¹ De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, cited in the essay as DM. The standard edition is des Places, E., Jamblique: Les mystères d'Égypte (Paris 1966). Also useful is Thomas Taylor's translation: Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians (2nd ed.; London 1895). The text of DM 161.10–16 is as follows: Πολλὰ μὲν ον ἄν τις θανμάσ∊ι∊ καὶ ἄλλα τηTς ἀντιλογικηTς καινοτομίας, ἀτὰϱ δηG καὶ τηGν ἐναντίωσιν τωTν δοὖασμάτων καταπληγ∊ίη ἂν ∊ἰκότως, ∊ἰ τηTς ὅλης ὑποθέσ∊ως φαινoμ∊Aνης μόνον παϱὰ τοiς γόησιν, οὔσης δ' οὐδαμωTς, καὶ παϱὰ τοiς ἐκ πάθους ᾒ νοσήματος ὡϱμημένοις, ἀπατηλωTς πάντῃ διακ∊ιμένοις, τολμ λέγ∊ιν ὡς ἔν∊στι καὶ τηTς ἀληθ∊ίας αὐτοὺς τυγχάν∊ιν. Google Scholar

² ὥστ∊ ∊ἰδέναι μὲν χϱὴ καὶ ταύτην τὴν θαυματουϱγίαν τίνα ἔχ∊ι φύσιν, χϱηTσθαι δὲ ἢ πιστ∊ύ∊ιν αὐτ μηδαμωTς. Google Scholar

³ Porphyry, , De regressu animae 27.21–28.15.Google Scholar

⁴ Oτι οἱ μὲν τηGν φιλοσοφίαν πϱοτιμωTσιν, ὡς Ποϱφύϱιος καὶ Πλωτiνος καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ φιλόσοφοι · οἱ ôὲ τηGν ἱ∊ϱατικήν, ὡς Iάμβλιχος καὶ SMυϱιανòς καὶ Πϱόκλος καὶ οἱ ἱ∊ϱατικοὶ πάντ∊ς (Westerink, L. G., The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo II, Damascius [Amsterdam 1977] 105).Google Scholar

⁵ In DM 270.14–19 Iamblichus says that in theurgy the soul is lifted up into higher orders and is ‘entirely separated’ (χωϱίζ∊ται παντάπασι) from its participation in generated life. In theurgy the soul exchanges (ἀλλάτ∊ται) one life (in the world of generation and mortality) for another (in the divine and immortal), and is established there, having entirely abandoned the former.Google Scholar

⁶ For the influence of Iamblichus on later Neoplatonism see Bidez, J., La Vie de l'Empereur Julien (Paris 1930) chaps. 11 (‘Chez les disciples de Jamblique’) and 12 (‘Theurgie Chaldaique et mystères néo-platoniciennes’). Also see Hadot, Ilsetraut, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin — Hiérocles et Simplicius (Paris 1978) 94–99, 103–109.Google Scholar

⁷ Porphyry, , The Life of Plotinus 10. A. H. Armstrong's conjecture that Plotinus' remark was directed toward sublunary spirits and not the Gods of the Platonic cosmos is probably correct: see Plotinus I (Cambridge, Mass. 1966) 34f. Nevertheless, the modern appropriation of Plotinus' remarks overlooks the subtlety of Armstrong's explanation, and Plotinus' response to Amelius has been taken as the statement of a heroic rationalist in the face of an increasingly superstitious age (see Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational [Berkeley 1951] 286).Google Scholar

⁸ De civitate Dei 10.10.Google Scholar

⁹ Epist. 9.1 (PG 3.1108a) cf. Saffrey, Henri-Dominique, ‘New Objective Links between the Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus,’ Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, ed. O'Meara, J. (Norfolk Va. 1982) 72. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Eccl. Hier. 1.1. (PG 3.372a).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Saffrey, 72.Google Scholar

¹² Israel Regardie says, ‘… I hope to show that the technique of Magic is in closest accord with the traditions of highest antiquity, and that it possesses the sanction, expressed or implicitly, of the best authorities. Iamblichus, the divine Theurgist, has much to say in his various writings about Magic …’ (The Tree of Life [New York 1969] 36). Among occultists, however, there are disagreements as to the uses of theurgy, and Regardie used the writings of Iamblichus to defend his practice of ritual magic against the charge of ‘psychism’ brought by Theosophist critics. The weakness of such appropriations of theurgy is the lack of regard for intellectual and historical contexts, and what results is often an eclectic mix reflecting the personal interests of the author. Nevertheless, such works should not be ignored by scholars, not only because they evidence modern appropriations of theurgy, however distorted, but also because of the sometimes valuable insights of authors such as Regardie. See, for example, his interesting discussion of the dangers of intellectualizing theurgical practice (op. cit. 80ff.).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1941) 55–69; cf. The Greeks and the Irrational 288.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Greeks and the Irrational 297ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Missing Persons (Oxford 1977) 97–111.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The Greeks and the Irrational 288.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Oxford 1963) xix.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Physical World of Late Antiquity (New York 1965) 47.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dodds, , ‘Iamblichus,’ Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford 1970) 538.Google Scholar

²⁰ Festugière asserts that his distinction between ‘reflective piety’ and ‘popular piety’ ‘peuvent se rencontrer en une même âme’ (‘Proclus et la religion traditionnelle,’ Études de philosophie grecque [Paris 1971] 577). He says that theurgy was a form of ‘popular piety’ fulfilling ‘la nostalgie d'une piété toute simple’ (ibid. 584).Google Scholar

²¹ Festugière, , ‘Contemplation philosophique et art théurgique chez Proclus,’ ibid. 596; Lewy, Hans, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy (ed. Michel Tardieu; Paris 1978) 462.Google Scholar

²² Lewy, 175.Google Scholar

²³ The value of theurgy in post-Iamblichian Neoplatonism is demonstrated in their discussion of the hierarchy of virtues. Porphyry systematized the four virtues on the basis of Plotinus' discussion of them; in his treatment, the highest virtue was called ‘paradigmatic,’ and was ranked above political, cathartic, and contemplative virtues. Iamblichus, however, called the highest virtue ‘theurgic’; he was followed in this by his successors. See Ilsetraudt Hadot's discussion of the ‘virtues’ in Neoplatonism, , Le problème 152f.Google Scholar

²⁴ ‘Les merveilleux dans la vie et la pensée de Proclos,’ Revue Philosophique 163 (1973) 493–52 (= La mystagogie de Proclos [Paris 1982] 33–51); ‘La théurgie,’ L'un et l'âme selon Proclos (Paris 1972) 171–89.Google Scholar

²⁶ L'un et l'âme 171.Google Scholar

²⁶ See above, n. 24.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 186–89.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 177.Google Scholar

²⁹ See above, nn. 5 and 23.Google Scholar

³⁰ Armstrong, A. H. has praised Trouillard's work repeatedly, and finds that his supposed ‘invention’ of a ‘neo-Neoplatonism’ reflects the depth of Trouillard's insight into Neoplatonic thought. See ‘Negative Theology, Myth and Incarnation,’ Neoplatonism and Christian Thought 213. For a more critical appraisal of Trouillard's ‘Neoplatonizing,’ see Charles, A., ‘La Raison et le divin chez Proclus,’ Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 53 (1969) 412f.Google Scholar

³¹ L'un et l'âme 173.Google Scholar

³² Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague 1974) 81–99.Google Scholar

³³ The Philosophy of Proclus (New York 1949) 213ff.Google Scholar

³⁴ Rosan, 213ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Smith, 90: ‘… It seems better to define lower theurgy as restricted to the area of συμπάθ∊ια, the material world of humans and daemones. It is essentially a horizontal relationship. Higher theurgy involves the linking of man with his superiors, the gods, not through συμπάθ∊ια, but through φιλία.’ Google Scholar

³⁶ Smith, 85ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Lewy, 462.Google Scholar

³⁸ Smith, 99.Google Scholar

³⁹ By adhering to a distinction of high and low theurgy, Smith seems to me to be forced into making contradictory statements. For example, after distinguishing high and low theurgy on the basis of the distinction between a ‘horizontal’ relation of the believer to divine reality (συμπάθ∊ια) and a ‘vertical’ one (φιλία) (90), Smith notes that without the connective presence of φιλία lower theurgy would have no basis, for it is φιλία which connects the gods with the world (94). Since the only means for manifesting the supra-cosmic gods was through the unity and sympathy of the material world, the theurgies which worked in both orders (supra- and en-cosmic) had the same divine cause and were integrally related. Yet because Smith accepts Dodds' view that theurgical divination was merely mediumistic (89) and thus unworthy of comparison to Plotinian νόησις, he is forced to emphasize low theurgy's diminished status, geared to material needs, etc., in order to save the exalted status of high theurgy. Smith distinguishes lower theurgy from the sympathetic magical rites criticized by Plotinus: ‘Magic in Plotinus is not really the same as even the lower theurgy of Iamblichus, since it is not really concerned with the salvation of the soul in any sense’ (122). Yet in his conclusion, where he discusses the presence of ritual in high theurgy, Smith says: ‘It is not enough to say that they [Iamblichus and Proclus] adopted a higher theurgy which was non-ritual. Although there is less direct manipulation of the forces in material objects in what we are calling the “higher” theurgy, there does remain a ritual element in at least some of its branches. The real distinctive mark is found in the difference of goal. There is a theurgy which concerns itself with worldly or material benefits from the intramundane gods working through sympathy, and another higher type of theurgy which makes use of the lower level of reality but which transcends it. The human agent is raised to the divine level by φιλία and communes with the transcendent gods for immaterial benefits which concern the very salvation of the soul and union with the divine’ (149, my emphasis). What Smith has done is to distinguish lower theurgy from higher by using the same criterion with which he distinguishes lower theurgy from magic.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Smith, 89.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 90 Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Proclus' Attitude to Theurgy,’ Classical Quarterly 32 (1982) 212–24.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 214ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 217.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 221.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Smith, 89f.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Sheppard, 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ οὐδὲ γὰϱ ἡ ἔννοια συνάπτ∊ι τοiς θ∊οiς τουGς θ∊ουϱγούς · ἐπ∊ὶ τí ἐκώλυ∊ τουGς θ∊ωϱητικωTς φιλοσοφονTντας ἔχ∊ιν τηGν θ∊ουϱγικηGν ἕνωσινιπϱòς τουGς θ∊ούς; νυTν δ' οὐκ ἔχ∊ι τό γ∊ ἀληθὲς οὕτως · ἀλλ' ἡ τωTν ἔϱγων τωTν ἀϱϱήτων καὶ ὑπὲϱ παTσαν νόησιν θ∊οπϱ∊πωTς ἐν∊ϱγουμένων τ∊λ∊σιονϱγία ἥ τ∊ τωTν νοουμένων τοiς θ∊οiς μόνον συμβόλων ἀφθέγκτων δύναμις ἐντίθησι τηGν θ∊ονϱγικηGν ἕνωσιν. Διόπ∊ϱ οὐδὲ τ νο∊iν αὐτὰ ἐν∊ϱγουTμ∊ν · ἔσται γαGϱ οὕτω νο∊ϱὰ αὐτωTν ἡ ἐνέϱγ∊ια καὶ ἀφ' ἡμωTν ἐνδιδομένη ·τò δ' οὐδέτ∊ϱόν ἐστιν ἀληθές. Kαὶ γὰϱ μηG νοούντων ἡμωTν αὐτὰ τὰ συνθήματα ἀφ' ἑαυτωTν δϱ τò οἰκ∊iον ἔϱγον, καὶ ἡ τωTν θ∊ωTν, πϱὸς οὕς ἀνήκ∊ι ταυTτα, ἄϱϱητος δύναμις αὐτηG ἀφ' ἑαυτωTς ἐπιγιγνώσκ∊ι τὰς οἰκ∊ίας ∊ἰκόνας, ἀλλ' οὐ τ δι∊γ∊ίϱ∊σθαι ὑπò τηTς ἡμ∊τέϱας νοήσ∊ως · Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Trouillard, Jean, ‘Sacrements: La théurgie païenne,’ Encyclopaedia Universalis (Paris 1968–73) 582.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Bidez, Joseph, ‘Le philosophe Jamblique et son école,’ Revue des Études Grecques 32 (1919) 35; Wallis, R. T., Neoplatonism (London 1972) 105ff.; de Vogel, Corneilia, ‘Plotinus’ Image of Man: Its Relationship to Plato as well as to Later Neoplatonism,’ Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought, ed. Verbeke, G. (Louvain 1976) 167f. Google Scholar

⁵² ἡμαTς τ∊ ἀνάγ∊ι διὰ τωTν θυσιωTν καὶ τουT θυηπολικουT πυϱòς πϱὸς τὸ τωTν θ∊ωTν πυTϱ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τ τουT πυϱòς ἀναγωθ τ πϱὸς τὸ πυTϱ ἐπαγoμ∊Aνη καὶ ἀν∊λκούσῃ τὰ καταγωγὰ κἀντίτυπα πϱὸς τὰ θ∊īα καὶ τὰ οὐϱάνια. Cf. TαυTτα τοίνυν κατιδουTσα ἡ θ∊ουϱγικηG τέχνη, κοινωTς τ∊ οὑτωσὶ κατ' οἰκ∊ιότητα ἱκάστῳ τωTν θ∊ωTν τὰς πϱoσφόϱους ὑποδοχὰς ἀν∊υϱίσκουσα, συμπλέκ∊ι πολλάκις λίθους βοτάνας ζα ἀϱώματα ἄλλα τοιαυTτα ἱ∊ϱὰ καὶ τέλ∊ια καὶ θ∊ο∊ιδηT, κἄπ∊ιτα ἀπò πάντων τούτων ὑποδοχηGν ὁλοτ∊ληT καὶ καθαϱὰν ἀπ∊ϱγάζ∊ται (DM 233.11–16).Google Scholar

⁵³ Tί γὰϱ βούλ∊ται τὰ ἄσμηα ὀνόματα πυνθάνῃ · τἀ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄσημα, ὃ σὺ ν∊νόμικας · Google Scholar

⁵⁴ τὸ γὰϱ λίθους καὶ βοτάνας φέϱ∊ιν τοὺς καλουμένους, δ∊σμ∊iν τ∊. See n. 52.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See above, nn. 5 and 23.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Dodds, E. R., Proclus, Elements of Theology 54–57 and 230ff. John Dillon discusses this theme in greater detail (‘Origen's Doctrine of the Trinity and Some Later Neoplatonic Theories,’ Neoplatonism and Christian Thought 22f.), and draws a distinction between Iamblichus' view that all higher principles are present in lower levels, though the higher a principle the more ‘piercing’ or ‘intense’ its presence, and Proclus' view that higher principles extend further in proportion to their elevation. For both Iamblichus and Proclus, this theme would provide justification for ‘material’ theurgy. So Dillon writes: ‘The theory speculates that, in a powerful sense, the lower down the scale of nature an entity is situated, the more closely it is linked with higher principles. This provides excellent philosophical justification for making use of stones, plants, and animals in the performance of magical rituals; they are actually nearer to one god or another than we are, being direct products of the divine realm’ (22f.). An example of this principle may be seen in DM 59.9–15.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See, for example, Julian, , Oration 146b. On the exalted status given Iamblichus by Priscianus, Steel, Carlos, The Changing Self (Brussels 1978) 142ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Dodds, E. R., Pagan & Christian in an Age of Anxiety (New York 1965) 1–37, esp. 24f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ De Vogel has written an important article correcting misconceptions in our understanding of Plato's view of the body as a ‘tomb.’ She argues that, for Plato, the body was not simply the soul's prison but provided the soul with its limits, its enclosure (π∊ϱίβολος), ‘in order that it might be saved’ (Crat. 400c). See de Vogel, C. J., ‘The soma-sema Formula: its Function in Plato and Plotinus Compared to Christian Writers,’ Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought (London 1981) 79–99.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Trouillard, , ‘Sacrements’ 582.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Porphyry, , De regressu animae 27.21–28.15.Google Scholar

⁶² Stobaeus, 1.365.5–366.11 (Wachsmuth). See Festugière's translation and commentary: La Révélation d'Hermes Trismegiste III (Paris 1953) 184f.Google Scholar

⁶³ Stobaeus, 1.365.5–366.11 (Wachsmuth).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Iamblichus says that the soul's ‘vision on its divine circuit should not be understood as the gaze of one to another…. The term “spectator” is used not to signify that it [the Intellect/helmsman of the soul] directs its gaze on this object of intellection as being other than it, but that it is united with it and appreciates it on that level …’ (Frag. 6; tr. Dillon, J., Iamblichi Chalcidensis Opera [Leiden 1973] 97).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Dillon, Tr. 97.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For a discussion of Neopythagoreanism and its influence on Neoplatonic thought, see Festugière, , La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste IV (Paris 1953) 33ff. See also Iamblichus' discussion of the significance of ‘one’ (ἕν) in Theologoumena arithmeticae (ed. de Falco, ; Stuttgart 1975) 1–8. Trouillard explains how the mathematical model of creation allowed for a greater intimacy of the soul with the One. The Neoplatonists ‘… ont préféré le schème mathématique à l'image artisnale d'abord parce que ce schéme suggérait une intériorité plus stricte entre les dérivés et leur principe, comme entre le nombre et l'unité. Ensuite, il éliminait la distinction du possible et du réel, de la finalité, de l'efficience et de la causalité formelle. Il fournissait la loi de séries ordonnées. Enfin, il figurait le déroulement d'une intuition que, partant de plus simple, progresse du tout aux parties et du centre à la périphérie, alors que la démarche artisnale semble œuvrer par analyse et synthèse discursives’ (La mystagogie de Proclos ).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Athanassiadi-Fowden, Polymnia, Julian and Hellenism (Oxford 1981) 125f.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Stanislaus Breton discusses this theme in a short essay on the Chaldaean Oracles: ‘Plus exactement, et si séparée qu'on supose, l'âme, en sa singularité psychique, ne peut parvenir à son ultime individualité anthropologique, bref ne peut se définir comme “homme,” qu'en traversant, et en faisant advenir, un interval d'univers. Elle doit se faire monde, avant et pour se faire homme’ (Breton, S., ‘L'homme et l'âme humain,’ Diotima 8 [1980] 21–24).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ μ∊τὰ πάθους ποι∊iται τηGν ἀλληλουχίαν · Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Describing a similar development among Neoplatonizing Muslims, Henry Corbin says: ‘There appears to be no need to oppose this, as an inconsistency, to Platonism, which admitted a simple “excitation” on the part of the sensible, provoking the intellect to remember the knowledge that the Ideas had originally caused in our soul. For the fact is that, in our philosophers, the Platonic ideas have given place to angelology; … each sensible thing or species is the “theurgy” of its Angel …. The sensible species does not divert from the Angel but leads to the “place” of the encounter on condition that the soul seeks the encounter’ (Corbin, H., Avicenna and the Visionary Recital [tr. Trask, Willard; Dallas 1980] 115f.).Google Scholar

⁷¹ [ἡ ἀγιστ∊ία] μιμ∊iται δ∊G τηGν τωTν θ∊ωTν τάὖιν, τήν τ∊ νοητηGν καὶ τηGν ἐv οὐϱαν. Eχ∊ι δ∊G μέτϱα τωTν ὄντων ἀίδια καὶ ἐνθήματα θαυμαστά, οα ἀπò τουT δημιουϱγουT καὶ πατϱòς τωTν ὅλων δ∊υTϱο καταπ∊μφθὲντα, ος καὶ τὰ μ∊Gν ἄφθ∊γκτα διà συμβόλων ἀποϱϱήτων ἐκφων∊iται, τὰ δὲ ἀν∊ιδέα κϱατ∊iται ἐν ∊ἴδ∊σι, τὰ δὲ πάσης ∊ἰκόνος κϱ∊ίττονα δι' ∊ἰκόνων ἀποτυπουTται, πάντα δὲ διὰ θ∊ίας αἰτίας μόνης ἐπιτ∊λ∊iται, ἥτις τοσουTτον κ∊χώϱισται τωTν παθωTν, ὥστ∊ μηδὲ λόγον αὐτηTς δυνατòν ∊ναι ἐφάπτ∊σθαι. Google Scholar

⁷² Διὰ τηTς τοιαύτης ον βουλήσ∊ως ἀφθόνως oἱ θ∊οὶ τò φωTς ἐπιλάμπουσιν ∊ὐμ∊ν∊iς ὄντ∊ς καὶ ἵλ∊ τοiς θ∊ουϱγοiς, τάς τ∊ ψυχὰς αὐτωTν ∊ἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀνακαλούμ∊νοι καὶ τηGν ἕνωσιν αὐταiς τηGν πϱὸς ἑαυτοὺς χοϱηγουTντ∊ς, ἐθίζοντές τ∊ αὐτὰς καὶ ἔτι ἐν σώματι οὕσας ἀφἰστασθαι τωTν σωμάτων, ἐπὶ δὲ τηGν ἀίδιον καὶ νοητηGν αὐτωTν ἀϱχηGν π∊ϱιάγ∊σθαι. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ … οὐ παϱὰ τòν ἐὖ άϱχηTς τι θ∊σμòν ἐπιτ∊λ∊iται ἐν τ τοιδ∊, ἵνα μ∊ταστϱαφωTσιν oἱ οἱ θ∊οὶ κατὰ τηGν ∊ἰς ὕστ∊ϱον γιγνομένην ἱ∊ϱουϱγίαν, ἀλλ' ἀπò τηTς πϱώτης κάθόδου ἐπὶ τού τῳ κατέπ∊μψ∊ν ὁ θ∊òς τὰς ψυχάς, ἵνα πάλιν ∊ἰς αὐτòν ἐπανέλθωσιν. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Eχ∊ι δὲ μέτϱα τωTν ὄντων ἀίδια καὶ ἐνθήματα θαυμαστά ,Google Scholar

⁷⁵ πϱότ∊ϱον δέ σοι βούλομαι τωTν Aἰγυπτίων τòν τϱόπον τηTς θ∊ολογίας δι∊ϱμην∊υTσαι · οτοι γὰϱ τηGν φύσιν τουT παντòς καὶ τὴν δημιουϱγίαν τωTν θ∊ωTν μιμούμ∊νοι καὶ αὐτοὶ τωTν μυστικωTν καὶ ἀποκ∊κϱυμμένων καὶ ἀφανωTν νοήσ∊ων ∊ἰκόνας τινὰς διὰ συμβόλων ἐκφαίνουσιν ὥσπ∊ϱ καὶ ἡ φύσις τοiς ἐμφανέσιν ∊ἴδ∊σι τοὺς ἀφαν∊iς λόγους διὰ συμβόλων τϱόπον τινὰ ἀπ∊τυπώσατο, ἡ δὲ τωTν θ∊ωTν δημιουϱγία τηGν ἀλήθ∊ιαν τωTν ἰδ∊ωTν διὰ τωTν φαν∊ϱωTν ∊ἰκόνων ὑπ∊γϱάψατο. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ‘Aλλ’ οὐδ' ὅταν ∊ἰς τò σωTμά ποτ∊ παϱαγένηται, οὔτ∊ αὐτηG πάσχ∊ι οὔτ∊ oἱ λόγοι οὕς δίδωσι τ σώματι · ∊ἴδη γὰϱ ∊ἰσι καὶ οτοι ἁπλοi καὶ μονο∊ιδ∊iς, ταϱαχηGν οὐδ∊μίαν οὐδ' ἔκστασιν ἀφ' ἑαυτωTν ∊ἰσδ∊χόμ∊νοι. Aἰτία δηG ον τò λοιπòν γίγν∊ται τ συνθέτῳ τουT πάσχ∊ιν · τò δ' αἴτιoν οὐκ ἔστι δήπου τò αὐτò ὅπ∊ϱ τò ἀποτ∊λούμ∊νον. Ωσπ∊ϱ ον γιγνομένων, τ∊ καὶ φθ∊ιϱομένων τωTν συνθέτων ζων γέν∊σις οσα πϱώτη ἡ ψυχηG αὐτηG καθ' ἑαντήν ἐστιν ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄψθαϱτος, οὕτω καὶ πασχόντων τωTν μ∊τ∊χόντων τηTς ψυχηTς καὶ μηG καθὀλου ἐχόντων τὸ ζηTν καὶ τò ∊ναι, συμπλακέντων δὲ πϱὸς τò ἀόϱιστον καὶ τηGν ἑτ∊ϱότητα τηTς ὕλης, αὐτηG καθ' ἔαυτήν ἐστιν ἄτϱ∊πτος, ὡς κϱ∊ίττων οσα κατ' οὐσίαν τουT πάσχ∊ιν ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἐν πϱοαιϱέσ∊ι τινὶ τ ϱ∊πούσῃ πϱὸς ἀμφότ∊ϱα τò ἐμπαθές οὐδ' ὡς ἐν μ∊τουσίᾳ ἕὖ∊ως ἢ δυνάμ∊ως πϱοσλαβουTσα έπίκτητον τò ἄτϱ∊πτον. Although the soul, in itself, is free of suffering it is nevertheless the cause of suffering for composite lives (DM 35.9–12) and shares in this suffering due to its being inclined and turned toward those generated and composite lives which it sustains (DM 21.6–7).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ οὐδὲ γνωTςίς ἐστιν ἡ πϱὸς τò θ∊iον συναφή. Δι∊ίϱγ∊ται γὰϱ αὕτη πως ἑτ∊ϱότητι. Πϱò δὲ τηTς ὡς ἑτέϱας ἕτ∊ϱον γιγνωσκούσης αὐτοφυής ἐστιν … ἡ τωTν θ∊ωTν ἐὖηϱτημένη μονο∊ιδηGς συμπλοκή. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ … ἀϱχομένοις ποτὲ ἀπò χϱόνου. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Trouillard has discussed the notion of anteriority and the ‘pre-intellectual’ (not supra-intellectual) element in the soul with clarity and insight: ‘… selon le meilleur néoplatonisme, le plus élevé est toujours le plus fondamental…. La démarche regressive étant coûteuse et son terme impensable, il est normal que le πϱό soit figure par ὑπέϱ l'originel par l'ulterieur…. Le suressentiel est la projection de l'initiative absolue dont procèdent toute essence et toute forme de vie. Le “préessentiel” est ainsi ce qui fait tout apparaître, mais demeure nécessairement en deçà de toute appartition, parce qu'il est préalable a l'intelligibilité même. Il n'est pas même caché, ce qui supposerait encore une clarté voilée, mais, quoi qu'on fasse, il est “déjà là,” puisqu'il est par toute question’ (Trouillard, J., ‘Note sur ΠPONOIA et ΠPOOYΣIOΣ chez Proclos,’ Revue des Études Grecques 73 [1960] 87).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Oὐκ ἄϱα σνγχωϱ∊iν χϱηG ὠς δυναμένους αυτηGν καὶ διδόναι καὶ μηG διδόναι, οὐδ' ὡς ἀμφίβολον τíθ∊σθαι (ἕστηκ∊ γὰϱ ἀ∊ὶ κατ' ἐνέϱγ∊ιαν ἑνο∊ιδωTς).Google Scholar

⁸¹ ‘Negative Theology’ Downside Review 95 (1911) 176–89.Google Scholar

⁸² Combes, J., ‘Damascius et les hypothèses negatives du Parmenide,’ Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 61 (1977) 104 n. 147.Google Scholar

⁸³ Damascius, , Dubitationes I (tr. Ruelle, [Paris 1889] 104.16), quoted by Trouillard, , L'un et l'âme 113.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Proclus, , In Parmenid. 6.1088.33, 1095.23; In Plat. Theol. 2.4.95; quoted by Trouillard, , L'un et l&âme 108. Trouillard says that the word ‘One’ functioned as an evocative symbol for the Neoplatonists, a ‘conceptual icon’ in Armstrong's terminology. ‘Si Tun se justifie comme le meilleur symbole de la divinité sur le plan speculatif, il est aussi le plus incantatoire. Car la théologie néoplatonicienne n'est pas simple théorie, mais également conversion. Elle ne peut être entièrement détachée de la théurgie et du mythe “intiatique” dont elle sort et vers lesquels elle nous tourne. Son efficacité déborde le langage rationnel pour employer celui de la poésie inspirée’ (La mystagogie de Proclos 99f.).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ τί δὲ δηG καὶ τὸ διακωλυTόν ἐστι τοὺς θ∊οὺς πϱοέναι πανταχουT καὶ τὸ ἀν∊iϱγον αὐτωTν τηGν δύναμιν ὥστ∊ ἰένaι μέχϱι τηTς οὐϱανíας ἀψiδος; ἰσχνϱοτέϱας γὰϱ ἄν ∊ἴη τουTτο αἰτíας ἔϱγον, τηTς κατακλ∊ιούσης αὐτοὺς καὶ π∊ϱιγϱαφούσης ἔν τισι μέϱ∊σιν. Kαὶ τò μὲν ὄντως ὂν καὶ καθ' ἑαυτò ἀσώματον πανταχουT ἐστιν ὅπουπ∊ϱ ἂν βούληται, τὸ δὲ θ∊iον καὶ πάντα ὑπ∊ϱέχον, ∊ἰ ὑπ∊ϱέχ∊ται ὑπò τηTς τουT ὅλου κόσμου τ∊λ∊ιότητος καὶ ὡς ἐν μέϱ∊ι τινὶ ὑπ' αὐτουT π∊ϱι∊ίληπται ἐλαττουTται ἄϱα καὶ τουT κατὰ τò σωTμα μ∊γέθους. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Oλως δὲ τηTς ἱ∊ϱαTς ἁγιστ∊ίας καὶ τηTς θ∊ουϱγικηTς κοινωνίας θ∊ωTν πϱὸς ἀνθϱώπους ἀναίϱ∊σίς ἐστιν αὕτη ἡ δόὖα, τὴν τωTν κϱ∊ιττόνων παϱουσίαν ἔὖω τηTς γηTς ἐὖοϱίζουσα. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ In Neopythagorean terms, it was the principle of ἄπ∊ιϱον unchecked by πέϱας. These principles were present as the fundation in every context of the cosmos; it was the task of the soul to find and establish itself within the propre measures of these ἀϱχαί. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ DM 65.15–66.16.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Kαθάπ∊ϱ ον δι' ∊ἰκόνων γ∊ννωTσι πάντα, καὶ σημαίνουσιν ὡσαύτως [καὶ] διὰ συνθημάτων · ἴσως δὲ καὶ τηGν ἡμ∊τέϱαν σύνθ∊σιν ἀπò τηTς αὐτηTς ἀφοϱμηTς ∊ἰς ὀὖύτητα πλ∊ίονα ἀνακινουTσιν. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Eἰ δέ σοι ἄπιστον ∊ναι καταφαίν∊ται πωTς φωνηTς ἀκού∊ι τò ἀσώματον καὶ ὡς αἰσθήσ∊ως πϱοσδ∊ήσ∊ται καὶ δηG ὤτων τὰ λ∊γόμ∊να ὑφ' ἡμωTν ἐν ταiς ∊ὐχαiς, ἑκωGν ἐπιλανθάνῃ τηGς τωTν πϱώτων αἰτίων π∊ϱιουσίας ἔν τ∊ τ ∊ἰδέναι καὶ τ π∊ϱιέχ∊ιν ἰν ἱαυτοiς τὰ ὑφ' ἑαυτωTν πάντα · ἐν ἑνὶ γὰϱ δήπου συν∊ίληφ∊ν ἐν ἑαυτοiς ὁμουT τὰ ὅλα · οὔτ∊ δηG ον διὰ δυνάμ∊ων οὔτ∊ δι' ὀϱγάνων ∊ἰσδέχονται ∊ἰς ἑαυτοὺς οἱ θ∊οὶ τὰς ∊ὐχάς, ἐν ἑαυτοiς δὲ π∊ϱιέχουσι τωTν ἀγαθωTν τὰς ἐν∊ϱγ∊ίας τωTν λόγων, καὶ μάλιστα ἰκ∊ίνων οἵτιν∊ς διὰ τηTς ἱ∊ϱαTς ἁγιστ∊ίας ἐνιδϱυμένοι τοiς θ∊οiς καὶ συνηνωμένοι τυγχάνουσιν · ἀτ∊χνωTς γὰϱ τηνικαυTτα αὐτò τò θ∊iον πϱòς ἑαυτò σύν∊στι, καὶ οὐδ' ὡς ἕτ∊ϱον πϱὸς ἕτ∊ϱον κοινων∊i τωTν ἐν ταiς ∊ὐχαiς νοήσ∊ων. Google Scholar

⁹¹ ‘Aδύνατοι γὰϱ αὐτωTν oἱ ἄνθϱωποι λογισμ τηGν γνωTσιν ἐπιλαβ∊iν νομίζοντ∊ς δ’ ∊να δυνατòν φέϱονται ὅλοι πϱὸς τὰ οἱκ∊iα ἑαυτωTν τὰ ἀνθϱώπινα πάοη, καὶ ἀπò τωTν παϱ' ἑαυτοiς τὰ θ∊iα τ∊κμαίϱονται. Google Scholar

⁹² σὺ δ' ἔοικας ἡγ∊iσθαι τὴν αὐτὴν ∊ναι τωTν θ∊ίων καὶ τωTν ἄλλων ὁποιωνουTν γνωTσιν, δίδοσθαί τ∊ ἀπò τωTν ἀντικ∊ιμένων τò ἕτ∊ϱον μόϱιoν, ὥσπ∊ϱ ∊ἴωθ∊ καὶ ἐπὶ τωTν ταiς διαλέκτοις πϱοτ∊ινομένων ·τò δ' οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδαμωTς παϱαπλήσιον · ἐὖήλλακται γὰϱ αὐτωTν ἡ ∊ἴδησις, ἀντιθέσ∊ωAς τ∊ πάσης κ∊χώϱισται. Google Scholar

⁹³ ‘Aλλ’ οὐκ ἄν∊υ μὲν τουT γνωTναι παϱαγίγν∊ταί ποτ∊ ἡ δϱαστικὴ ἕνωσις, οὐ μὴν ἔχ∊ι γ∊ πϱὸς αὐτηGν ταὐτότητα, Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Catalogue des Manuscripts Alchimiques Grecques VI, ed. Bidez, J. (Brussels 1928) 139–51.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Yλην δὲ παϱήγαγ∊ν ὁ θ∊òς ἀπò τηTς οὐσιότητος ὑποσχισθ∊ίσης ὑλότητος, ἥν παϱαλαβωGν ὁ δημιουϱγòς ζωτικηGν οσαν τὰς ἁπλαTς καὶ ἀπαθ∊iς σφαίϱας ἀπ' αὐτηTς ἐδημιούϱγησ∊, τò δέ ἔσχατον αὐτηTς ∊ἰς τὰ γ∊ννητὰ καὶ φθαϱτὰ σώματα δι∊κόσμησ∊ν. Google Scholar

⁹⁶ TηTς ὅλης θ∊ουϱγίας διττόν ἐστι πϱόσχημα, τὸ μὲν ὡς παϱ' ἀνθϱώπων πϱοσαγόμ∊νον, ὅπ∊ϱ δηG τηϱ∊i καὶ τηGν ἡμ∊τέϱαν τάὖιν ὡς ἔχ∊ι φύσ∊ως ἐν τ παντí, τὸ δὲ κϱατυνόμ∊νον τοiς θ∊ίσις συνθήμασι καὶ ἄνω μ∊τέωϱον δι' αὐτωTν τοiς κϱ∊ίττοσι συναπτόμ∊νον, π∊ϱιαγόμ∊νόν τ∊ ἐμμ∊λωTς ἐπὶ τηGν ἐκ∊ίνων διακόσμησιν, ὃ δηG δύναται ∊ἰκότως καὶ τò τωTν θ∊ωTν σχηTμα π∊ϱιτίθ∊σθαι. Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition 90–94.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Eἰ δηG τοιουTτόν ἐστι τò ὄντως μαντικὸν θ∊iον ἔϱγον, τíς οὐκ ἂν αἰσχυνθ∊íη τηGν ἄν∊υ διανοίας καὶ οὐ τὰ γιγνόμ∊να ἀποτ∊λουTσαν ψυAσιν παϱαφέϱ∊ιν, ὡς κατασκ∊υήν τινα ἀπ∊ϱγαζομένην ἐν ἡμiν μαντικήν, καὶ τοiς μὲν μαTλλον ἐντιθ∊iσαν τοiς δ∊G ττον τηGν ἐπιτηδ∊ιότητα ταύτην; ἐν ος μὲν γὰϱ ἄνθϱωποι πϱὸς τηGν οἰκ∊ίαν τ∊λ∊ιότητα ἀφοϱμὰς ∊ἰλήφασι παϱὰ τηTς φύσ∊ως, ἐν τούτοις καὶ τηTς φύσ∊ως πϱοηγουTνταί τιν∊ς ἐπιτηδ∊ιότητ∊ς · Google Scholar

⁹⁹ ἐν ος δὲ ἀνθϱώπινον μὲν οὐδὲν ἔϱγον πϱόκ∊ιται οὐδὲ τέλος ἡμέτ∊ϱον, θ∊iον δέ τι πϱοτέτακται πϱ∊σβύτ∊ϱον τηTς φύσ∊ως ἡμωTν ἀγαθόν. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Kαὶ ἅμα ἕκαστος καθότι ἐστίν, οὐ μέντοι καθò μηA ἐστι, ποι∊iται τηTς θυσίας τηGν ἐπιμέλ∊ιαν · οὐκ ἄϱα δ∊i αὐτηGν ὑπ∊ϱαίϱ∊ιν τò οἰκ∊iον μέτϱον τουT θ∊ϱαπ∊ύοντος. I follow the emendation by Gale and Sicherl of θυσίας for ὁσíας. The οὐσίας preserved in V was probably a copist's error due to the similarity of omicron and theta in the uncial script (O, Θ). The ὁσíας preserved in M, therefore, represents a subsequent attempt to emend the error of οὐσίας. On the confusion of theta and omicron in uncials see Renehan, R., ‘Isocrates and Isaeus: Lesefrüchte,’ Classical Philology 75.3 (1980) 253, who was kind enough to direct me to his article.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ MηG ἀτιμάσωμ∊ν τοίνυν ἔτι καὶ τὰ τοιαυTτα ∊ἰπ∊iν, ὡς πολλάκις τηTς τουT σώματος ἕν∊κα ἀναγκαίας χϱ∊ίας διαπϱαγματ∊υόμ∊θά τι πϱὸς τοὺς ἐφόϱους τουT σώματος θ∊οὺς καὶ δαίμονας ἀγαθούς · Google Scholar

¹⁰² MηG τοίνυν μηδ' ἐνταυTθα τὰ μόλις καὶ διὰ μυϱίων ἀγώνων κατοϱθούμ∊να ἀπò τωTν ἐὖ ἐπιδϱομηTς ἀμαθωTς ἐπιπηδώντων τ θ∊αγωγίᾳ χαϱακτήϱιζ∊. Cf. DM 131.9f.: ἐν πολλ χϱὀνῳ τωTν πόνων ἐμμονηGν ἀτιμάσαντ∊ς, θ∊σμούς τ∊ καὶ ἐντυχίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀγιστ∊ίας παϱωσάμ∊νοι. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ ὁ μὲν μὴ ἀπον∊ίμας παTαι τὸ πϱόσφοϱον καὶ κατὰ τηGν ὲπιβάλλονσαν τιμηGν ἕκαατον δ∊ὖιωσάμ∊νος, ἀτ∊λὴς ἀπὲϱχ∊ται καὶ ἄμοιϱος τηTς μ∊τονσίας τωTν θ∊ωTν. … Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See DM 176.13–177.6.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Hierocles, , In Carmen aureum 26.116.21ff. (Kohler); quoted by Hadot, , Le problème 105 n. 112.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ ὅσῳ δ' ἂν ἀνίωμ∊ν ἐπὶ τὸ ὕψος καὶ τηGν ταὐτότητα τωTν πϱώτων κατὰ τò ∊δός τ∊ καὶ τηGν οὐσίαν, ἀπό τ∊ τωTν μ∊ϱωTν τὰ ὄλα ἀναγάγωμ∊ν ἑαυτούς, τοσούτῳ πλέον τηGν ἕνωσιν τηGν ἀίδιον ὑπάϱχουααν ∊ὑϱίσκομ∊ν, πϱοηγουμένην τ∊ αυτηGν καὶ κυϱιωτέϱαν θ∊ωϱουTμ∊ν καὶ π∊ϱί ἑαυτηGν καὶ ἐν ἑαυτ ἔχουσαν τηGν ἑτ∊ϱότητα καὶ τò πληTθος. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ 'Eàν δέ λέγωμ∊ν ὡς ἐν ἐνὶ ζῳ τ παντὶ καὶ μίαν ζωηGν τηGν αὐτηGν πανταχουT ἔχοντι κοινωνία τωTν ὁμοίων δυνάμ∊ων ἤ τωTν ἐναντίων διάστασις ἤ τις ἐπιτηδ∊ιότης τουT ποιουTντος πϱὸς τò πάσχον συγκιν∊i τὰ ὅμοια καὶ ἐπιτήδ∊ια, ὡσαύτως κατὰ μίαν συμπάθ∊ιαν διήκουσα καὶ ἐν τοiς ποϱϱωτάτω ὡς ἔγγιστα οσι, λέγ∊ται μέν τι οὕτω τωTν ἀληθωTν καὶ τωTν συν∊πομένων ταiς θυσίαις ἐὖ ἀνάγκης, οὐ μηGν ὅ γ∊ ἀληθηGς τϱόπος τωTν θυσιωTν ἐπιδ∊ίκνυται. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Oὐ γὰϱ ἐν τ φυTσ∊ι καὶ ταiς φυσικαiς ἀνάγκαις ἡ τωTν θ∊ωTν κ∊iται οὐσία, ὥστ∊ πάθ∊σι φυσικοiς συν∊γ∊ίϱ∊σθαι ἢ ταiς διατ∊ινούσαις δι' ὅλης τηTς φύσ∊ως δυνάμ∊σιν, ἀλλ' ἔὖω τούτων καθ' ἑαυτηGν ὥϱισται, οὐδὲν ἔχουσα πϱὸς αὐτὰ κοινòν οὔτ∊ κατ' οὐσίαν οὔτ∊ κατὰ δύναμιν οὔτ∊ κατ' ἄλλο οὐδ' ὁτιουTν. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ ἔστι μὲν ον ὁ τϱόπος τηTς μαντ∊ίας οτος τοιουTτος μάντῃ δι∊στηκωGς τουT θ∊ίου καὶ ἀληθινουT τϱόπου Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Aὕτη γὰϱ ἔχ∊ι τινὰ οἰκ∊ιότητα πϱὸς ἀνθϱώπους μὲν διἀ τὸ ὁμογ∊νὲς τηTς ὖωωTς, πϱὸς δαίμονας δέ, διότι σωμάτων ἀπολυθ∊iσα χωϱιστή πως ὑπάϱχ∊ι · μέση δἐ οσα ἀμφοτέϱων ὑπηϱ∊τ∊i μὲν τ ἐφ∊στηκότι, ἐὖαγγέλλ∊ι δὲ τοiς ἔτι κατ∊χομένοις ἐν σώματι ἅπ∊ϱ ὁ ἐπιβ∊βηκωGς πϱοστάττ∊ι, κοινòν δὲ σύνδ∊σμον ἀμφοτέϱοις τούτοις πϱὸς ἀλλήλους ἐνδίδωσι. Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Smith, 99.Google Scholar

¹¹² ὅ δὴ δύναται ∊ἰκότως καὶ τὸ τωTν θ∊ωTν σχηTμα π∊ϱιτίθ∊σθαι. Google Scholar

¹¹³ μιμ∊iται δὲ τὴν τωTν θ∊ωTν τάὖιν. Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ ννTν δὲ θ∊óς ἐστιν αὐτωTν ἡγ∊μωGν ὁ ἐπì θυσιωTν οὕτω καλούμ∊νος. Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ μ∊τὰ πάθους ποι∊iται τὴν ἀλληλουχίαν. Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ 'O δὲ ἀγέϱαστόν τινα ἀφ∊ὶς συνέχ∊∊ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὴν μίαν καὶ ὅλην διακόσμησιν διέσπασ∊ν · οὐχ ὡς ἄν τις ον νoμíσ∊ι∊ν, ἀτ∊ληT τηGν ὑποδοχηGν ἐποιήσατο. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ μόνοι δὲ οἱ θ∊ουϱγοὶ ταυTτα ἐπὶ τωTν ἔϱγων π∊ιϱαθέντ∊ς ἀκϱιβωTς γ∊γνώσκουσι, μόνοι οτοι καὶ δύνανται γιγνώσκ∊ιν τíς ἐστιν ἡ τ∊λ∊σιουϱγία τηTς ἱ∊ϱατικηTς. Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ οὐ χϱηG ἐκ μέϱους τινòς τωTν ἐν αὐτοiς συνυφαίν∊σθαι πϱὸς ταG πϱοηγούμ∊να αὐτωTν θ∊iα αἴτια. Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Δι∊ίϱγ∊ται γαGϱ αὕτη πως ἑτ∊ϱότητι. Πϱὸ δὲ τηTς ὡς ἑτέϱας ἕτ∊ϱϱον γιγνωσκούσης αὐυτοφυής ἐστιν. See n. 77.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See Trouillard, , La mystagogie 50f.Google Scholar

¹²¹ For a discussion of the place of Pythagoras and Pythagorean teachings in the school of Iamblichus, see Dillon, , Iamblichi Chalcidensis Opera 18–21, and Larsen, B.D., Jamblique de Chalcis, exégète et philosophe (Aarhus 1972) 66–147.Google Scholar

¹²² Burkert, Walter, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (tr. Minar, E. L. Jr.; Cambridge, Mass. 1972) 120–65, 208–17.Google Scholar

¹²³ From the evidence of Iamblichus' extant works, he was certainly as much a mathematician as a theurgist; on his ‘scientific genius,’ see Sambursky, n. 18 above.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ des Places, E., ‘La religion de Jamblique,’ De Jamblique à Proclus (Geneva 1975) 77–78.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See Festugière, A.-J., ‘La pyramide hermétique,’ Museum Helveticum 6 (1949) 211–15.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Festugière, , n. 18 above.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ I have retained the Greek word ἀϱιθμοί because modern associations with the word ‘number’ are antithetical to the Pythagorean understanding of number. Plato used the term λογιστική for the kind of number with which we are familiar, e.g., the use of numbers in keeping accounts in our business affairs. Their use was for the service of empirical man. Arithmology / ἀϱιθμ∊τική, however, was the contemplative — and perhaps ritual — use of numbers which served no ‘practical’ end but the purification of the soul (Republic 525cd).Google Scholar