Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of Henads

Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of Henads 102 Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of Henads JOHN M. DILLON E. R. Dodds, in his great edition of Proclus' Elements of Theologyl, devotes some pages of his commentary (pp. 257-260) to a discussion of the origin of the doctrine of divine henads, and their identification with the traditional gods. He traces this doctrine to Syrianus. Later, in the Addenda and Coyyigenda (p. 346), he correctly retracts one point in his argument, observing that Syrianus cannot be referred to by Proclus at In Paym. 1066, 21 Cousin, as 'nvÈç Twv ipiv ai8oiwv, since he places the gods in the Second Hypothesis of the Paymenides, whereas the figure or figures referred to there place them in the First. At this point he gives up, merely noting that the doctrine of henads must be earlier than Syrianus. It seems to me that by a somewhat closer examination of the existing evidence we can come to a more definite conclusion than this, and in fact attribute the origin of the doctrine with virtual certainty to Iamblichus. Proclus, in Book VI of his Commentary on the Paymenides (1054, 34 ff. Cousin), sets out what can be identified with certainty, on http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Phronesis Brill

Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of Henads

Phronesis , Volume 17 (2): 102 – Jan 1, 1972

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/iamblichus-and-the-origin-of-the-doctrine-of-henads-2OD3Qnne86

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1972 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0031-8868
eISSN
1568-5284
DOI
10.1163/156852872X00123
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

102 Iamblichus and the Origin of the Doctrine of Henads JOHN M. DILLON E. R. Dodds, in his great edition of Proclus' Elements of Theologyl, devotes some pages of his commentary (pp. 257-260) to a discussion of the origin of the doctrine of divine henads, and their identification with the traditional gods. He traces this doctrine to Syrianus. Later, in the Addenda and Coyyigenda (p. 346), he correctly retracts one point in his argument, observing that Syrianus cannot be referred to by Proclus at In Paym. 1066, 21 Cousin, as 'nvÈç Twv ipiv ai8oiwv, since he places the gods in the Second Hypothesis of the Paymenides, whereas the figure or figures referred to there place them in the First. At this point he gives up, merely noting that the doctrine of henads must be earlier than Syrianus. It seems to me that by a somewhat closer examination of the existing evidence we can come to a more definite conclusion than this, and in fact attribute the origin of the doctrine with virtual certainty to Iamblichus. Proclus, in Book VI of his Commentary on the Paymenides (1054, 34 ff. Cousin), sets out what can be identified with certainty, on

Journal

PhronesisBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1972

There are no references for this article.