The International

Journal of the

Platonic Tradition

he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 brill.nl/jpt

he Gods as Henads in Iamblichus

Dennis Clark
2133 Shy Bear Way NW, Issaquah, Washington 98027, USA
dioklerikos@comcast.net

Abstract
he origin of the Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads has been imputed to Iambli-
chus, mostly on indirect evidence found in later Neoplatonists, chiefly Proclus. Is
there any trace of this concept to be found in the extant works or fragments of Iam-
blichus himself? he best candidates among his surviving texts are the excerpts in
Psellus of his volume on heological Arithmetic from his Pythagorean series, and the
first book of de Mysteriis, where Iamblichus answers Porphyry’s questions on the
nature of the gods. Such evidence as can be found there would most likely deal with
the divine henads, given the subject matter of the text. Certain repeated items of
vocabulary appear as technical usages that form the basis for arguing that Iamblichus
already has in mind if not the explicit concept henad at least its functional equiva-
lent: the term monoeides occurring in both the Psellan excerpts and de Mysteriis, and
in the latter, mostly in Book I, the stated attributes of a high, divine principle unit-
ing the gods which are also designated by Proclus as typical of the divine henads,
particularly in the propositions of the Elements of heology defining the henads.
Iamblichus in Book I also ascribes to the gods the same role in the process of ellamp-
sis as Proclus does for the divine henads. A theory is also advanced concerning the
possible development of the concept of the henad by Iamblichus, based in part on
the polemical nature of de Mysteriis and his relationship to Porphyry.

Keywords
Henad, Iamblichus, Porphyry, Psellus, Pythagorean,heological Arithmetic, de Mys-
teriis, Proclus, Syrianus, Marsilio Ficino, Elements of heology, Gods, he Good,
One Existent, Participation, Monoeides, Akrotes/Summit, Ellampsis/Illumination

he late Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads receives its most formal

definition and treatment from Proclus in propositions 113-165 of his
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/187254710X492901
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 55

Elements of heology. he henads are presented elsewhere in his writings,

especially Book III of the Platonic heology and Book VI of his Commen-
tary on the Parmenides, as fundamental elements of his philosophical
system, and, as is well known, are of great concern also to other later Neo-
platonists, such as Damascius. heir relatively late emergence has naturally
given rise to a desire to determine their historical origin, unheralded as
they appear to be in a fully developed form in any philosopher earlier than
Proclus. E.R. Dodds attributed their conception to Proclus’ teacher Syria-
nus, but over 30 years ago John Dillon proposed to ascribe the introduc-
tion of the henads rather to Iamblichus, drawing chiefly on evidence
provided by Proclus in the Commentary on the Parmenides.1 At least one
serious objection to this proposal has been raised and in turn persuasively
countered, and much of the focus of the debate has centered on the argu-
ments provided by Proclus in that particular work, and not unnaturally so,
given the fragmentary state of Iamblichus’ own writings.2 Is there, how-
ever, more support for the provenience of the doctrine of the henads among
any of Iamblichus’ remaining works, even if perhaps not offered in the
form of an expressly terminological reference or unambiguous definition?
If indeed Iamblichus did expound a theory of the henads in his written
works, unfortunately some of those no longer extant, namely the Com-
mentary on the Parmenides, his On the Gods, and perhaps the Commentary
on the Chaldaean Oracles, are, given the nature of their subject matter,
likely to emerge as the most suitable platforms for such a discussion. In
fact it could be argued that the critical problem in determining his possible
involvement in their creation is the loss of these works whose skopos would
be the most appropriate one within which to explicate such a doctrine.
Likewise any expectation to see the concept defined in the contexts of his
other works may well be counter or highly tangential to the stated aims of
those other writings. Hence the absence of any serious discussion of the

1)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 257-260, Dillon (1972) 102-106 also as Dillon (1973) 412-
416, and Dillon (1987) 883-884.
2)
For the argument contra, based mostly on the fact that the gods for Iamblichus would
also be defined as objects of intellection and as such could not qualify as the henads of
Syrianus and Proclus, see Proclus ed. Saffrey and Westerink (1978) ix-xl, especially xxvi ff,
and for Dillon’s rebuttal, Dillon (1993) 48-54. More recent support for Dillon’s view may
be found, expressed sometimes more implicitly than explicitly, in Steel (1997) 15-30,
Bussanich (2002) 44-45, Bechtle (2006) 135-159, and Gerson (2008) 107.
56 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

henads elsewhere could in reality be something to be expected, though

admittedly this argument is one from silence. Failing even any relevant
passages in the fragments of those likely texts, the next most promising
source of evidence would be indirect or subsidiary references in his other
extant works, since it is certainly clear that in none of the existing texts
does Iamblichus ever explicitly use the term henad as later defined.
Promising candidates for such a search would include some of the trea-
tises in his Pythagorean series, especially Book VII, On heological Arith-
metic, represented now only by the excerpts made by Psellus, and the
longest extant work of Iamblichus, the De Mysteriis.3 If for no other reason,
the Pythagorean concern with the Monad promotes the likelihood of the
former work, and the fact that in later Neoplatonism the gods are consid-
ered henads, the latter. Psellus’ excerpts are by nature condensed, but
nonetheless they may in fact retain, in spite of their somewhat terse and
disjointed overall content, Iamblichus’ own words and thus potentially
offer authentic Iamblichean terminology.4 One passage of possible rele-
vance starts at line 53 of On Ethical and heological Arithmetic, where
Psellus begins the extracts on the theological arithmetic with the discus-
sion of “an arithmetic of higher natures”, of numbers having their own
proper nature transcendent even of being, just as ethical numbers and
physical numbers have their own appropriate natures.5 “As there is a phys-
ical cause of physical numbers, an ethical for ethicals, thus of divine num-
ber there is a uniform divine principle, prior as cause as to the causes of all
numbers, a uniform [μ ] unity pre-existing even all unified divine
number itself. he first then, the one properly speaking, God as we would
say, is henad and triad (for the triad unrolls the beginning, middle, and
end around the one) . . .”6 Of note here is the appearance of the term monoe-
ides, usually translated into English as “uniform” here and in other occur-
rences in Neoplatonic literature; but the common English “uniform” does
not reflect specifically the philosophical sense carried in a more literal

3)
he excerpts were first recognized as such by Dominic O’Meara; for a summary discus-
sion see O’Meara (1989) 57-60. here does not appear to occur any particularly relevant
passage in Book III of the Pythagorean series, De communi mathematica scientia.
4)
For their faithfulness to Iamblichus’ original, see O’Meara (1989) 58-59, and on the
excerpts from the theological arithmetic, including their disjointedness, 81-85.
5)
O’Meara (1989) 227.
6)
Ibid.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 57

translation such as “in the form of singularity” or “in the form of apart-
ness”.7 hat Iamblichus himself made explicit use of the word is not in
doubt; it appears near the end of the passage of his Letter to Macedonius on
Fate preserved by Stobaeus (Anth. I 80, 11-81, 18 W-H) to describe the
action of the concatenation of causal principles descended from the One
in drawing up towards itself all things: “ μ
μ ῶ ῶ ἰ μ μ ῖ
ῖ ῶ̣ μ .” he term monoeides
ῶ ἀ ά
occurs quite frequently also in the other main extant candidate for any
evidence of the concept of the henad, in Book I of De Mysteriis, and in a
passage indeed already noted as sharing similarities with the Psellan excerpts
on theological arithmetic.8
he purpose of De Mysteriis, it is important to bear in mind, is to pro-
vide answers to Porphyry often in rebuttal of the views framing those ques-
tions posed by him in his Letter to Anebo.9 For that reason, De Mysteriis
cannot be viewed as Iamblichus’ definitive treatise on theology or first
principles, but since it is his main extant work touching on those subjects,
faute de mieux, with care, it serves nevertheless as the best such available
intact source, if used subject to the caveat of its true purpose, which likely
affects not only its tone but also at times its content. Book I serves to
respond to several of Porphyry’s questions on the nature of the gods, and
so any information to be found there regarding henads is most likely

7)
he term appears first in a philosophical context in Plato at Phaedo 78d5 and Symposium
211b1 applied to the idea of the Good, as noted by Hadot (1994) 81 and 145, comment-
ing on its use to describe the One in Plotinus Enn. VI.9.3.43. Hadot interprets the word as
being formed in analogy to agathoeides, and because of that analogy he prefers a modern
translation along the similar lines as above: “il faut mieux, me semble-t-il, traduire ‘ayant la
forme de l’unicité’, plutôt que ‘unique par sa forme’” (81) . Plotinus applies the term in fact
to the One itself, but then immediately steps back, as it were, and qualifies his usage to
point out that the One itself rather is strictly “without form”, but his application of the
term stands possibly as the Neoplatonic linkage between Plato’s seminal use of it, which
Plotinus directly cites here reproducing Plato’s full expression “ ’ μ ”,
and the later uses of monoeides by Iamblichus under discussion and its usage by other later
Neoplatonists, especially Proclus and Damascius.
8)
O’Meara (1989) 82-83.
9)
he ‘real’ title of the work, we must bear in mind, is he Reply of the `Master Abamon to
the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the Solutions to the Questions that it Contains. he popu-
lar title is that given to it by Marsilio Ficino.
58 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

related to the divine henads.10 Whatever is to be gleaned furthermore must

be inferred and extrapolated from the correctives to Porphyry’s queries and
what Iamblichus views as the frequent misperceptions behind them regard-
ing the nature of the gods, since he has structured his text with these points
driving the implicit dialogue between the two philosophers, with one
speaking all but ex cathedra and the other present only as if in a sort of
submitted and undefended brief, voluntarily or not, all in an unusual col-
loquy whose rather polemical and often condescending tone may likely
also shape and limit the amount of neutral explication allowed to appear
in the text.11 Despite the challenges raised by the character of this work,
nonetheless it does offer several fundamental details of Iamblichus’ con-
ception of the gods, which will be seen upon examination to show by vir-
tue of the marked similarity of the language utilized in Book I much in
common with the nature and function of the divine henads as laid out
more formally by Proclus in his Elements of heology, Platonic heology, and
Commentary on the Parmenides. First, as in the Psellan excerpts, Book I
offers in fact many occurrences of the same term monoeides, in usages that
can be shown to be relevant and central to this discussion of the divine
which exhibits similar concerns addressed by later Neoplatonists via the
mechanism of the henads.
he first occurrence of monoeides comes in connection with Iamblichus’
response to Porphyry’s first reported question which includes a concession

10)
he distinction between divine and non-divine henads is formally made in prop. 64 of
the Elements of heology: “And so not every unity is a god, but only the self-complete
henad,” Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 63. (All translations quoted from this work are those of
Dodds.)
11)
“Ex cathedra” also in the view of Trouillard (1972) 173. he tenor of the implied dia-
logue instills in the reader an impression of a private conversation where much may be
unsaid but understood between the two participants, or spoken in so highly allusive a fash-
ion that some points may not be explicitly and fully made. Its tenor often leaves moderns
not party to the conflict between the former teacher and pupil to wonder about certain
details of doctrine, unfortunately now probably lost forever to non-cognoscenti of centuries
later, as would also probably be the case for many of their own time as well, especially those
not “initiates” of these particular philosophical mysteries, or not members of the inner
circles of the two philosophers. For some recent discussion of the relationship between
Porphyry and Iamblichus as reflected in De Mysteriis, see Clarke (2002) 6-8, Iamblichus
ed. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) xxvi ff, Bussanich (2005) 7-8, and Dillon (2007)
30-32.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 59

that the gods do exist (DM I.3). Iamblichus offers a correction, however,
to the effect that the existence of gods is something so basic as to be beyond
deliberation, just as Plotinus denied knowledge of the One because of its
utter simplicity and exaltedness, but he contends nevertheless there is a
sort of “connection” to them, which he terms as “ἡ ῶ ῶ μ
μ μ ”.12 He continues the argument by adding that we
cannot even question the existence of this “connection”, deny nor affirm
nor categorize it, and such actions are those typically deemed by Neopla-
tonists as impossible assertions concerning the One.13 Echoing his use of
monoeides, Iamblichus then also reiterates the One-like characterization
of this connection by describing it as “ἀ ’ ῶ ”.
Later in I.3 he employs this specific language twice more, repetitively
enough in all to imply a sort of terminological usage: “Μ ῶ ῶ
ἀ μ ῖ” (I.3.9.7) and “ἡ ἴ ... ἦ ἀ μ
” (I.3.10.3-7). he perspective here, due to his
need to answer Porphyry’s specific question, concerns any human knowl-
edge of the divine rather than a definition of divinity itself, but the only
method for any such knowledge in Iamblichus’ view is an indirect one
based solely on the similarity of the gods to the One tapped into by a
“dependent connection with the gods in form like the One”, accessible
also by humanity because of its likeness to the One, in the soul. Proclus in
ET prop. 123 uses notably similar language to declare knowledge of the
gods as imparticipable henads to be impossible: “All that is divine is itself
ineffable and unknowable by any secondary being because of its supra-
existential unity, but it may be apprehended and known from the existents
which participate it.”14 He then elaborates in the proposition, using the

12)
De Mysteriis I.3.8.4-5. All quotations and translations are taken from Iamblichus ed.
Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003), who cite Enn. 5.3 for Plotinus’ denial (p13n23).
13)
Later at I.19.59-60 Iamblichus concludes that as humans approach the higher entities
from below, from particulars to the more general, the unity of the gods becomes more
apparent, joining together primary and secondary classes of gods, who “all possess with
each other a communion of indissoluble connection [ ἀ ύ
μ ]”, using the term symploke again as above at I.3.8.4-5. It appears also no less
than three times in the passage from the Letter to Macedonius cited above to represent the
combined, unitary action of the concatenation of causes descending from the One. For the
function of symploke in theurgy, see Smith (1974) 85-86.
14)
ET Prop. 123, Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 110.
60 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

exact same term for “dependency” as Iamblichus has in I.3.8.4: “Neverthe-

less from the beings dependent [ ῶ μ ] on them [the gods] the
character of their distinctive properties may be inferred . . .”15 Beings in
both cases are farther down the chain of causality, but nonetheless specifi-
cally “dependent” in both cases. he term monoeides by itself is clearly
reminiscent or appropriate as an aspect of the concept of the henad, though
admittedly it is used of the gods by Iamblichus in this passage rather to
describe their divine function and not directly nominally; but clearly the
term links them, just as “henad” does, to the One in a fundamental and
crucial way.
Further on in Book I at I.17 Iamblichus resorts again to the use of
monoeides in his stipulation of the unity of the gods as his response to
Porphyry’s question regarding their corporality, how the Sun and Moon,
which are agreed to be divine, could be visible if the gods are incorporeal.
Iamblichus solves this difficulty by declaring that the heavenly bodies are
“enveloped” by the gods, which revert to their divine cause, and that such
a body is no impediment; rather it is of its own initiative “
ῶ ῶ ἀ ’ ῦμ ῶ μ .”16 He
continues directly thereafter by stating that this heavenly body is itself
closely related to that of the gods, being simple, without parts, indivisible,
not subject to change, and then describes its energeia as monoeides. But
Iamblichus then emphasizes the unity of the divine nature itself also, again
making use of the same term: “he gods of heaven are beings homoge-
neous in all respects, entirely united [ μ ] among themselves, uni-
form [μ ] and non-composite.”17 he word appears frequently in
the works of every major later Neoplatonist and in similar contexts enough
to allow it with some assurance to be taken as a Neoplatonic technical

15)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 111.
16)
I.17.51.7-8, some terms translated by Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 65.
17)
I.17.52.5-6, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 65. Later in Book V while laying out
the appropriate types of offering to the different classes of gods, Iamblichus perhaps even
more tellingly utilizes the term monoeides as the single determinant to contrast the higher
gods from the lesser which are honored with physical sacrifice of bodies: “when, then, we
offer cult to the gods who rule over soul and nature, it is not inappropriate to sacrifice to
them bodies . . . but when we set out to honour those gods that are in and of themselves
uniform [μ ῖ ], it is proper to accord them honours that transcend matter,”
V.19.226.7-8, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 259.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 61

term, though in some cases it is to be sure employed in its more usual sense
as conveyed in the English translation as “uniform”.18 Of these many
occurrences, however, Proclus in his Platonic heology would appear explic-
itly to give a definition of monoeides in the course of delineating two triads
from the Phaedo, in the section of that work devoted to a series of divine
attributes drawn from Plato (Saffrey-Westerink I.27, p.118.20-24); monoe-
ides is defined in the explication of the first member of the second triad:
“T μ μ ἀ , μ ᾳ ’
ώ μ · ἰ
μ ῶ .Τ ύ . . .” he adjec-
tive is here raised to the level of a nominal concept as a member of the
triad, which is fundamentally divine, at the highest level of being, and
explicitly at the same level as the participable henads, specifically below
Proclus’ One, which is above being. his degree in the hierarchy of being
is however the same as the one at which Iamblichus places the gods, as will
be shown next.
Iamblichus makes use of other specific language in Book I which is
directly echoed in Proclus, particularly in the propositions in the Elements
of heology defining the henads. In I.5 Iamblichus appears as it were to step
back and state some general principles about his view of the gods in prepa-
ration for further responses to Porphyry’s questions, and in these assertions
lies perhaps the most persuasive evidence that he is presenting the gods as
very similar to the henads as described by Proclus. Iamblichus begins by
stipulating, “Well then, there is the Good that is beyond being, and there
is that which exists on the level of being. By ‘being’ I mean the most senior,
the most honoured, and that which is by its own nature incorporeal, the

18)
A number of relevant examples of its usage in Syrianus, Proclus, and Damascius may be
cited; cf. Syrianus, in Met. 113, 23, where μ is one of the primary universal ele-
ments emanating from the archetypal Monad and in Met. 114,21, where monoeides is
included among the attributes of the highest level of the divine Forms; Proclus, in Tim.
I.136,16, where in the discussion of the lots assigned the gods the providence of the Father
is described as monoeides and in Tim. II.59, 13, where the Paradigm is described as monoe-
ides, all-perfect, and eternal; perhaps most significantly Damascius, de Prin. W.-C. II.3,1 in
the defense of Iamblichus’ view of the first two hypostases, the level of the One after the
Ineffable and before the noetic triad is referred to simply as μ and similarly used
at II.6, 8; Damascius in Phaed. Westerink I.312 and I.316, where one of the attributes of
the real-existents is monoeides.
62 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

particular feature of the gods.”19 He then contrasts this highest divine prin-
ciple with that of the “souls that rule over bodies”, and sets them as the two
extreme levels of divine beings, between which also fall those of the demons
and heroes.20 If the first and highest extreme is that of the Good but which
also has being, explicitly below the Good that is above being, it would have
to be placed very high in Iamblichus’ scheme of reality, since the Good is
normally synonymous for the One, but not at any of the highest levels of
the One, since he also claims being for it. Hence this divine principle
would then most likely correspond to the One Existent ( ). But this
level is also most likely that of the henads, if they do exist anywhere within
the formal ontological hierarchy of Iamblichus, and hence also the same as
μ as defined by Proclus in the Platonic heology.21 Iamblichus

19)
I.5.15.4-5, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 21.
20)
See Saffrey (1990) 287 for a table conveniently summarizing the contrasting attributes
given by Iamblichus to the two levels in these chapters.
21)
See Dillon (1993) 49-50 for the seminal argument placing the henads at this level in
Iamblichus’ scheme; cf. Bussanich (2002) 44-45, for the divine henads as hyperousioi and as
unitary: “he highest god is a unity and hence, on each level of being, the gods comprise
unities/henads which are connected to and which assimilate all things to the transcendent
One. Proclus, Inst. Prop. 113: ‘the divine series has the character of unity, if the One is
god.’” It should be pointed out that Proclus posits the divine henads as being above exis-
tence, as in Prop. 123 cited above, where he speaks of their “supra-existential unity”, and
this variance at first may appear as an obstacle to the thesis that Iamblichus is putting forth
the gods as henads, since he certainly places them at the highest level of existence, but
definitely existent and not supra-existent. In point of fact, Proclus does impart to the
henads rather hyparxis, which Siorvanes translates as “root-being”, Siorvanes (1996) 170.
But this inconsistency between Proclus and Iamblichus is likely related to the same clear
difference of philosophical opinion regarding the nature of the first hypothesis of the Par-
menides and the place of the gods in that schema, which, if Dillon (1993) is correct, is
explained by the placement and function of the One Existent, and pertinently for this
discussion the One Existent is, as just shown, the same level for the gods according to Iam-
blichus and for him the highest level of existence. So it is quite possible that Iamblichus and
Proclus both see the gods as henadic but do not agree on this point concerning their rela-
tionship to being, especially not in this instance where Proclus makes such a sharp distinc-
tion with his predecessor regarding the nature of the first two hypotheses of the Parmenides
and the nature of the One as a completely isolated and simple hypostasis just below which
for him appear the henads, and a first hypostasis unlike that complex one apparently
conceived of by Iamblichus. In fact in general, it could be said that while the two philoso-
phers would likely agree on most of the particulars regarding the henads, they still might
disagree on some few of them, and the evidence could still point overall nonetheless to an
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 63

then in I.5.18, 6-11 offers Porphyry as restatement of this highest divine

principle the following: “To approach the question from another perspec-
tive: on the one hand, unity in all its extension and all its forms, perma-
nent stability in oneself, the quality of being the cause of indivisible
essences, an immobility such as may be conceived of as being the cause of
every motion, a superiority over all beings which precludes having any-
thing in common with them and, furthermore, the conception of being
unmixed and transcendent alike in essence, potency and activity—all such
characteristics should be attributed to the gods.”22 “Unity in all its exten-
sion” is here expressed tellingly in the Greek as “ μ ἡ μ
ἂ ... ὕ ύμ ὡ ἴ ἶ .” If the henads
appear at the level of the One Existent in Iamblichus’ scheme, then they
are also the first object of intellection, also at the highest level of the second
hypostasis: in addition Iamblichus posits here a principle of the gods as
ἡ μ , “made one” or “united”, and explicitly at the same time
ύμ , the object of high intellection.23 In this same discussion Nous,
the “leader and king” of the realm of being, is then linked closely with this
high principle, as “present continuously and uniformly to the gods” in
contrast to the grasp available to the Soul, which is , “multi-
form” or “of many Forms” as opposed to monoeides (I.7.21.14), and from
the juxtaposition Nous seems as well intended by Iamblichus to be the
agent of that intellection. his higher principle is next described as “at
the summit [ἄ ], and transcendent, and perfect [ ] . . . [it]
can achieve all things simultaneously, in the present instant, unitarily

Iamblichean provenance, though of course that variance would only complicate matters
and require some special explanation, especially in light of the sparse primary textual
resources of Iamblichus extant for proof in this regard.
22)
Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 25. See Bussanich (2002) 50-51 for a discussion
of similar passages on the transcendence of the gods in Book III.
23)
For the henads as the objects of Nous, see Dillon (1993) 50. here may be more proof
for this concept at I.15.46.1-2 where Iamblichus states that the gods are “absolutely supe-
rior” to Nous; Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 57n81 ad loc suggest they may in fact
here be “regarded as henads.” But since they are at the same level as the One Existent they
also for Iamblichus would be the highest object of intellection, again superior to Nous
itself. For the use of ἡ μ in reference to the One Existent cf. Dillon (2007b) 58. Later
in chapter 15 further supporting evidence for the placement of the gods at this level may
be found in his denial of Porphyry’s contention that the gods are noeric; for more discus-
sion of this passage, see note 39 below.
64 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

[μ ῶ ] . . . [it], in a single swift moment, comprehends the supreme

ends of all activities and essences . . . the gods have present to them through-
out, concurrently with their essence, the measure [μ ] of the universe
or the cause of this . . .”24
he preceding encompasses in one passage several concepts central to
the henads as defined by Proclus. In his main discussion of the henads in
his Commentary on the Parmenides, 1066, 22ff, several times he refers to
them as “ἀ ” (1043.26, 1047.20, 1049.37, 1050.14-15, 1066.22),
and in the Platonic heology III 4, p. 14.14, in the chapters dedicated to
them in that work, he refers to the henad also as an ἀ . 25 Proclus in
ET prop. 114, the second devoted to the definition of the henads, states
that every god is a ; Iamblichus appears to impart a similar
meaning to here, emphasizing the independence of the higher
divine principle from subsidiary beings, in which dwells the lowest prin-
ciple, contrasted repeatedly to the highest in this passage, and according to
Dodds that same sense is the main one conveyed in by Proclus,
as opposed to the μ of the higher principles which penetrate to
the lower levels of being.26 Iamblichus further categorizes the higher divine

24)
I.7.21.1-I.7.22.10, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 27-29.
25)
Saffrey-Westerink (1978) 111-112n3 in their commentary to the cited passage in the
Platonic heology point out the relatively greater frequency of the term ἀ in Proclus
as compared to the other two designations he gives the henads in that same section, ἄ
and . he latter pair is definitely Chaldaean in origin, and it may be that ἀ
is as well, though it is used in the extant fragments the Oracles only in reference to deities
rather low in the hierarchy of that system, the Iynges, according to Lewy (1978) 156. he
term appears in frs.76, 82, and 84; see the notes ad loc, Majercik (1989) 172-73. Proclus
in the Commentary on the Parmenides at 1049.37 pairs ἀ with ἄ , both taken to
be Chaldaean (Proclus transl. Morrow and Dillon [1987] 408n16). Marius Victorinus
paired the two terms also, Ad Arium, I, 62, 13-14 H.-H., “summitates . . . et florem”, des
Places (1996) 86n3, and Hadot is of the same opinion in his note to a previous occurrence
in the text of “summitates” at 61, 23, Marius Victorinus ed. Henry transl. Hadot (1960)
884. Julian in his Hymn to Helios also makes use of them (134A), as pointed out by des
Places ibid. He employs the pair to describe the noeric rays of the sun in a passage where in
fact he appears to be citing doctrine of the “Phoenicians” (134A), which is to say rather
Chaldaeans, but likely he is reproducing here as in most of the hymn some teaching of
Iamblichus. What indeed did Iamblichus himself make of these verses in his Commentary
on the Chaldaean Oracles and perhaps even the term ἀ itself or perhaps in his treatise
On the Gods?
26)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 260-261, note to prop. 114, referring also to prop. 64, note
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 65

principle as “in a single swift moment, comprehend[ing] the supreme ends

of all activities and essences”; such an ability is also attributed to the henads
by Proclus in props. 121 and 124: “every god has an undivided knowledge
of things divided and a timeless knowledge of things temporal; he knows
the contingent without contingency, the mutable immutably, and in gen-
eral all things in a higher mode than belongs to their station.”27 he key to
the nature of this knowledge is that it is, also from prop. 124, “
ἄ ἀ ” and, from prop. 123, that the henad itself is unknowable
to lower beings, as Iamblichus also describes the gods to be in response to
Porphyry’s first question.
he last common concept expressed by Iamblichus in this characteriza-
tion of the higher divine principle is that the gods have concurrent with
their essence the measure of the universe: prop. 117 states that “Every god
is a measure [μ ] of things existent.” At I.7.22.7 Iamblichus claims
that these same “superior classes of being possess essential order and essen-
tial beauty, or if one wishes to express it so, it is the causal principle of these
that coexists with them” and in I.7.21.6 the higher divine principle dis-
cussed above is said to pre-exist ( ) all things. his sort of pre-
existence ( ’ ἴ ) is covered by Proclus in general in prop. 65 and
more specifically in relation to the henads in prop. 118.28 he latter propo-
sition holds that “every attribute of the gods pre-subsists [ ϋ ]
in them in a manner consistent with their distinctive character as gods.”29
In this single passage Iamblichus has included in his definition of this
higher divine principle several key aspects fundamental also to the defini-
tion of henads as proposed later by Proclus in the Elements of heology and
has expressed them using the exact same or quite similar choice of words.
More similarities are to be found in Book I, dealing with the notion
of imparting the Good to lesser beings, participation by lesser beings in
the gods, and the concept of ellampsis. “he substance of every god is a

on pp. 234-35. He points out there that is originally an Aristotelian and Stoic
term. It is also interestingly enough used of god by Alcinous (10.3) and of the Monad by
Nicomachus ap. heol. Ar. 3.18 De Falco, Alcinous transl. Dillon (1995) 104; cf. Alcinous
ed. Whittaker (1990) 99n62 and Festugière (1990) 97n3 for more on the history of the term.
27)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 111, prop. 124. See O’Meara (2003) 126, on how principle
of “intelligible omnipresence” was developed by Plotinus in Enn. VI.4-5.
28)
Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 29n47 for reference to prop. 65.
29)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 105.
66 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

supra-existential excellence [ἀ ],” Proclus states in prop. 119, and

in 122, “For being pure excellences, by their very being they furnish to all
things good without stint; they make no calculated apportionment, but
the participants receive according to their own desserts what the gods
bestow according to their own substance.”30 In two passages Iamblichus
characterizes in like terms the beneficent actions of the gods; “they [the
gods as superior entities] give from themselves to bodies everything in the
way of goodness that bodies can receive . . .” (I.8.24.4-5) and “For in fact
all [the gods] alike are good and causes of good, and looking towards one
single good the direct themselves unitarily [ ῶ ] to the Fine and
Good alone.” (I.18.53.2).31 One of the first propositions of the group con-
cerned with the henads, 116, establishes that “every god is participable,
except the One.”32 Iamblichus alludes briefly to the notion of participation
(μ ) by lesser entities in the gods at I.8.29.1-2 and discusses it at
greater length at I.18.54.5-I.18.56.2, citing specific examples of the influ-
ences of Kronos and Ares.
he final major similarity can be found in I.9 as Iamblichus responds to
what he views as Porphyry’s misconception that the gods are localized and
act as separate agents of power, some in the air, some in the water, some of
earth, and some subterranean.33 he correct view is that the divine power
manifested in each god is anything but divided in any way, that they hold
a “ ύ μ ” which is “ἄ ”, “ἀμ ”, and “ἀ ” and that
their implicit “ ἀ ” could not be preserved if they were
as separate as Porphyry deems them to be (I.9.29.13-I.9.30.6). he solu-
tion to this issue is offered not metaphorically, but literally as the ellampsis
or illumination of the gods: regardless of spatial locality anywhere in the
world, “the fact is that divinity illuminates everything from without, even
as the sun lights everything from without with its rays. Even as the sun-
light, then, envelops what it illuminates, so also does the power of the gods

30)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 105 and 109.
31)
Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 31 and 67.
32)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 103. Cf. Prop. 128 and 129.
33)
Iamblichus reinterprets Porphyry’s original query about theurgists’ invoking terrestrial
and subterranean gods instead to those of the air and water, but the full list of divine cate-
gories given above for Porphyry comes from his Philosophy from the Oracles fr. 314-315
Smith; for a recent discussion of that work and Porphyry’s classification of the gods, see
Edwards (2006) 114-115.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 67

embrace from outside that which participates in it . . . the light of the gods
illuminates its subject transcendently [ ῶ ῶ ῶ μ ῶ ]”
(I.9.30.13-I.9.31.4). Ellampsis furthermore is the means for divine power
to draw up the soul of the theurge (rather than Porphyry’s notion of any
drawing down of the gods by magical means), as Iamblichus states at
I.12.13.15 and II.2.69.8, and as such is central to the process of theurgy,
and in III.11-13 he shows how ellampsis is essential also to the workings of
divination.34
On the other end of the spectrum, in Book VIII of De Mysteriis the One
Existent is characterized as the preexistent source of being, god of gods:
“ μ ” (VIII.2.262.3), and so may provide
the origin in the vertical hierarchy for ellampsis penetrating downward
throughout the lower levels of being.35 ET props. 70 and 71 are devoted
to the principle of ellampsis and props. 125, 137, and 138 discuss its rele-
vance to the divine henads. he former propositions state, “All those more

34)
On how ellampsis also reaches all the way into matter and allows the efficacy of the
theurgic sunthemata, see Shaw (1995) 48-49. On the henads and ellampsis in Proclus, see
also Bechtle (2006) 146-147. he concept appears also in Sallustius XIV.26-28, who likely
is drawing somehow on Iamblichus; cf. Sallustius ed. Nock (1996) xcviii, where Nock
describes μ in de Mysteriis as “almost a technical term.”
35)
Bechtle regards the One Existent as Monad in Book VIII as tantamount to a divine
henad already being employed by Iamblichus, Bechtle (2006) 158. Light used at least met-
aphorically in this manner hardly originates with Iamblichus and may be found in several
passages in Plotinus, such as Enn. IV.5.6-7; cf. Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 39n57,
and Plato’s metaphor of the Sun in the Republic probably serves as the fount for all such
Platonic imagery. For a comparison of the usage of such light imagery by Plotinus versus by
Iamblichus and an important detailed discussion of the incorporeal nature of light starting
in Iamblichus and continued in later Neoplatonists, see Finamore (1993) 56-57. He cites
Julian’s Hymn to Helios (134a5-b7) as well on incorporeal light, the same passage where
Julian typifies the rays of the Helios as a sort of ἀ or ἄ in a likely Chaldaean
usage. Cremer in fact takes ellampsis in de Mysteriis throughout to be in origin Chaldaean,
Cremer (1969) 104-105. Blumenthal on the other hand suggests the term may arise from
the Gnostic Sethian cosmogony as related by Hippolytus, Refutatio V.19.4 and X.11.3,
though the use there seems metaphorical, Blumenthal (1971) 15n19. (hanks to Giannis
Stamatellos for pointing out this reference to me.) he important distinction to be made is
that Iamblichus imparts to ellampsis a specific function fundamental to the nature of
theurgy and the dispersion of gifts of the gods downward to all beings as well as a unifica-
tory method among themselves, and with repeated allusions to the concept in de Mysteriis
he in effect raises it to the level of a technical term within Neoplatonism.
68 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

universal characters which inhere in the originative principles both irradi-

ate [ μ ] their participants before the specific characters . . .” and “all
those characters which in the originative causes have higher and more
universal rank become in their resultant beings, through the irradiations
[ μ ] which proceed from them, a kind of substratum for the gifts
of the more specific principles . . .”36
As for the henads, Proclus in prop. 137 observes how the henad “coop-
erates with the One in producing the real-existents which participate it . . .
at the same time the dependent existents are severally produced by the
henads which irradiate [ μ ] them (prop. 125). To the One they
owe simply their existence; their community of nature with a particular
henad is due to the activity of that henad.”37 As shown then by Iamblichus
the gods and by Proclus the divine henads utilize their likeness to the One,
their being monoeides, in order to impart being down the chain of the

36)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 67-69.
37)
Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 121-123. he downward action of ellampsis in regards to the
henads is referred to directly also in Prop. 136 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 120 line 28 and
Prop. 138 at Proclus ed. Dodds (1963) 122 line 15. Cf. Platonic heology Saffrey-Westerink
I.18, p. 85.6-20, for a passage on the divine attributes drawn from the Republic concerning
the propagation of the Good, which cites ellampsis ( I.18, p. 85.9) as a part of the explica-
tion, and includes much of the language under discussion here, such as two further relevant
usages of monoeides. Ellampsis may also operate upon the soul; Olympiodorus points out in
his Commentary on the Phaedo how it allows the soul to join with the One: “for just as our
eye, when illuminated by the sunlight, is at first different from the source of the light, as its
recipient, but is afterwards somehow united with it and joined to it, and becomes as it were
one with it and ‘sun-like’, so our soul is at first illuminated [ μ ] by intelligence
and its actions are directed by the contemplative virtues, but afterwards it becomes in a way
identical with the source of the illumination [ μ ] and acts in union with the One
[ ῶ ῖ] by the exemplary virtues. he object of philosophy is to make us intel-
ligence, that of theurgy to unite us with the intelligible principles and conform our activity
to the ideal examples” (Westerink 46, 14-20, his translation). In the corresponding section
of the Commentary on the Phaedo of Damascius, Westerink 143, 1-5, Damascius similarly
describes the “exemplary”, or paradigmatic, vis-à-vis intelligence (Nous) and in that text
explicitly attributes some refinement of the definition of the paradigmatic virtues to Iam-
blichus in his lost treatise, On Virtues. For more on the development of the Platonic virtues
by Iamblichus, see Westerink’s note ad loc to the text in Damascius, and also Saffrey (1971)
237-238. Olympiodorus’ language here is suggestive and quite reminiscent, particularly in
the use of the analogy to the sun, of the passage from DM I.9 discussed above; has he per-
haps actually echoed or even reproduced in his Commentary Iamblichus’ own text from the
lost On Virtues?
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 69

hierarchy all the way to the lowest levels, through this process termed by
both ellampsis. In a passage in De Principiis of great importance to the
argument for Iamblichus as the originator of the henads, under the head-
ing from Westerink-Combès of “Les pluralités externes: illuminations ou
subsistences?”, the second response to the first aporia concerning the Pro-
cession of the One (pp. 62-65), Damascius discusses the process of ellamp-
sis in some detail, and specifically contrasts Iamblichus’ concept of the
gods in this regard with that of the majority of his predecessors. hose
before him had seen the gods as owing their existence merely to an ellamp-
sis from the One, so that they had not viewed them rather, in the implied
opinion of Iamblichus, as a “ ῶ ...
ῶ ” (De Prin. III 64,12-13). he distinction then is
between the gods as only “ ώ ... ἀ ῦ μ ” (III 64,
11) versus self-complete (autoteles, again) levels above being; since this
denial comprises the half of the contrast between the earlier philosophers
and what Iamblichus believed, it is very difficult to construe Damascius
here as other than imputing to Iamblichus a belief in the divine henads,
just as described by Proclus in the Elements of heology and elsewhere and
implied in Book I of his own de Mysteriis.38
Many then of the fundamental characteristics of the divine henads as
defined by Proclus are already evinced of the gods by Iamblichus in Book I
of de Mysteriis. First, he places them at the appropriate level in the hierar-
chy of being at the One Existent, which is itself in Book VIII termed the
source of ellampsis, and which is most likely that of the divine henads.
Both Iamblichus and Proclus declare the gods and divine henads to be
directly unknowable, because of their level of unity, repeatedly referred to
by Iamblichus, often via the same term as used in the Psellan excerpts, as
monoeides, a term along with related forms such as henoeides which appears
frequently also in Proclus in similar contexts. Good is imparted to lower
beings by the gods and the divine henads, and both are described as “sum-
mits”, “perfect” or “self-contained”, and “measures” in regard to those

38)
Saffrey and Westerink, Proclus ed. Saffrey-Westerink (1978) xxxix, are of the opinion
that Damascius here is merely using his own terminology to describe Iamblichus’ doctrine;
such a reading is certainly possible, but again the entities themselves by their stated attri-
butes fit the functional bill as henads. Hadot briefly recognized the importance of this
passage for Iamblichean authorship in Hadot (1961) 432, and it probably deserves more
consideration in the debate over the origin of the henads than it has received.
70 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

lower beings which are seen in both cases as participating in the higher
gods or henads. Finally, both philosophers cite the process of ellampsis as
crucial to the workings of the gods and the divine henads in their roles in
the chain of being.39
If however for the sake of argument it is granted that Iamblichus was the
originator of the doctrine of the henads, and if it is conceded that he refers
frequently to the gods in Book I in terms of that doctrine, it is nevertheless
quite reasonable then to ask at this point, why would he not simply use the
term itself explicitly in the course of his discussion?40 While, given the
hypothetical nature of the consideration of Iamblichus’ role in the origin
of the henads, we may not be in a position to answer this question with

39)
Two other passages are of relevance to the argument that Iamblichus offers a henadic
conception of the gods. In chapter 15 he disputes Porphyry’s contention that the gods are
“pure intellect” by distinguishing them as higher in his scheme of being, to be associated in
the realm of Nous rather with the highest level within it, the intelligible, which in Iambli-
chus’ philosophy also serves as the lowest element of the hypostasis of the One, again the
level of the One Existent, and furthermore “these gods may identified with what Iambli-
chus elsewhere calls ‘the monads of the forms’ (cf. Comm. Phileb. Frg. 4). Since the highest
element in any given hypostasis is theoretically identical with the lowest element in the one
above it, these entities may also be regarded as henads, the lowest element in the realm of
the One, as they were later for Syrianus and the Athenian School,” Clarke, Dillon, and
Hershbell (2003) 57n81. Secondly, in chapter 19 he responds to Porphyry’s query “what is
it that attaches those entities possessing a body in the heavens to the incorporeal gods” by
repeatedly stressing the unity of the gods and reiterating that they have their origin at that
level of the intelligible. His term of choice to emphasize this point in the passage, used no
less than six times from I.19.59.1 to I.19.61.3, is henosis.
40)
Two other likely reasons for the absence of the term from De Mysteriis again have to do
with the nature of the work. It must be remembered that in it Iamblichus has taken on and
for the most part maintained the persona of Abamon the Egyptian priest, and so that stance
alone might make it inappropriate to employ so technical a Neoplatonic term. he second
reason may be even simpler: that Iamblichus would be aware that Porphyry would not
subscribe to such a theory as that of the henads, so why bother to adduce it directly? Both
these points I owe to John Dillon, to whom I am most thankful also for reading this essay
and suggesting improvements to it. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for
several comments which helped, it is hoped, sharpen the arguments presented, and in addi-
tion, to several kind and helpful correspondents who have in general given thoughtful
encouragement over the last few years, I would express my thanks: Sara Ahbel-Rappe,
Cosmin Andron, Nico Bader, Michael Chase, Stephen Clark, Beniamino di Dario, Chris-
toph Helmig, Marilynn Lawrence, Melanie Mineo, Edward Moore, Jan Opsomer, Gregory
Shaw, Anne Sheppard, and Harold Tarrant.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 71

assurance, perhaps at least a proposal might be made that would address it.
As has been pointed out, one of the driving forces behind De Mysteriis is
the clear difference of opinion about the basic nature of divinity between
Porphyry and Iamblichus, and that variance includes also, significantly for
the history of the development of later Neoplatonism, the fact that Iambli-
chus apparently was much more concerned to create an accounting for the
gods strictly consonant with that philosophical system. To integrate them
fully rather than merely to synthesize them in any casual way represents
more accurately his desire, though it does appear that both these philoso-
phers were pious and sincere in their individual beliefs, whatever degree of
devotion Porphyry’s mentor Plotinus may have personally held. Is it con-
ceivable then that this debate concerning the philosophical status of the
gods in the Neoplatonic universe was in fact a main impetus for Iambli-
chus to develop his henadic view of divinity, and what is presented in De
Mysteriis, with its limited skopos and polemical cast, represents rather a first
step in that process which may have produced at some later point the more
formal definition of the henads in one of his works now no longer extant,
perhaps in On the Gods?41
Is it possible that Iamblichus is functionally describing divine henads in
De Mysteriis—and the evidence of the text does seem to support that notion
at the very least with some assurance as detailed in this present analysis—
but he simply had not yet devised and applied the term henad itself ? As
admittedly extrapolative as such a hypothesis is, nevertheless it is required
of any fundamental explanation of the historical development of Neopla-
tonism to account for what a modern critic with justification might term
an extraordinary obsession with incorporating the Hellenic gods into the

41)
One intriguing question which unfortunately will find no certain answer given the cur-
rent state of Iamblichus’ textual remains is exactly how much does Book I of De Mysteriis
correspond to that lost work, as well as what is the chronological relationship between the
two. Iamblichus does in fact refer later in Book VIII to a treatise On the Gods (VIII.8.271.10),
but in the persona of course of Abamon, so that it would appear prohibitively out of char-
acter for this cited work to be literally his own and not rather some lost Hermetic writing;
so is the opinion of Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) 325n450, which is accepted for
this analysis (Proclus’ direct reference to On the Gods found in Platonic heology Saffrey-
Westerink I.11, p. 52.3ff is of no help in determining this issue). Could Book I be a sort of
preliminary for On the Gods which in the scenario as argued here is the later work? Or
contra, if actually written later, does Book I consist largely rather of a summary or relevant
excerpts of an already published and likely much more extensive On the Gods?
72 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

Neoplatonic system, and in the most intimate and integral fashion, not
merely as ornament or afterthought. his pervasive concern had to be ini-
tiated by someone in the line of later Platonists, since it clearly is not a
matter of any great interest to Plotinus and yet is obvious to even the most
casual of observers of almost any major work of Proclus to be central to his
conception of Platonic thought. hat this development must precede his
full blown theology in the history of Neoplatonism is well known, but the
exact point at which the henads were introduced has been difficult to
ascertain. his analysis of Iamblichus’ presentation of a henadic view of the
gods in Book I of De Mysteriis will not yield for once and for all a specific
date nor an author for the origination of that concept, but perhaps it will
at least provoke further discussion by gathering and exposing the potential
terminological and other evidence until now somewhat concealed in the
antagonistic rhetoric of Iamblichus’ treatise, which itself has mostly been
viewed as a defense of theurgy rather than any disquisition on the nature
of the gods, whether they ultimately claim an assured place in his own
Platonic theology as divine henads or not.42

42)
hough certainly of no primary evidential value for determining the status of the henads
in Iamblichus, the following passage of Marsilio Ficino from the first section of his para-
phrasing Latin version of De Mysteriis, titled “De Cognitione Divinorum”, based on several
of the chapters of Book I discussed above, is of note for his choice of terms, in particular
“unitas”: “Essentialis cognitio divinorum, quae anima est perpetua ac re vera non est cog-
nitio haec, qua deo fruimur. In cognitione enim est alteritas, sed contactus quidam essen-
tialis et simplex. Non enim possumus attingere unitatem ipsam, nisi unitissimo quodam et
unitate mentis, quae super animae mentisque proprietatem extat. Unitas ipsa deorum unit
sibi animas ab aeterno per unitates earum secundum contiguitatem tam propriam et effica-
cem, ut esse continuitas videatur.” Ficino in all likelihood was familiar with the Latin trans-
lation of Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides by William of Moerbeke (cf. Allen [1989]
14n4), and consistently in the passages in Book VI of that work dedicated to the discussion
of the henads, William translates the Greek “henas” with “unitas” and at 1043 employs
“unitissimis” for “henikotatois”, used above also by Ficino in his epitome. In his translation
of Proclus’ Elements of heology William again translates “henas” with “unitas” in the rele-
vant propositions. In his own Platonic heology, especially in Book II, Ficino will apply
“unitas” as a chief attribute to his highest, single God, taking great pains as a Christian to
render that singularity most strictly, but it appears that here in his interpretation of De
Mysteriis he is expressing, already in the 15th century, what might be claimed as a henadic
view of the gods in Iamblichus.
 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74 73

Bibliography
Oracles Chaldaïques, edited and translated by Édouard des Places, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996.
Alcinous. he Handbook of Platonism, Translated with and Introduction and Commentary by
John Dillon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
——. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, ed. John Whittaker, Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1990.
Allen, Michael J.B. Icastes: Marsilio Ficino’s Interpretation of Plato’s Sophist, Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.
Bechtle, Gerald. “Göttliche Henaden und Platonischer Parmenides” in Iamblichus, Aspekte
seiner Philosophie und Wissenschaftskonzeption: Studien zum späteren Platonismus, Sankt
Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2006: 135-159.
Blumenthal, H.J. Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul, he Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.
Bussanich, John. “Philosophy, heology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus,”
in Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens, ed. T. Kobusch &
M. Erler, München: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2002: 39-61.
——. “New Editions of Iamblichus: A Review Essay,” Ancient Philosophy 25.2 (2005),
478-494.
Clarke, Emma. Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis: a Manifesto of the Miraculous, Aldershot: Ashgate,
2002.
Damascius. Traité des premiers principes vol. III, edited and translated by L.G. Westerink,
J. Combès, and A.-Ph. Segonds (Collection des Universités de France), Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1991.
Dillon, John. “Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of the Henads”, Phronesis 17
(1972), 102-106.
——. Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Edited with
translation and commentary by John M. Dillon, Leiden: Brill, 1973.
——. “Iamblichus of Chalcis” ANRW II.36.2 (1987), 862-909.
——. “Iamblichus and Henads Again” in he Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of
Gods, edited by H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark, London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993:
48-54.
——. “Iamblichus’ Defence of heurgy: Some Reflections”, he International Journal of
the Platonic Tradition 1 (2007), 30-41.
——. “What Price the Father of the Noetic Triad? Some houghts on Porphyry’s Doctrine
of the First Principle” in Studies in Porphyry ed. G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard, Lon-
don: Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies Supplement, 2007: 51-59.
Edwards, Mark. Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus, London: Duckworth, 2006.
Festugière, A.J. La revelation d’Hermès Trismégiste vol. IV, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990.
Finamore, John F. “Iamblichus on Light and the Transparent” in he Divine Iamblichus:
Philosopher and Man of Gods, edited by H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark, London:
Bristol Classical Press, 1993: 55-64.
Gerson, Lloyd P. “From Plato’s Good to Platonic God”, he International Journal of the
Platonic Tradition 2 (2008), 93-112.
74 D. Clark / he International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 4 (2010) 54-74

Hadot, Pierre. “Fragments d’un commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parménide”, Revue des
études grecques 74 (1961), 410-438.
Iamblichus. On the Mysteries, translated by Emma C. Clarke, John Dillon, and Jackson
P. Hershbell, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
——. Les mystères d’Égypte [par] Jamblique, edited and translated by Édouard des Places,
Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966.
——. Giamblico. I misteri egiziani, translated by A.R. Sodano, Milan: Rusconi, 1984.
Julian. he Works of the Emperor Julian; Orations and Letters, translated by W.C. Wright,
vol. I Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Lewy, Hans. Chaldaean Oracles and heurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the later
Roman Empire, new edition by M. Tardieu, Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1978.
Majercik, Ruth. he Chaldaean Oracles Text, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden: Brill,
1989.
Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité, SC 68-69, edited by Paul Henry, intro-
duction, translation and notes by Pierre Hadot, Paris: Cerf, 1960.
O’Meara, Dominic J. Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2003.
——. Pythagoras Revived. Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1989.
Plotinus. Traité 9, edited and translated by Pierre Hadot, Paris: Cerf, 1994.
Proclus. Proclus’ Commentary on the Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and
John M. Dillon, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
——. he Elements of heology, edited and translated by E.R. Dodds, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1963.
——. héologie platonicienne vol. I, edited and translated by H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Wester-
ink (Collection des Universités de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968.
——. héologie platonicienne vol. III, edited and translated by H.D. Saffrey and L.G.
Westerink (Collection des Universités de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978.
Saffrey, H.D. “Abamon, pseudonyme de Jamblique”, in Philomathes. Studies and essays in
the Humanities in memory of Philip Merlan, edited by Robert B. Palmer and Robert
Hamerton-Kelly, he Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971, 227-239.
——. “Plan des livres I et II du ‘De mysteriis’ de Jamblique” in Recherches sur le Néopla-
tonisme après Plotin, Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1990: 109-126.
Sallustius. Concerning the Gods and the Universe, edited by Arthur Darby Nock, reprint
Chicago: Ares, 1996.
Shaw, Gregory. heurgy and the Soul he Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, University Park: Penn
State University Press, 1995.
Siorvanes, Lucas. Proclus Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science, New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1996.
Smith, Andrew. Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition, he Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
1974.
Steel, Carlos G. “Iamblichus and the heological Interpretation of the Parmenides”, Syllecta
Classica 8 (1997), 15-30.
Trouillard, Jean. L’Un et l’Âme selon Proclos, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972.