Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
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
Phronesis – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1972
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.