Iamblichus as a Commentator

HJ. Blumenthal: Iamblichus as a Commentator Iamblichus as a Commentator Henry J. Blumenthal Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a s??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large books appeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring, of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus' commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 and B. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Exégète et Philosophe, of which some 240 pages are devoted to his role as exégète: a collection of exegetical fragments appeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of both Plato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to deal with Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it is remarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as a commentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect of Iamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria. Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activities as a commentator on philosophical works—and so I shall say notiring about die twenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*—and also to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositions compare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced lamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Diálogos Commentariorum Fragmenta, JM. Dillon, ed. and trans. (Leiden 1973). 2 In a second volume (Aarhus 1972). 3 Damascius, De Principiis, vol. 1, 86 5-6 = vol. 2, 1.7-8, refers to his views in the twentyeighth book. On this work and the evidence for it see further L.G. Westerink's Note Complémentaire 3 on pages 215-6 of his and Combes' edition, vol. 2 (Paris 1987). 2 Syllecta Classica 8 (1997) back in part to Porphyry,4 I drink it is safe to say tiiat Iamblichus was the first Neoplatonist, at least ofthose about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set out in a systematic way to write commentaries on the major works ofboth Plato and—in Iamblichus' case to a lesser extent—Aristotle too. The fact that he did both is noteworthy, since most ofhis successors seem tó have speciahsed, more or less, in one or the other, in their published works if not in their lecture courses. We are, as ever in this area, faced with difficulties about deciding who wrote what, which often amounts to making difficult decisions about the implications of the usual imprecise references that are commonplace in ancient commentary. The best we have are those which Simplicius in his Physics commentary gives to specific books or even chapters of Iamblichus' Timaeus and Categories commentaries (cf. In Aristotelis Physica Commentaria 639.23-24; in the second chapter of book 5 of the commentary on the Timaeus 786.1 1-12; in the first book of the commentary on the Categories)? But that Iambhchus did write commentaries on both Plato and Aristotle can be regarded as firmly established. It is tempting to think, though there is no text which allows us to demonstrate this, that his doing so was connected with the fact that it seems to have been he who set up the thereafter traditional course in which certain works ofAristotle were read as propaedeutic to a selection of twelve—or rather ten plus two—Platonic dialogues which culminated in the study ofthe Timaeus and Parmenides. Let us start by setting out what can be known witii some degree of certainty. As regards commentary on Aristotle, that is not much. We can be quite sure that Iamblichus wrote a commentary on the Categories because Simplicius tells us so, and refers to it frequently: he mentions Iamblichus by name some 170 times, and clearly uses him without attribution elsewhere.6 How far Iamblichus' commentary was original and how far it depended on...