Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T23:44:32.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IAMBLICHUS’ EPISTLES, FOURTH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL EPISTOLOGRAPHY AND THE NEOPLATONIC CURRICULA AT ATHENS AND ALEXANDRIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Moysés Marcos*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside

Extract

As a literary genre and practice, philosophical and political epistolography seems to have been alive and well in the fourth-century Roman empire. We have fragments of twenty letters of the late third- and early fourth-century c.e. Platonist (Neoplatonist to us) philosopher Iamblichus of Chalcis (which are preserved in the early fifth-century Ioannes Stobaeus’ Anthologium [ = Flor.]) to former students and other contemporaries, some of whom appear to have been imperial officeholders (see Appendix); the Epistle to Himerius of Sopater the Younger (which is partially preserved in Stobaeus, 4.5.51–60, in sequential extracts; this Sopater is the homonymous son of the philosopher who had been Iamblichus’ student) to his brother Himerius on the latter's assumption of an unknown governorship (ἡγεμονία) in the East, probably sometime in the 340s or 350s (and so under the Emperor Constantius II); the Emperor Julian's Epistle to Themistius, which was likely written and published c.December 361/early 362; and the Epistle to Julian of the Aristotelian philosopher Themistius on proper rule (preserved in two Arabic manuscripts from the eleventh and fourteenth/fifteenth centuries), which seems to have been a response, in part, to Julian's Epistle to Themistius and perhaps was written to the emperor when both men likely resided in Constantinople at the same time. These philosophical and political letters are but a few examples from this period. All four authors mentioned above, who are representative of intellectual life in the East during the fourth century, produced epistles which reflect Greek political theory in a Roman imperial context.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PLRE 1.450–1, Iamblichus 1; Dillon, J., ‘Iamblichus of Chalcis (c.240–325 a.d.)’, ANRW 36.2 (1987), 862909Google Scholar. For the first English translation and arrangement of the fragments of the letters with text and commentary, see Dillon, J.M. and Polleichtner, W. (edd.), Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 19) (Atlanta, 2009)Google Scholar. The subsequent citations of Iamblichus’ epistles follow the enumeration of Dillon and Polleichtner, although I prefer to use ‘Epistle’ in place of ‘Letter’. It is important to note that none of these epistles has greetings or farewells or personal references or touches typical of a letter (see Trapp, M. [ed.], Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation [Cambridge, 2003], 15Google Scholar; and Gibson, R.K. and Morrison, A.D., ‘Introduction: what is a letter?’, in Morello, R. and Morrison, A.D. [edd.], Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography [Oxford, 2007], 116Google Scholar). When he excerpted Iamblichus’ epistles, Stobaeus created new texts. See also Malherbe, A.J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Atlanta, 1988), 1214Google Scholar.

2 PLRE 1.437, Himerius 3; 1.846, Sopater 1; 1.846–7, Sopater 2. See Wilhelm, F., ‘Der Regentenspiegel des Sopatros’, RhM 72 (1917/1918), 374402Google Scholar; O'Meara, D.J., Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2003), 112–15Google Scholar, and id., A Neoplatonist ethics for high-level officials: Soptaros’ Letter to Himerios’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 91100Google Scholar; and Swain, S., Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works (Cambridge, 2013), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the date of the letter.

3 For some studies of this letter and the debate on its date, see Barnes, T.D. and Spoel, J. Vander, ‘Julian and Themistius’, GRBS 22 (1981), 187–9Google Scholar, Bradbury, S., ‘The date of Julian's Letter to Themistius’, GRBS 28 (1987), 235–51Google Scholar, Bouffartigue, J., ‘La lettre de Julien à Thémistios: Histoire d'une fausse manoeuvre et d'un désaccord essentiel’, in Gálvez, Á. González and Malosse, P.-L. (edd.), Mélanges A.F. Norman (Suppl. 7) (Lyon, 2006), 113–38Google Scholar, Watt, J.W., ‘Julian's Letter to Themistius – and Themistius’ response?’, in Baker-Brian, N. and Tougher, S. (edd.), Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate (Swansea, 2012), 91103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Swain (n. 2), 53–91. There are still some unresolved problems with 355/6 as the date of composition and publication. For example, where is Constantius in the text? He shines on account of his absence. Constantius is not mentioned or alluded to even once in an epistle which was clearly meant for public consumption, a striking omission if it was written in 355/6 when Julian composed a panegyric on him (Or. 1). Moreover, Themistius had recommended that Julian ‘emulate’ (προκεῖσθαι, 262D, trans. Wright) the famous lawgivers Solon, Lycurgus and Pittacus, a recommendation which seems out of place in 355/6, when Julian did not yet have the authority to act in legal cases; it is not until c.358/9 that we see Julian acting as a chief judge in Gaul (cf. Amm. Marc. 16.5.12–13, 17.3, 18.1). And Julian's inclusion as Caesar in laws in the Theodosian Code alongside Constantius as Augustus is consistent with imperial protocol established in the early fourth century; but it need not signify that Julian as Caesar actually held the ius edicendi (cf. Corcoran, S., The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, a.d. 284–324 [Oxford, 2000 2], 266–74Google Scholar). In fact, when we consider Constantius’ tight restrictions on Julian as Caesar, it is likely that Julian did not possess this authority. Therefore, I am not convinced by Swain ([n. 2], 55) that Themistius’ mentioning of the three lawgivers above is ‘a call to act’ for Julian as Caesar, but for Julian as sole Augustus.

4 Cf. Swain (n. 2), 6–7, 41 and 88–90, who cautiously argues for 356. But such an epistle/essay on proper rule which focusses on Julian alone would have been an awkward piece to publish while Constantius was still alive; thus, I tend to favour c.December 361/early 362. As a prominent senator of Constantinople, Themistius probably resided at the capital during the brief civil war between Julian and Constantius in 361 and likely was there, along with other senators, to greet Julian upon his entry into the city on 11 December 361 (Amm. Marc. 22.2.4). And it appears that Themistius remained in Constantinople during Julian's short residency there since we have no indications that Themistius was elsewhere at this time (see Lib. Epp. 84, 85 Bradbury [252, 793 Foerster] and 102, 116 Norman [818, 1430 Foerster]; see also n. 53).

5 Like his Epistle to Themistius, Julian's Epistle to Nilus (50 Wright, 82 Bidez) is, in many respects, a philosophical and political letter. Although the Epistle to Nilus seems to be focussed on censuring Nilus publicly and on engaging in renuntiatio amicitiae, that is, on notifying him of the removal of the emperor's friendship, this letter also displays Julian's balanced use of imperial power in punishing carefully with the written word and his philosophical paideia in deftly rebutting Nilus’ claims. On the Epistle to Nilus, see Malosse, P.-L., ‘Rhétorique, Philosophie et Prostitution: la lettre de Julien au sénateur Nilus (Ep. 82 Bidez)’, in Auger, D. and Wolff, É. (edd.), Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue (Paris, 2008), 5770Google Scholar. For other fourth-century letters and letter collections, see now Sogno, C., Storin, B.K. and Watts, E.J. (edd.), Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (Oakland, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Swain (n. 2).

7 In addition to Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), see O'Meara, D. and Schamp, J., Miroirs de prince de l'Empire romain au IVe siècle (Paris, 2006)Google Scholar; Taormina, D.P. and Piccione, R.M., Giamblico, I frammenti dalle epistole, Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento (Naples, 2010)Google Scholar; and Dillon, J., ‘The letters of Iamblichus: popular philosophy in a Neoplatonic mode’, in Afonasin, E., Dillon, J. and Finamore, J.F. (edd.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism (Leiden, 2012), 5162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 96.

9 Cf. Plot. Enn. 1.2; Porph. Sent. 32 and fragments.

10 See O'Meara (n. 2). For an alternative view, see van den Berg, R., ‘Live unnoticed! The invisible Neoplatonic politician’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 101–15Google Scholar.

11 See Afonasin et al. (n. 7).

12 For the two quotations, see Swain (n. 2), 7 and 17 respectively.

13 Swain (n. 2), 5.

14 For a study of their epistolarity, see Inwood, B., ‘The importance of form in Seneca's philosophical letters’, in Morello, R. and Morrison, A.D. (edd.), Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Oxford, 2007), 133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 O'Meara, D.J., ‘Aspects of political philosophy in Iamblichus’, in Blumenthal, H.J. and Clark, E.G. (edd.), The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods (London, 1993), 65–73, at 67Google Scholar. Cf. Bidez, J., ‘Le philosophe Jamblique et son école’, REG 32 (1919), 2940, at 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sees the epistles as banal, but also sees similarities with Porphyry's protreptic Epistle to Marcella. On Greek letter-essays and their style, see Stirewalt, M.L. Jr., ‘The form and function of the Greek letter-essay’, in Donfried, K.P. (ed.), The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, 1977), 175–206, esp. 199206Google Scholar, and id., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (Atlanta, 1993), 1820Google Scholar.

16 Penella, R.J. (ed.), The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana. A Critical Text with Prolegomena, Translation and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplements 56) (Leiden, 1979), 28–9Google Scholar.

17 It is unfortunate that Ammianus’ extant text is silent on Iamblichus; this may reflect a low opinion of him, or perhaps even that Iamblichus’ name became impolitic in some way. Ammianus thought highly of Apollonius and Plotinus, but less of Maximus of Ephesus. On religion in Ammianus, see Rike, R.L., ‘Apex Omnium’: Religion in the ‘Res Gestae’ of Ammianus (Berkeley, 1987), esp. 80–5Google Scholar, for his description of Apollonius; and Harrison, T., ‘Templum mundi totius: Ammianus and a religious ideal of Rome’, in Drijvers, J.W. and Hunt, D. (edd.), The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus (London, 1999), 178–90Google Scholar and Davies, J.P., Rome's Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on their Gods (Cambridge, 2004), 226–85Google Scholar.

18 Cf. Iambl. VP 254. See Dillon, J. and Hershbell, J. (ed.), Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Atlanta, 1991), 910Google Scholar, for Iamblichus’ apparent use of Apollonius of Tyana for some sections of his De Vita Pythagorica.

19 See O'Meara and Schamp (n. 7), 15–16; Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 71.

20 Stirewalt (n. 15 [1993]), 22.

21 See Larsen, B.D., ‘La place de Jamblique dans la philosophie antique tardive’, in Dörrie, H. (ed.), De Jamblique a Proclus (Entretiens sur l'Antiquité Classique 21) (Vandoeuvres, 1975), 134Google Scholar; Athanassiadi, P., ‘Dreams, theurgy and freelance divination: the testimony of Iamblichus’, JRS 83 (1993), 115–30, esp. 118–24Google Scholar and ead., The oecumenism of Iamblichus: latent knowledge and its awakening’, JRS 85 (1995), 244–50, esp. 244–5Google Scholar; and Taormina, D.P., Jamblique critique de Plotin et de Porphyry, Quatre études (Paris, 1999), esp. 101–25Google Scholar.

22 See Dillon (n. 1), 868; Digeser, E.D., A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca, 2012), 98127CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for ‘Porphyry vs Iamblichus’.

23 For text, translation and commentary, see Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-P. (ed.), Porphyre: Lettre à Anébon L’Égyptien (Paris, 2012)Google Scholar; Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-P. (ed.), Jamblique: Réponse à Porphyre (De Mysteriis) (Paris, 2013)Google Scholar.

24 Cf. Iambl. In Timaeum, fr. 81 (Dillon, J. [ed.], Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta [Leiden, 1973]CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 74, 96. For Iamblichus’ De anima, see Finamore, J.F. and Dillon, J. (ed.), Iamblichus, De Anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Philosophia Antiqua 92) (Atlanta, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Cf. Wachsmuth, C. and Hense, O. (ed.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1884–1923), 1.vii–xiiGoogle Scholar. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent Photius edited and contributed. For a recent study of Stobaeus’ chapter headings or ‘intertitles’, see Searby, D.M., ‘The intertitles in Stobaeus: condensing a culture’, in Reydams–Schils, G. (ed.), Thinking Through Excerpts: Studies on Stobaeus (Turnhout, 2011), 23–70, esp. 57–70Google Scholar. See also Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 66–70.

26 See Searby (n. 25), 35–6, who observes that many of Stobaeus’ book titles parallel those of Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch's Moralia, and that nearly all of Stobaeus’ chapter headings reflect the contents of his chapters. If Stobaeus relied on Diogenes and Plutarch for titles, then he may have done the same with Iamblichus. Searby ([this note], 37) also notes that Stobaeus seems to have crafted some chapter headings based on specific excerpts in chapters, such as those of Plato and Hermes Trismegistus.

27 Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 80.

28 Eunap. VS 6.2.1 (Giangrande, J. [ed.], Eunapii, Vitae Sophistarum [Rome, 1956]Google Scholar) = 6.7 (Goulet, R. [ed.], Eunape de Sardes, Vies de philosophes et de sophists 2 [Paris, 2014]Google Scholar).

29 PLRE 1.451–2, Iamblichus 2.

30 O'Meara and Schamp (n. 7), 13–14.

31 See Pistelli, E. (ed.), Iamblichi Protrepticus ad fidem codicis Florentini (Leipzig, 1967)Google Scholar.

32 Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992), 51Google Scholar.

33 Eutropius’ short Roman history in Latin was translated into Greek in the late fourth century by Paeanius, who was a Greek litterateur and friend of Libanius, and was well received in both Eastern and Western literary circles. In fact, it is attractive to view Eutropius’ Breuiarium, in part, as a useful quick reference-work on Roman history, from the founding of the city to the reign of Jovian, not only for the Emperor Valens, to whom it is dedicated, but also for others among the elite lacking in paideia on Roman history. The Historiae Abbreuiatae or De Caesaribus of Aurelius Victor, the Breuiarium of Festus, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Origo Constantini Imperatoris, among others, can be viewed similarly. On performing paideia in the fourth century, see Van Hoof, L. and Van Nuffelen, P. (edd.), Literature and Society in the Fourth Century a.d.: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self (Leiden, 2015)Google Scholar.

34 See Schor, A.M., Theodoret's People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley, 2011)Google Scholar.

35 PLRE 1.14–15, Aedesius 2; Fowden, G., ‘The Platonist philosopher and his circle in Late Antiquity’, Philosophia 7 (1977), 359–83, esp. 373–9Google Scholar, and The pagan holy man in late antique society’, JHS 102 (1982), 3359CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Penella, R.J., Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century a.d.: Studies in Eunapius of Sardis (Leeds, 1990), 4978Google Scholar.

36 Cf. Barnes, T.D., ‘A correspondent of Iamblichus’, GRBS 19 (1978), 99106, at 104–6Google Scholar.

37 Of course, this depends on whether they all began their studies under Iamblichus around the same time, c.305. If so, this would imply a period of study that begins around age twenty-five, the age of majority, and ranges from five to ten years in duration (much like our modern-day graduate study). The latter had been the experience of Plotinus under Ammonius Saccas (Porph. Plot. 3, for about eleven years) and Amelius under Plotinus (Porph. Plot. 3, for about twenty-four years), though Amelius is certainly an exceptional case. Porphyry's duration of study under Plotinus is much closer to the experience of his master (Porph. Plot. 3–4, for about six years). On Iamblichus and his school in Syria, see Bidez (n. 15) and Dillon (n. 1), 869–75.

38 On epistolary types, see pseudo-Demetrius Tup. Epist. praef. and 1–21, esp. 2 and 11; Malherbe (n. 1), 30–41, esp. 33, 37.

39 Swain (n. 2), 5.

40 Cf. Quint. Inst. 6.1.25–7, 9.2.29–31. On prosopopoeia, see Riffaterre, M., ‘Prosopopeia’, Yale French Studies 69 (1985), 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 ἐπίφθονος εἶναι δοκεῖ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς, καὶ τὸ ὑπέρογκον μισητὸν αὐτοῖς καθίσταται· ἀλλ’ ὅταν χρηστότητι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ κραθῇ τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ αὐστηρὸν τῆς ἐπικρατείας, ἐμμελὲς καὶ πρᾶον καὶ προσηνὲς καὶ εὐπρόσιτον καθίσταται. καὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα τὸ εἶδος ἡγεμονίας φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων (‘The absolute superiority associated with rule appears offensive to the multitude, and the pomp and circumstance of it is hateful to them; but when the solemnity and austerity of rule is blended with nobility of character and sympathy for one's fellow human beings, then it makes itself felt as harmonious and mild and pleasant and approachable; and it is this type of leadership that is most of all loved by the ruled’; trans. Dillon and Polleichtner). Cf. Julian. Ep. ad Themist. 262A.

42 Cf. Plot. Enn. 1.4.3.30–1, which is dedicated to happiness (Περὶ εὐδαιμονίας, 1.4). τί γὰρ τῇ τελείᾳ ζωῇ ἂν προσγένοιτο εἰς τὸ ἀρίστῃ εἶναι;

43 Cf. Vanderspoel, J., Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995), 3149Google Scholar. Note that we know too little of Themistius’ philosophical training, particularly its duration, to say with any certainty when exactly his subsequent teaching career began, under what circumstances and how much his eventual tapping as a panegyrist by Constantius owed to Eugenius’ reputation as a philosopher and Themistius’ own reputation as a philosopher and professor at Nicomedia or elsewhere. Much depends on the dating of Themistius’ Orations 1 and 24, and their contexts.

44 Them. Or. 23, 295B; Vanderspoel (n. 43), 26–7.

45 See Inwood (n. 14), for Seneca's use of Epicurus’ letters as one of the models for his own.

46 See Larsen, B.D., Jamblique de Chalcis, Exégète et philosophe, 2 vols. (Aarhus, 1972), 1.220–320, 2.9–72Google Scholar.

47 See the translations of Themistius’ paraphrases of the Physics and De anima by R.B. Todd. On Themistius’ familiarity with Neoplatonism, see Schroeder, F.M. and Todd, R.B., Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect (Toronto, 1990), 33–4 and n. 115Google Scholar; Vanderspoel (n. 43), 25–7; and O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 206: ‘Whatever Themistius’ position, it can be assumed that he was aware, not only of the work of Plotinus and of Porphyry, but also of the thought of Iamblichus and of the Iamblichean schools visited by Julian the Emperor.’ The popularity of Iamblichus in the East would have made his works required reading.

48 See Julian. Ep. ad Themist. 257D, 259C, where Julian notes that he learned about Plato's Laws from Themistius, which may imply formal instruction or perhaps indirect instruction by means of exposure to Themistius’ writings. Cf. Bouffartigue (n. 3), 118–19. A part of one of Themistius’ letters to Julian can be recovered from what Julian tells us in his Epistle to Themistius.

49 Them. Ep. ad Iul. 5, 18–19; Swain (n. 2), 137, 145; cf. Julian. Ep. ad Them. 261C–D. As with the Epistle of Aristotle to Alexander, the Epistle to Julian survives only in Arabic, which unfortunately does not allow close comparisons with Iamblichus’ and Sopater's Greek; however, Swain ([n. 2], 42–3) notes that the late-ninth and early-tenth century translator and preserver of Themistius’ Epistle to Julian, al–Dimashqī, apparently knew Greek very well, and so has left us a rendering that is probably close to the original in most respects.

50 Cf. Hom. Od. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12.

51 Them. Ep. ad Iul. 27; Swain (n. 2), 149. See also Swain (n. 2), 31–2, for another view of Themistius’ ‘sympathetic parent’. Cf. Them. Or. 1, 17A, for Themistius’ deployment of Homer's ‘gentle father’ with respect to Constantius. This reference in Oration 1 precedes the Epistle to Julian, and it may even precede Sopater's Epistle to Himerius.

52 Lib. Or. 46, 3; Brown (n. 32), 40.

53 The last-known law which Julian issued in Constantinople dates to 12 May 362 (Cod. Theod. 13.3.4); but the emperor may have lingered here towards the end of the month before departing for Antioch, which he ultimately reached in late July 362 (stops along the way at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Pessinus, Ancyra and Tarsus are attested; cf. Amm. Marc. 22.9.2–14, Sozom. Hist. eccl. 5.15.6; see Cod. Theod. 1.16.8, for a law dated to 28 July 362, which is the earliest extant from Julian's stay at Antioch). Also, the well-studied law Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 was issued (data) on 17 June 362 in an unknown city and received (accepta) at Spoleto on 29 July 362; it may very well be that Ancyra was the city in which Julian issued his law on professors (see Foss, C., ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’, DOP 31 [1977], 2987, at 39 n. 40Google Scholar).

54 Julian. Or. 4, 146A, 150D, 157CD, Or. 6, 188B, Or. 7, 217BC, 222B, 235AB, Ep. ad Prisc. (2 Wright, 12 Bidez), Ep. ad Lib. (58 Wright, 98 Bidez) 401B. Cf. Bouffartigue, J., L'Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (Collection des Études Augustiniennes 133) (Paris, 1992), 76–8, 276–7 and 331–59Google Scholar.

55 Note that Julian similarly describes Homer (ὁ θεῖος Ὅμηρος, Ep. ad Orib. [4 Wright, 14 Bidez] 384B), whose works he uses throughout his own writings.

56 Wright, W.C. (ed.), The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass., 1913), 151 n. 2Google Scholar. The translation is that of Wright, which I have slightly modified.

57 Julian. Epp. ad Iamb. (74–9 Wright, 181, 183–7 Bidez and Cumont). Cf. Barnes (n. 36). For the possible identity of the author as Julius Julianus, see Vanderspoel, J., ‘Correspondence and correspondents of Julius Julianus’, Byzantion 69 (1999), 396478Google Scholar; and Dillon, J., ‘Philosophy as a profession in Late Antiquity’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 1–17, at 7 and n. 25Google Scholar. See also PLRE 1.469, Iulianus 5 and 1.478–9, Iulius Iulianus 35. On Julian's epistolary corpus, see Elm, S., ‘The letter collection of the Emperor Julian’, in Sogno, C., Storin, B.K. and Watts, E.J. (edd.), Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (Oakland, 2017), 54–68, esp. 60–2Google Scholar for comments on the letters to Iamblichus.

58 Anon. Proleg. (Westerink, L.G., Trouillard, J., Segonds, A.P. [ed.], Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon [Paris, 1990]) 2.31Google Scholar, 25.20–4, 26.10 and 56–7.

59 The Anonymous Prolegomena ranks Iamblichus alongside Plato, who is also styled ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων (22.60) and ὁ θειότατος Πλάτων (28.17–18).

60 PLRE 1.708, Plutarchus 5; Watts, E.J., City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley, 2006), 80, 89–110, 126–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Damasc. In Phaedonem (Westerink, L.G. [ed.], The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo: Volume 2, Damascius [Amsterdam, 1977]Google Scholar), 1.548.5: ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν Ἐπιστολαῖς γράφει; Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 96: ‘This expression clearly indicates that there was a collection of Iamblichus's letters.’ But Damascius’ language is so vague that we cannot be certain about which letters he is referring to, whether to the fragmentary letters in Stobaeus or others. When we recall that Iamblichus’ extant letters discuss all four cardinal virtues, it may be that Damascius is referring, in part, to these letters earlier in his commentary when he renders ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ἀρετῶν (1.143.5). Whatever the exact parameters of this latter work were, the letters may have found a place within or alongside it in the Neoplatonic curriculum. See also Athanassiadi, P. (ed.), Damascius: The ‘Philosophical History’, Text with Translation and Notes (Oxford, 1999), esp. 45Google Scholar: ‘In his exegesis of Plato, the new head of the Academy was thorough and methodical, establishing Iamblichus’ authority …’. On Damascius, see Watts (n. 60), 121–8, 136–42.

62 On Iamblichus’ curriculum, see Anon. Proleg. 26.16–44; Westerink et al. (n. 58), LXVII–LXXIV; O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 61–8.

63 Cf. O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 8–10 and n. 20, who notes that the term πολιτικὴ ἀρετή is found in the Phaedo (82a12–b1).

64 PLRE 2.71–2, Ammonius 6; 2.547–8, Hermeias 3; Watts (n. 60), 207–11.

65 PLRE 1.75, Antoninus 7; Watts (n. 60), 188–90.

66 Olympiod. In Gorgiam (Westerink, L.G. [ed.], Olympiodori in Platonis Gorgiam commentaria [Leipzig, 1970]), 46.9 (p. 242Google Scholar). Olympiodorus here relates a letter of Iamblichus as ‘in a certain letter of his’ (ἔν τινι αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολῇ), signifying that he was aware of Iamblichus’ other epistles, and perhaps even all of them (twenty?). On Olympiodorus, see Watts (n. 60), 234–7.

67 See Lib. Epp. 21, 22 Bradbury (801, 1466 Foerster), for letters to Iamblichus of Apamea when he resided in Athens. On Iamblichus of Apamea, see Goulet, R., ‘Mais qui était donc le gendre de la soeur de Priscus? Enquête sur les philosophes d'Athènes au IVe siècle après J.-Chr.’, Studia graeco–arabica 2 (2012), 33–77, at 50–65, esp. 50–9Google Scholar.

68 Cameron, A., ‘Iamblichus at Athens’, Athenaeum 45 (1967), 143–53, at 150–3Google Scholar.

69 PLRE 1.730, Priscus 5. See also Goulet (n. 67), 37–50, 75–7, esp. 47–50 and 75–7 for Priscus’ Neoplatonic school in Athens and his philosophical orientation.

70 See n. 62. Cf. Iambl. Ep. 3, To Arete; Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 62–3. On the ‘political virtues’ of Plotinus, see O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 40–9. See also Dillon (n. 1), 902–4; Finamore, J.F., ‘Iamblichus on the grades of virtue’, in Afonasin, E., Dillon, J. and Finamore, J.F. (edd.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism (Leiden, 2012), 113–32, esp. 120–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 I would like to thank the two anonymous readers and the Editor at CQ for their helpful suggestions, as well as all those who participated in the multi-campus seminar (via Skype and closed circuit TV) ‘Education in Late Antiquity’ that was based at University of California, Riverside in 2014, when research for the present article began.

72 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 61.

73 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), xviii–xix, 73.

74 On Epistle 8 and its theme, see Molina, J., ‘Jámblico, Epístola a Macedonio acerca del destino’, Nova Tellus 23 (2005), 163218Google Scholar.