mail: Bill Thayer	Help	Up	Home
previous: Chapter 45 This webpage reproduces a chapter of A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston, S. J. as reprinted by Image Books — Doubleday New York • London • Toronto • Sydney • Auckland 1993 The text, and illustrations except as noted, are in the public domain. next: Chapter 47

Part V: Post-Aristotelian Philosophy

 p476  Chapter XLVI
Other Neo‑Platonic Schools

I. The Syrian School

The chief figure of the Syrian School of Neo‑Platonism is Iamblichus (d. c. A.D. 330), a pupil of Porphyry. Iamblichus carried much further the Neo‑Platonic tendency to multiply the members of the hierarchy of beings, which he combined with an insistence on the importance of theurgy and occultism in general.

1. The tendency to multiply the members of the hierarchy of being was present in Neo-Platonism from the very beginning, as a consequence of the desire to emphasize the transcendence of the Supreme Godhead and remove God from all contact with the world of sense. But while Plotinus had restrained this tendency within reasonable bounds, Iamblichus gave it wings. Thus above the One of Plotinus he asserted yet another One, which exceeds all qualifications whatsoever and stands beyond the good.⁠1 This One, which transcends all predicates or indeed any statements on our part — except that of unity — is therefore superior to the One of Plotinus, which is identical with the Good. From the One proceeds the world of ideas or intelligible objects — ὁ κόσμος νοητός —- and from this again the world of intellectual beings — ὁ κόσμος νοερός⁠2 — consisting of Νοῦς, an intermediary hypostasis and the Demiurge, though Iamblichus seems not to have been content with this complication, but to have distinguished further the members of the κόσμος νοερός.⁠3 Below the κόσμος νοερός is the Super-terrestrial Soul, and from this Soul proceeds two others. As for the gods of the popular religion and the "heroes," these — together with a host of angels and demons — belong to the world, and Iamblichus tried to arrange them according to numbers. But while endeavouring to establish this fantastic scheme by means of the speculative reason, Iamblichus insisted on the immediate and innate character of our knowledge of the gods, which is given us together with our innate psychical impulse towards the Good.

2. The religious interest of Iamblichus is apparent in his  p477 ethical doctrine. Accepting Porphyry's distinction of the political, cathartic and paradigmatic virtues he then proceeds to introduce, between the two last, the theoretical virtues, by which the soul contemplates Nous as its object and views the procession of the others from the final Principle. By the paradigmatic virtues the soul identifies herself with Nous, the place of ideas and παραδείγμα of all things. Finally, above these four types of virtue stand the priestly virtues, in the exercise of which the soul is ecstatically united to the One. (These virtues are therefore also called ἑνιαῖαι). As we must look to divine revelation in order to ascertain the means of entering upon union with God, the priest is superior to the philosopher. Purification from the sensual, theurgy, miracles, divination, play an important part in the system of Iamblichus.

II. The School of Pergamon

The Pergamene School was founded by Aedesius, a pupil of Iamblichus, and is characterised mainly by its interest in theurgy and in the restoration of polytheism. Thus while Maximus, one of the Emperor Julian's tutors, gave particular attention to theurgy, Sallustius wrote a work On the gods and the world as propaganda for polytheism, while the rhetorician Libanius, another of Julian's tutors, wrote against Christianity, as did also Eunapius of Sardes. Julian (322‑363) was brought up as a Christian but became a pagan. In his short reign (361‑363) Julian showed himself to be a fanatical opponent of Christianity and adherent of polytheism, combining this with Neo‑Platonic doctrines, for which he relied largely on Iamblichus. He interpreted, for example, the worship of the sun according to the Neo‑Platonic philosophy, by making the sun the intermediary between the intelligible and the sensible realms.4

III. The Athenian School

In the Athenian School of Neo‑Platonism there flourished a lively interest in the writings of Aristotle, as well of course as in those of Plato, an interest that showed itself in the commentary on the De Anima composed by Plutarch of Athens, the son of Nestorius and Athenian Scholarch (d. A.D. 431/2) and in the commentaries on the Metaphysics by Syrianus (d. c. 430), the successor of Plutarch in the headship of the School at Athens.  p478 But Syrianus was no believer in the agreement of Plato and Aristotle: on the contrary not only did he account the study of the philosophy of Aristotle merely a preparation for the study of Plato, but — in his commentary on the Metaphysics — he defended the Platonic ideal theory against Aristotle's attacks, clearly recognising the difference between the two philosophers on this point. Yet that did not prevent him from trying to show the agreement between Plato, the Pythagoreans, the Orphics and the "Chaldaic" literature. He was succeeded by Domninus, a Syrian of Jewish origin, who wrote on mathematics.

Much more important, however, than any of these men is the celebrated Proclus (410‑485), who was born at Constantinople and was Athenian Scholarch for many years. He was a man of untiring diligence, and though much of his work has perished, we still possess his commentaries on the Timaeus, Republic, Parmenides, Alcibiades I and Cratylus, in addition to his works Στοιχείωσις Θεολογική, Εἰς τὴν Πλάτωνος Θεολογίαν and the De decem dubitationibus circa providentiam, the De providentia et fato et eo quod in nobis and the De malorum subsistentia — the last three works being preserved in the Latin translation of William of Moerbeke. Possessed of a wide knowledge concerning the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle and of his Neo‑Platonic predecessors, Proclus combined with this knowledge a great interest in and enthusiasm for all sorts of religious beliefs, superstitions and practices, even believing that he received revelations and was the reincarnation of the Neo‑Pythagorean Nicomachus. He had, therefore, an immense wealth of information and learning at his disposal, and he attempted to combine all these elements in one carefully articulated system, a task rendered all the easier by his dialectical ability. This has won for him the reputation of being the greatest Scholastic of Antiquity, in that he brought the dialectical ability and genius for subtle systematisation to bear on the doctrines that he had received from others.5

The main motif of Proclus' dialectical systematisation is that of triadic development. This principle was certainly used by Iamblichus, but Proclus employed it with considerable dialectical subtlety and made it the dominant principle in the procession of beings from the One, i.e. in the emanation of the orders of being from the highest Ἀρχή down to the most inferior stage. The  p479 effect, or being that proceeds, is partly similar to the cause or source of emanation and partly dissimilar. In so far as the being that proceeds is similar to its origin, it is regarded as being in some degree identical with its principle, for it is only in virtue of the self-communication of the latter that the procession takes place. On the other hand, since there is a procession, there must be something in the proceeding being that is not identical with, but different from, the principle. We have therefore, at once two moments of development, the first being that of remaining in the principle (μονή), in virtue of partial identity, the second being that of difference, in virtue of external procession (πρόοδος). In every being that proceeds, however, there is a natural tendency towards the Good, and, in virtue of the strictly hierarchical character of the development of beings, this natural tendency towards the Good means a turning-back towards the immediate source of emanation on the part of the being that emanates or proceeds. Proclus thus distinguishes three moments of development, (i) μονή or remaining in the principle; (ii) πρόοδος or proceeding out of the principle, and (iii) ἐπιστροφή or turning-back towards the principle. This triadic development, or development in three moments dominates the whole series of emanations.6

The original principle of the whole process of development is the primary one, τὸ αὐτὸ ἕν.⁠7 Beings must have a cause, and cause is not the same as effect. Yet we cannot admit a regressus ad infinitum. There must be, therefore, a First Cause, whence the multiplicity of beings proceed "as branches from a root," some being nearer to the First Cause, others more remote. Moreover, there can be only one such First Cause, for the existence of a multiplicity is always secondary to unity.⁠8 This must exist since we are logically compelled to refer all multiplicity back to unity, all effects to an ultimate Cause and all participated good to an Absolute Good; yet as a matter of fact the primary Principle transcends the predicates of Unity, Cause and Good, just as it transcends Being. It follows that we are really not entitled to predicate anything positively of the ultimate Principle: we can only say what it is not, realising that it stands above all discursive thought and positive predication, ineffable and incomprehensible.

From the primary One proceed the Units or ἑνάδες, which are nevertheless looked on as super-essential and incomprehensible  p480 gods, the source of providence, and of which goodness is to be predicated. From the Henads proceeds the sphere of Nous, which subdivides into the spheres of the νοητοί, the νοητοὶ καὶ νοηροί and the νοηροί (cf. Iamblichus), the spheres corresponding respectively to the concepts of Being, Life and Thought.⁠9 Not content with these divisions Proclus introduces further sub‑divisions in each of the three spheres of Nous, the first two being sub‑divided into three triads, the third into seven hebdomads, and so on.

Below the general sphere of Nous is the sphere of the Soul, which is the intermediary between the supersensible and the sensible worlds, mirroring the former as a copy (εἰκονικῶς) and serving as a pattern for the latter (παραδειγματικῶς). This sphere of soul is subdivided into three sub‑spheres, that of divine souls, that of "demonic" souls, and that of ψυχαί or human souls. Each sub‑sphere is again sub‑divided. The Greek gods appear in the sphere of divine souls, but the same name is found in different groups according to the different aspect or function of the god in question. For instance, Proclus seems to have posited a threefold Zeus. The sphere of demonic souls, which serves as a bridge between gods and men, is subdivided into angels, demons and heroes.

The world, a living creature, is formed and guided by the divine souls. It cannot be evil — nor can matter itself be evil — since we cannot refer evil to the divine. Rather is evil to be thought of as imperfection, which is inseparable from the lower strata of the hierarchy of being.10

In this process of emanation the productive cause, Proclus insists, remains itself unaltered. It brings into actuality the subordinate sphere of being, but it does so without movement or loss, preserving its own essence, "neither transmuted into its consequents nor suffering any diminution." The product, therefore, does not arise through the self-diremption of the producer, nor by its transformation. In this way Proclus tries, like Plotinus, to steer a middle course between creatio ex nihilo on the one hand and true monism or pantheism on the other hand, for, while the productive being is neither altered nor diminished through the production of the subordinate being, it nevertheless furnishes the subordinate being out of its own being.11

 p481  On the principle that like can only be attained by like, Proclus attributed to the human soul a faculty above thought, by which it can attain the One.⁠12 This is the unitary faculty, which attains the ultimate Principle in ecstasy. Like Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus and others, Proclus also attributed to the soul an ethereal body composed of light, which is midway between the material and the immaterial and is imperishable. It is with the eyes of this ethereal body that the soul can perceive theophanies. The soul ascends through the different grades of virtue (as in Iamblichus) to ecstatic union with the primary One. Proclus distinguishes three general stages in the soul's ascent, Eros, Truth and Faith. Truth leads the soul beyond love of the beauti­ful and fills it with knowledge of true reality, while Faith consists in the mystical silence before the Incomprehensible and Ineffable.

Proclus was succeeded in the headship of the School by Marinus, a native of Samaria. Marinus distinguished himself in mathematics and through his sober and restrained interpretation of Plato. For instance, in his commentary on the Parmenides he insisted that the One and so on denote ideas and not gods. However, that did not prevent him from following the contemporary fashion of attributing great importance to religious superstitions, and at the summit of the scale of virtues he placed the θεουργικαὶ ἀρεταί. Marinus was succeeded as Scholarch by Isidorus.

The last of the Athenian Scholarchs was Damascius (Sch. from c. A.D. 520), whom Marinus had instructed in mathematics. Having been forced to the conclusion that the human reason cannot understand the relation of the One to the proceeding beings, Damascius seems to have considered that human speculation cannot really attain the truth. All the words we employ in this connection, "cause" and "effect, "processions," etc., are but analogies and do not properly represent the actuality.⁠13 Since on the other hand he was not prepared to abandon speculation, he gave full rein to theosophy, "Mysticism" and superstition.

A well-known disciple of Damascius is Simplicius, who wrote valuable commentaries on the Categories, Physics, De Caelo and De Anima of Aristotle. That on the Physics is particularly valuable because of the fragments of the pre‑Socratics therein contained.

In the year 529 the Emperor Justinian forbade the teaching of  p482 philosophy at Athens, and Damascius, together with Simplicius and five other members of the Neo‑Platonic School, went to Persia, where they were received by king Chosroes. In 533, however, they returned to Athens, apparently disappointed with the cultural state of Persia. It does not appear that there were any more pagan Neo‑Platonists surviving shortly after the middle of the century.

IV. The Alexandrian School

1. The Alexandrian School of Neo‑Platonism was a centre for investigation in the department of the special sciences and for the labour of commenting on the works of Plato and Aristotle. Then Hypatia (best known for her murder in A.D. 415 by a fanatical mob of Christians) wrote on mathematics and astronomy and is said to have lectured on Plato and Aristotle, while Asclepiodotus of Alexandria (second half of A.D. fifth century), who later resided at Aphrodisias in Caria, studied science and medicine, mathematics and music. Ammonius, Ioannes Philoponus, Olympiodorus and others commented on works of Plato and Aristotle. In the commentaries of the School special attention was paid to the logical works of Aristotle, and in general it may be said of these commentaries that they show moderation and a desire on the part of their authors to give the natural interpretation of the works on which they are commenting. Metaphysical and religious interests tend to retreat from the foreground, the multiplication of intermediary beings, so characteristic of Iamblichus and Proclus, being abandoned and little attention being paid to the doctrine of ecstasy. Even the pious and somewhat mystically inclined Asclepiodotus, who was a pupil of Proclus, avoided the latter's complicated and highly speculative metaphysic.

2. Characteristic of Alexandrian Neo‑Platonism is its relation to Christianity and the thinkers of the celebrated Catechetical School. The result of the abandonment of the speculative extravagancies of Iamblichus and Proclus was that the Neo‑Platonic School at Alexandria gradually lost its specifically pagan character and became rather a "neutral" philosophical institute: logic and science were obviously subjects on which Christians and pagans could meet on more or less common ground. It was this growing association of the School with Christianity which made possible the continuation of Hellenic thought at Constantinople. (Stephanus of Alexandria migrated to Constantinople and there  p483 expounded Plato and Aristotle in the university in the first half of the seventh century, during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, i.e. a century after Justinian had closed the School at Athens.) An instance of the close relation between Neo‑Platonists and Christians at Alexandria is the life of Hypatia's disciple, Synesius of Cyrene, who became bishop of Ptolemais in A.D. 411. Another striking instance is the conversion of Ioannes Philoponus to Christianity. As a convert he wrote a book against Proclus' conception of the eternity of the world and supported his own view by an appeal to Plato's Timaeus which he interpreted as teaching creation in time. Philoponus also held the view that Plato drew his wisdom from the Pentateuch. One may mention also Nemesius, bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, who was influenced by the Alexandrian School.

3. But if Neo‑Platonism exercised a profound influence on Christian thinkers at Alexandria, it is also true that Christian thinkers were not without influence on non‑Christian philosophers. This can be seen in the case of Hierocles of Alexandria, who lectured at Alexandria from about A.D. 420. Hierocles shows affinity with Middle Platonism rather than with his Neo-Platonist predecessors, for, neglecting the Plotinian hierarchy of beings which had been so exaggerated by Iamblichus and Proclus, he admits only one super-terrestrial being, the Demiurge. But what is particularly striking is that Hierocles asserts voluntary creation out of nothing by the Demiurge.⁠14 He rejects indeed creation in time, but that does not militate against the very great probability of Christian influence, especially as Fate or Αἰμαρμένη denotes for Hierocles, not mechanical determination, but the apportioning of certain effects to man's free actions. Thus petitionary prayer and providential Αἰμαρμένη are not mutually exclusive,⁠15 and the doctrine of Necessity or Fate is brought more into harmony with the Christian insistence on human freedom on the one hand and Divine Providence on the other.

V. Neo‑Platonists in the Latin West

One would scarcely be justified in speaking of a "School" of Neo‑Platonism in the Latin West. However, there is a characteristic common to those thinkers who are usually classed as "Neo‑Platonists of the Latin West" and that is, that the speculative side of Neo‑Platonism is no longer in evidence while the learned  p484 side is very much to the fore. By their translation of Greek works into Latin and by their commentaries on Platonic and Aristotelian writings, as well as on writings of Latin philosophers, they helped to spread the study of philosophy in the Roman world and at the same time constructed a bridge whereby Ancient Philosophy passed to the Middle Ages. Thus in the first half of the fourth century A.D. Chalcidius (who probably was or became a Christian) made a Latin translation of Plato's Timaeus and wrote a Latin commentary on it — apparently in dependence on Poseidonius' commentary (with the possible use of intermediate writings). This translation and its commentary were much used in the Middle Ages.⁠16 In the same century Marius Victorinus (who became a Christian when of advanced years) translated into Latin Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione, Porphyry's Isagoge and some Neo‑Platonist works. He also wrote commentaries on Cicero's Topics and De Inventione and composed original works De Definitionibus and De Syllogismis Hypotheticis. As a Christian he also composed some theological works, of which a great part are still extant. (St. Augustine was influenced by Marius Victorinus.) One may also mention Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (d. 384), who translated Themistius' paraphrase of Aristotle's Analytics, and Macrobius (he seems to have become a Christian in later years), who wrote the Saturnalia and also a commentary on Cicero's Somnium Scipionis about A.D. 400. In this commentary the Neo‑Platonist theories of emanation appear and it seems that Macrobius made use of Porphyry's commentary on the Timaeus, which itself made use of that of Poseidonius.⁠17 Fairly early in the fifth century Martianus Capella composed his (still extant) De Nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae, which was much read in the Middle Ages. (For instance, it was commented on by Remigius of Auxerre.) This work, which is a kind of Encyclopaedia, treats of each of the seven liberal arts, books three to nine being each devoted to one of the arts. This was of importance for the Middle Ages, which made the seven liberal arts the basis of education as the Trivium and Quadrivium.

 p485  More important, however, than any of the afore-mentioned writers is the Christian Boethius (c. A.D. 480–524/5), who studied at Athens, held high office under Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, and was finally executed on a charge of treason after a term of imprisonment, during which he composed the famous De Consolatione Philosophiae. As it is more convenient to treat of the philosophy of Boethius by way of introduction to Mediaeval Philosophy,⁠a I shall content myself here with mentioning some of his works.

Although it was the aim of Boethius to translate into Latin, and to furnish with commentaries, all the works of Aristotle (De Interpret. I.2), he did not succeed in carrying his project to completion. He did, however, translate into Latin the Categories, the De Interpretatione, the Topics, both Analytics and the Sophistical Arguments. It may be that Boethius translated other works of Aristotle beside the Organon, in accordance with his original plan; but this is uncertain. He translated Porphyry's Isagoge, and the dispute concerning universals which so agitated the early Middle Ages took its point de départ in remarks of Porphyry and Boethius.

Besides furnishing the Isagoge (in the translation of Marius Victorinus) with a double commentary, Boethius also commented on the Categories, the De Interpretatione, the Topics, the Analytics and the Sophistical Arguments (probably) and on Cicero's Topics. In addition to these commentaries he composed original treatises, the Introductio ad categoricos syllogismos, De categoricis syllogismis, De hypotheticis syllogismis, De divisione, De topicis differentiis, De Consolatione Philosophiae, De Institutione arithmetica, etc. In the last period of his life several theological opuscula came from his pen.

On account of this extensive labour expended on translation and commenting, Boethius may be called the principal mediator between Antiquity and the Middle Ages, "the last Roman and the first Scholastic," as he has been called. "Down to the end of the twelfth century he was the principal channel by which Aristotelianism was transmitted to the West."18

---

The Author's Notes:

1 ἡ πάντῃ ἄρρητος ἀρχή Damasc., Dubit., 43.

❦

2 Procl., in Tim., 1038, 21d.

❦

3 Procl., in Tim., 1038, 21 ff. d.   Damasc., Dubit., 54.

❦

4 Julian, Or., 4.

❦

5 In his commentary on Euclid I Proclus gives much valuable information concerning Platonic, Aristotelian, Neo‑Platonic and other positions in mathematical philosophy (ed. Friedlein, Leipzig, 1873).

❦

6 Instit. Theol., 30 ff.; Theol. Plat., 2, 4; 3, 14; 4, 1.

❦

7 Instit. Theol., 4, 6; Theol. Plat., 2, 4.

❦

8 Instit. Theol., 11.

❦

9 Theol. Plat., 3, 14; 4, 1.

❦

10 Theol. Plat., 1, 17; in Remp., I.37.27 ff.

❦

11 Instit. Theol., 27.

❦

12 In Alcib., III; de Prov., 14.

❦

13 Dubit., 38, I 79, 20 ff.; 41, I 83, 26 ff; 42 I 85, 8 ff.; 107 I 278, 24 f.

❦

14 Phot., 460b23 ff.; 461b6 ff.

❦

15 Phot., 465a10 ff.

❦

16 As this work contains extracts from other dialogues of Plato, as well as extracts and texts and opinions from other Greek philosophers, it came about that up to the twelfth century A.D. Chalcidius was regarded as one of the chief sources for a knowledge of Greek philosophy.

❦

17 As Macrobius introduces into his Commentary ideas on number-symbolism, emanation, the Plotinian gradation of virtues, and even polytheism, the work is "really a syncretic product of Neo‑Platonic paganism." (Maurice De Wulf, Hist. Med. Phil., I, p79. Trans. E. Messenger, Ph.D, Longmans, 3rd Eng. edit., 1935.)

❦

18 M. De Wulf, Hist. Med. Phil., I, p109.

---

Thayer's Note:

a Vol. II, pp101‑105.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		A History of Philosophy	LacusCurtius	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.

Accessibility