal and wherever they have philosophized aboutheaven and earth'. On the pre-existence and transmigration of the soul as the `great argument

on which Hierocles counted most', see cod. 214. 6, 172b 202 p. 128 and n. 26.75 Cf. Weber (1962), 63, Baltes (1985), 330.


23/41

Let us now consider in somewhat more detail each of the sevenbooks, eshing out, as it were, the bare bones of our survey.

Photius tells us that On Providence was dedicated to the historian

Olympiodorus. The dedication appears to have taken the form of anintroductory epistle that ended with some words of comfort toOlympiodorus on the loss of his adoptive son, but it also includedan exposition (ei1w e5kuesin diatypoy9tai) of Hierocles' main themes,indicated by a table of contents, as a kind of prospectus to the work.It is dicult to determine whether this preliminary material waswritten separately or belonged to Book I. In either event, the rstbook certainly contained a prolonged introduction of Hierocles'own views, for which the remaining books then furnished the

necessary critical and historical details.

76

After introducing his themes in the rst book, Hierocles under-takes to interweave them in a universal history of philosophy,beginning in Book II. His method is systematic and orderly. Heestablishes rst of all the Platonic basis of his research by collectingthe `Platonic opinions' (platvnikai4 do3jai) on his subject matter. The`Platonic opinions' consisted of the exegetical eorts of Middle- andNeoplatonists, which Hierocles would have studied with Plutarchof Athens, `his guide', as Photius tells us in the summary of BookVII, `in such doctrines' (kauhghth4 n ay2toy9 tv9 n toioy3tvn . . . dog-ma3tvn).77 In good Neoplatonic fashion Hierocles adduces thewritings of Plato as the touchstone of philosophy. We can conrmthis procedure from the actual extracts from Book II, which arereplete with quotations of and references to several of Plato'sdialogues (Phaedrus, Laws, Theaetetus, Republic).78

Book III then takes up and seeks to refute the arguments of theopponents of Platonic philosophy; the adversaries were Epicureansand Stoics, pseudo-Platonists and pseudo-Aristotelians, and astrol-ogers and magicians. The philosophers, including Alexander of

Aphrodisias, and the astrologers were attacked for their false


76 I have largely followed the structural analysis of Elter (1910), 17599 (esp. 177, 18990,

196), summarized by Schwyzer (1983), 40 (cf. also in brief Hagg (1975), 196 n. 7). Both Elter

and Schwyzer (cf. also Hadot (1978), 69), believe Hierocles wrote his preliminary survey as a

separate introduction, that is before Book I. Although Photius, cod. 214. 1, 171b 302 p. 125,

refers to Hierocles' consolatio to Olympiodorus as coming `at the end of the rst book', Elter's

analysis makes a good case for a Prouevri3a, from which cod. 251. 16, 460b 23461b 31pp. 18993, is an excerpt and which concluded with the table of contents that appears in cod.

214. 8, 173a 540 pp. 12830. Thereupon Book I contained the material given by Photius in

cod. 251. 716, 461b 32463b 28 pp. 1938. As to the length of the seven-volume work in toto,

Photius gives us no exact indications, but his extensive extract in cod. 251 from Book III,

which is specied as chapter 10 of that book, allows us to suspect that On Providence was asizeable undertaking.77 Cf. Hadot (1978), 6970.78 See cod. 251. 1824, 463b 39465a 12 pp. 198202 passim.


24/41

views about providence and fate, the magicians for their belief thatfate could be swayed by the devices of magic.

After this polemical interlude Hierocles continues in Book IV

with his Platonic programme by showing that `what are called theOracles' (ta4 lego3mena lo3gia) and `the sacred laws' (oi2 i2eratikoi4 uesmoi3)were in accord with Plato's teachings. The Òracles' are theChaldean Oracles, a collection of hexameter verses of religious andquasi-philosophical content, dating from the second century ad.79

In the Neoplatonic schools, from Porphyry to Damascius, theChaldean Oracles were widely read and commented on, beingregarded as àuthoritative revelatory literature equal in importanceonly to Plato's Timaeus', and, accordingly, great stock was placed in

trying to prove their conformity to Platonic philosophy.

80

As asoteriological document, the Chaldean Oracles have as their focalpoint the purication of the soul, the indispensable prerequisite forultimate union with god. To attain the cooperation of the gods inpurifying the soul the Oracles prescribed certain practices whoseritual enactment was known as theurgy or the sacred art (h2 i2eratikh4te3xnh). Neoplatonists in general, with the notable exception ofPlotinus, accepted the important role that theurgy played inpurifying the soul, although there were dierences of opinionregarding the extent of its ecacy. The strongest proponent ofthe Chaldean Oracles and theurgic practice was Iamblichus. Whentherefore Hierocles dedicates Book IV of On Providence to showinghow the Chaldean Oracles and `the sacred laws', which is clearly areference to the prescriptions of theurgy, conform with Platonicphilosophy, it appears once more that he took his lead from theschool of Iamblichus.81

In passing to the next book, we must interject another word aboutthe ordering of Hierocles' topicsChaldean Oracles in Book IV,followed by Orpheus and Homer in Book V; the order does not

appear to be accidental. Hierocles, like Proclus, probably felt thatthe material of the Chaldean Oracles was very ancient.82 Next comes


79 The Chaldean Oracles are available to us only in fragments. On title, authorship, and

general content see the excellent introduction in Majercik's edition (1989). See also the

important essay by Athanassiadi (1999a).80 Majercik (1989), 2; cf. Goulet-Caze (1982), 279, Sarey (1984b), 169. Syrianus wrote a

treatise on The Agreement of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the [Chaldean] Oracles

(Suda s.v. Syriano3w (IV 4789 Adler)). According to Marinus, Vit. Procl. 38, Proclus said, ÌfI were in charge, the only ones of the ancient books I would make people read would be the

Oracles [ta4 Lo3gia, i.e. the Chaldean Oracles] and the Timaeus . . .'. On the signicance Proclusattached to his exegesis of the Chaldean Oracles, cf. Dorrie (1974), 2723. See also Ch. 2,

nn. 232, 247.81 Cf. Hadot (1978), 701.82 For Proclus on the antiquity of the Chaldean Oracles see Marin. Vit. Procl. 38 (quoted in

n. 80 above); Lamberton (1986), 180.


25/41

Orpheus, whom Hierocles places before Homer according to thewidespread belief that the poems attributed to Orpheus pre-datedHomer.83 The remaining books then, as we pointed out earlier,

follow a recognizable chronological pattern.We continue with Book V in which Hierocles enlists Orpheus and

Homer and other notables from Greek antiquity into the Platoniccamp. It is a pity that we are not informed in more detail howHierocles proceeded here, but his overall purpose can none the lessbe understood as part of the Neoplatonic agenda that sought toappropriate for itself all the best of Greek intellectual culture evenbefore the appearance of Plato. Particularly of interest to theNeoplatonists were poets and quasi-philosophical writers in

whom they could detect, often only by means of ingenious inter-pretative methods, a special knowledge of the gods and the divine.Orpheus, Musaeus, the Chaldeans, Hesiod, Homer, Pherecydes,and Pythagoras are the names we nd most frequently in Neo-platonic literature among that broad spectrum of authors referred toas ueolo3goi.84 Let us consider the names specically mentioned byPhotius as part of Hierocles' account. Orpheus, though a gure ofmyth, was accredited, from the sixth century bc onwards, with abody of religious poems whose favourite motifs were sacredhistories of the gods and the peregrinations and fate of the humansoul; many of these poems appear to have originated in a Pythagor-ean milieu.85 Hence there were enough footholds in the so-called`Orphic' writings for Orpheus to be seen as a forerunner of Plato.Syrianus, Proclus' teacher, wrote a treatise entitled The Agreementof Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the [Chaldean] Oracles.86

Proclus' own exegesis of Orphic literature, especially of the OrphicRhapsodies, a theogonical poem considered a classic by the Neo-platonists, is a continuation of the work of Syrianus and, evenbefore him, of Iamblichus.87 But while the religious and eschato-

logical nature of Orphic writings allowed the Neoplatonists to make


83 This applies at any rate to the Orphic Hymns (see Lamberton (1986), 1801) but may be

surmised to have been the prevalent belief about most of the other Orphic writings as well.84 On the history and development of the term ueolo3gow from Herodotus to late Neo-

platonism, particularly in reference to Homer, see the survey by Lamberton (1986), 2231.

Procl. De prov. 1, 1419 pp. 10910 Boese, refers briey to the `theologians' before Plato who

spoke of providence but not with the sober methods of argument and lack of enigma found in

Plato. See Erler (1980), 4 n. 2.85 On Orphic literature see West (1983), esp. 315 (Orpheus and Pythagorean Orphica).86 See n. 80 above.87 Marin. Vit. Procl. 27; thereto, West (1983), 2278, Brisson (1995), ch. V, esp. 4851.

According to Dorrie (1974), 2736, the zeal with which Neoplatonists turned to Orpheus canalso be explained as a deliberate reaction to Christianity, though not in order to hold up a

pagan counterpart to the gure of Christ but rather to present a great and far older theologian

of their own.


26/41

a special claim on Orpheus, the epic poems of Homer are anothermatter. At least from a modern perspective, it is not easy to see howHierocles could have turned Homer into a Platonist. We must

remember, however, that the Iliad and the Odyssey had enjoyedby Hierocles' time a long tradition of mystical allegorizing. What-ever the exact origins of the allegorical interpretation of Homer(which may go back to the ancient Pythagoreans, who had certainlyadopted the Homeric poems as sacred texts), we see its full ower-ing in Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. The allegorical read-ings of the Homeric epics by Numenius, Plotinus, Porphyry, andlater in a most systematic manner by Proclus, yielded a theologianpar excellence, a Homer who could discern a non-material reality

and pronounce authoritatively on the afterlife of the soul and whosepoems were a divine revelation on a par with the myths of Plato.88

When therefore Hierocles ascribes a Platonic philosophy to Homer,he plugs into a well-established Neoplatonic tradition of spiritualiz-ing Homer. Besides Orpheus and Homer, it is reasonable to supposethat Hierocles in Book V discussed other ueolo3goi as well: Hesiodand Pythagoras come to mind rst of all. Though not mentioned byPhotius, they were probably included among `all the other well-known gures before the epiphany of Plato'.89 The same may besaid for certain of the Presocratic philosophers.90

In Book VI Hierocles takes up the philosophers after Plato untilAmmonius. As Photius does not list any names, other than that ofAristotle, for this roughly 500-year span, we do not know which ofPlato's successors in the Academy, which of the Middle Platonists,or which of the Peripatetics Hierocles dealt with specically.Certainly Aristotle was the major star in the great chorus ofphilosophers until Ammonius, but only insofar as his light reectedPlato's. The unanimity of Plato and Aristotle was an overridingconcern of Hierocles in Book VI:


88 The evolution of Homer the theologian as a result of Neoplatonic allegorical reading has

been well described by Lamberton (1986), to whom we have already referred (n. 84 above) for

his study of the term ueolo3gow; cf. Weber (1962), 6474. The hermeneutic principle used byNeoplatonists would be spelled out later by Proclus: the Homeric myths must be interpreted

`according to the secret doctrine', which is concealed from the profane and those of an

unpuried mind by the surface meaning of the texts (In Remp. I 140, 1113; I 74, 1230);

thereto, Lamberton (1995), 1468. On the topic `Plato and Homer' in Platonism see also

Do rrieBaltes III 2505.89 So also O'Meara (1989), 114, in regard to Pythagoras, given his overall importance for

Hierocles as attested by the Commentary. Hesiod gures in the Proem (5 (7, 25)) of the

Commentary, where Hierocles intimates an allegorical reading of Hesiod's ages of mankind.90

In the Commentary, at any rate, Hierocles mentions Empedocles (`the Pythagorean',XXIV 2 (98, 10)), Heraclitus (XXIV 1 (98, 7)), and Hippocrates (XVI 11 (74, 13)). In

general, to harmonize the Presocratics with Plato was part of the Neoplatonic programme of

unifying the whole history of philosophy; cf. Sorabji (1990b), 45.


27/41

The author wants to connect the thoughts of these men not only in theiraccounts of providence, but also in all those in which they consider thesoul to be immortal and wherever they have philosophized about heavenand earth. He attempts to show that all those who make them disagreehave strayed very far from the purpose of these men and fallen from thetruth, some having freely given themselves up to strife and senselessness,others enslaved by prejudice and ignorance.91

The detractors of the harmony between Plato and Aristotleincluded their own disciplesfalse disciples, in Hierocles' view:

As for all those who try to break up the unanimity of Plato andAristotle, he consigns them to the thinkers that are trivial and to beavoided; they have corrupted many of the Platonic accounts, and yet

they claim Plato as their teacher, just as is the case with the writings ofAristotle among those who confess to honour his school. And theirmachinations have no other purpose than to make the Stagirite clashwith the son of Ariston.92

We see here the radical extent to which Hierocles carries hisPlatonic agenda. Aristotle, as Plato's pupil, cannot be seen as merelyagreeing with his teacher at one time and disagreeing with him atanother, but must be shown to be fully in accord with him, at leastin essential points of doctrine. Hence Hierocles charges all those

philosophers, be they Platonists or Aristotelians, who point todierences between Plato and Aristotle, with having corrupted


91 Photius makes these remarks near the beginning of cod. 214. 2, 171b 35172a 2 pp. 125

6, after introducing the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle as `the professed aim of the present

inquiry' (h2 e1paggeli3a th9w paroy3shw ske3cevw). He thus gives the impression that Hieroclesprofessed this intention at the very start of On Providence and pursued it throughout the

work, but, as Elter (1910), 17984, was the rst to point out (cf. also O'Meara (1989), 112),

this is misleading insofar as Photius' own table of contents reveals that Hierocles in the rst

ve books laboured primarily at expounding Platonic doctrines and bringing previous

thinkers into Plato's train. Most of what Photius tells us at the outset of codex 214 about

the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle and about the detractors of that harmony applies in

actuality to Book VI, as part of Hierocles' discussion of the historical development of truePlatonism. Photius has anticipated this issue, not necessarily already from Book VI itself but,

as Elter (1910), 18990, 193, 198, surmises, from Hierocles' prospectus in Book I, and given it

undue prominence at the beginning of his summary, most likely because of his own

predilection for Aristotle (cf. Aujoulat (1986), 11).92 Thus Photius' summary (in part) of Book VI in cod. 214. 8, 173a 2532 p. 129. Cf. 251.

3, 461a 2430 p. 191: `many of the students of Plato and Aristotle have applied their zeal and

attention to show that their teachers clashed with one another concerning the critical points of

their doctrines; their contentiousness and daring have driven them to the point of falsifying

the writings of their teachers in order better to show that these philosophers fought against

each other.' At the beginning of cod. 214. 2, 171b 38172a 2 pp. 1256, Photius also

announces the theme of disharmony but says nothing about forgeries and corruptions. It

appears then that Hierocles, while he may have indicated in Book I (as part of his prospectus)the general problem presented by the false disciples of Plato and Aristotle, waited until Book

VI to introduce his claim that these pseudo-philosophers actually corrupted the thought of

their teachers through forged writings.


28/41

and deliberately falsied the teachings of their masters.93 Thisdiscordant state of aairs he characterizes as a sickness aictingthe philosophical schools.94 It was nally brought to an end by

Ammonius:This man, divinely inspired with the truth of philosophy and disdainingthe vulgar opinions that had made philosophy a cause of reproach, was therst to behold clearly the teachings of both Plato and Aristotle, and tobring them into one and the same mind, and to hand on to all his pupils aphilosophy free from factional strife, particularly to the best of hisstudents, Plotinus, Origen, and their successors. 95

How did Hierocles come to see in Ammonius the great restorer ofthe harmony between Plato and Aristotle? Most scholars agree with

Dorrie's suggestion that Hierocles got this information aboutAmmonius from reading Porphyry's On the One School of Platoand Aristotle.96 Since Porphyry could have hardly ascribed the unity


93 O'Meara (1989), 112, notes here a subtle dierence from Iamblichus: whereas Iam-

blichus was content to regard Aristotle as sometimes right and sometimes wrong, Hierocles

takes a more positive view of Aristotle, but only at the price of his theory of falsication,

whereby the blame is removed from Aristotle himself and shifted to later thinkers. None the

less, as O'Meara (ibid. 113) goes on to remark, the kind of harmony assumed by both

Iamblichus and Hierocles is essentially the same: `if Aristotle is brought into agreement with

Plato, it is of course on Platonic terms'.94 to4 pa3uow tai9w filoso3foiw diatribai9w e1nskh9can, cod. 251. 3, 461a 301 p. 191. Unfortunately,

we have no historical information that allows us to substantiate Hierocles' dire diagnosis (and

no indication which of Plato's or Aristotle's works Hierocles thought were forgeries). Cf.

Do rrie (1976a), 345: `von einem ha- und neiderfu llten Streit der Philosophen zu jener Zeit,

von Falschungen und Boswilligkeit in solchem Grade konnte gewi nicht die Rede sein'.

Do rrie further points out that from the time of Antiochus of Ascalon the general trend was to

accept the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle, with Albinus (= Alcinous) exemplifying this

conciliatory tendency, and only a few authors (Plutarch of Athens, Atticus, Democritus) in

opposition. Although Do rrie's point that Hierocles must have been exaggerating is well taken,

the harmony between Plato and Aristotle was perhaps still not as widely accepted as Dorrie

thinks (cf., contra Do rrie, Weber (1962), 534). That Antiochus served as a universal model

for Middle and Neoplatonists is somewhat doubtful when we consider that Numenius, as

Hadot (1978), 76, points out (though without reference to Dorrie), counted Antiochus as a

traitor for introducing Stoic dogmas into the Academy, and that Numenius himself did notaccept the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle (see Hadot, ibid. 75 n. 22). Plotinus, too, did not

hesitate to criticize Aristotle and the Peripatetics on occasion (especially for their notions of

substance and of divine intellect as the ultimate principle); cf. V 3. 12, VI 1. 2, VI 7. 37, VI 7.

40; further criticisms listed by Wallis (1972), 24; see also Do rrieBaltes III 249 n. 3.95 Cod. 251. 3, 461a 329 pp. 1912. Cf. 214. 2, 172a 49 p. 126.96 Do rrie (1976a), 3468; sim. Hadot (1978), 75, Schwyzer (1983), 45, Schroeder (1987),

51112, O'Meara (1989), 113, DorrieBaltes III 2489; on Porphyry and Aristotle see also

Smith (1987), 7545. On the other hand, Dodds (1960), 26, has suggested that Hierocles'

source was Ammonius' other pupil, Origen the pagan. In his work, That the King is the only

Maker (which Hierocles may have known), Origen subscribes to the Peripatetic position that

intellect is the highest level of beingan instance of a reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle

decidedly not found in Plotinus. But according to Proclus' Theol. Plat. II 4 and recent studiesof this text, Origen in rejecting a One beyond intellect and Being did not follow Ammonius'

teaching; thereto see Sect. 2.B.1.a. A more immediate source may have been Hierocles' own

teacher, Plutarch of Athens; cf. Baltes (1985), 327.


29/41

of Plato and Aristotle to Plotinus, given the latter's oft severecriticisms of Aristotle,97 he settled on Ammonius, whom he alsointroduces elsewhere as a great solver of problems.98 Be that as it

may, we still do not know in what way Ammonius supposedlyeected a reconciliation between Plato and Aristotle, as we knowgenerally very little about Ammonius' teaching.99 Possibly Ammo-nius did no more than to accentuate Aristotle's standing as the pupilof Plato; yet this might have been enough for Hierocles to includeAristotle in the brilliant chorus of post-Platonic philosophers and tosearch out those areas of philosophy where Aristotle could be shownto harmonize with Plato, even if it meant tacitly ignoring funda-mental dierences.100

There can be no doubt, however, that Hierocles, whatever the


97 See n. 94 n. above. What Porph. Vit. Plot. 14 grants is that in Plotinus' writings Stoic

and Peripatetic doctrines are hiddenly mixed in (e1mme3miktai . . . lanua3nonta), particularlyconcentrations (katapepy3knvtai) of the Metaphysics.

98 See Do rrie (1976a), 347, Hadot (1978), 75 with n. 24. It may seem strange, since

Plotinus was known to have criticized Aristotle, that Porphyry should have made Ammonius

the proponent of the concord between Plato and Aristotle, the same Ammonius whose

teaching, as Porphyry himself emphasizes, had such profound inuence on Plotinus (thus it

would be interesting to know how Plotinus `brought the mind of Ammonius to bear on his

investigations' when he was reading the commentaries of anti-Aristotelian authors such as

Numenius and Atticus; see Porph. Vit. Plot. 14). But one might argue that Porphyry could

have deliberately evoked Ammonius to prove a point to Plotinus, since the unity of Plato and

Aristotle appears to have been a bone of contention between them. In fact, Sarey (1992), 44,

suggests that Porphyry's conviction on this topic, as witnessed by his treatise On the One

School of Plato and Aristotle, was one of the reasons he did not assume the succession of

Plotinus in Rome.99 Heinemann's (1926) elaborate and often cited reconstruction of Ammonius' philosophy

from Hierocles' On Providence has been shown by Schwyzer (1983), 435, to be invalid,

resting largely on Heinemann's misunderstanding of certain texts as transmitted by Photius

(cf. the summary of Schwyzer's critique in Schroeder (1987), 50912). The only two

undisputed assertions that Hierocles makes about Ammonius, that he maintained the

agreement of Plato and Aristotle and that he restored the true Platonic philosophy, are, as

Schwyzer (1983), 445, remarks, `ganz allgemeine Aussagen, die hochstens erkennen lassen,

wie hoch Ammonios eingeschatzt wurde, die aber keine genaueren Kenntnisse ammonia-

nischer Lehren verraten'. Besides these two general bits of information about Ammonius, allwe know further of his teaching is that his exegesis of Plato's Parmenides yielded a One

beyond Being and intellect; this is of course not insignicant, since Ammonius' interpretation

was taken up by Plotinus (see Sect. 2.B.1.a and n. 39). After Heinemann (1926), two scholars,

Langerbeck (1957; 1967) and Theiler (1966), further sought to restore Ammonius' teaching

in some detail. Theiler especially expended much labour in locating parallels between Origen

the Christian and Hierocles, leading him to conclude that Ammonius was the common

source. Although Theiler's conclusion could not be conrmed, his scholarship, as it applies to

Hierocles, remains none the less useful; cf. Lloyd (1968), den Boeft (1977), 50 n. 10, Baltes

(1985), 328.100 As Hadot (1978), 68 n. 3, observes, the notion of a concord between Plato and Aristotle,

as strange as it seems to us, may have come more easily to ancient authors in view of their

belief that certain pseudo-Platonic and pseudo-Aristotelian writings, such as the SecondLetter for Plato and the De mundo for Aristotle, were authentic. The harmony of Plato and

Aristotle was, in any event, a traditional Neoplatonic tenet and is also found in the ancient

commentators on Aristotle; see Sorabji (1990a), 35.


30/41

basis and validity of his claims, saw in Ammonius an axial gure inthe history of philosophy, whose divine stature was rivalled only byPlato (and Pythagoras, whose importance to the mind of Hierocl

Documents

Life of Hierocles (Print)