The Transcendent Cause: Iamblichus and the Philebus of Plato

G. Van Riel: Iamblichus and Philebus of Plato31 The Transcendent Cause: Iamblichus and the Philebus of Plato1 Gerd Van Riel I. The Philebus ofIamblichus Iamblichus' attitude towards the Philebus of Plato fits within die general framework of his exegesis of Plato, namely that each Platonic dialogue should be read starting from one principal theme or skopos, to which all the details of the text are related.2 In the case of the Philebus, we have two texts referring to Iamblichus' general interpretation of this dialogue. The accounts they give are not fully coextensive, and even seem to end up in a contradiction. Let us, dien, examine them closely. The first text is taken from the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to the Philosophy ofPlato (sixth century), and presents the order in which the works of Plato were to be read according to Iamblichus:3 "?s?at?? Se de? t?? F???ß?? fSC. tt??tte??], ette?d? ¿? a?t? pe?? t?? a?a??? d?a???eta?, ? tt??t?? ett??e??? est?? ?????? ?a? a?t?? de? tt??t?? ette?e??a ?a? te?e?ta??? e??a?. 1 I wish to thank Prof. CG. Steel for his support and his critical remarks on this paper, M. Dubois and G. Shaw for having corrected my English. To the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (Belgium), I owe my gratitude for the financial support. 2 Cf. K. Praechter, "Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus" in Genethliakon für C. Robert (Berlin 1910) 128-9; see also Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta, IM. Dillon, ed. and trans. (Leiden 1973) 56-7. 3 Prolégomènes à la Philosophie de Platon, L.G. Westerink, ed., J. Trouillard, trans. (Paris 1990) chapter 26, pages 26-29 (my translation). 32Syllecta Classica 8 (1997) Last of all [i.e. before commencing the reading of the Timaeus and the Parmenides] one has to treat of the Philebus, because here the discussion concerns the good which is beyond everything; therefore this dialogue should also be beyond all others and the last one. This text poses an interesting problem. One cannot disregard the reference which is made here to the sixth book of the Republic, the only place where Plato mentions the "Good which is beyond being" (509b9). In Iamblichus' opinion, the Philebus must be understood by connecting it with this passage. But, strangely enough, the Republic itself is absent from Iamblichus' canon4—at least as it is presented in the Prolegomena, which is intended as a directive for beginning Plato students. According to Iamblichus, so it seems, there was no need for a neophyte in Platonism to read the Republic. In return, it is from the Philebus that the teaching on the transcendent Good is to be drawn. The Philebus seems to have taken over the role played by the short allusion to the Good in the Republic. That this was the view of Iamblichus is confirmed up to a point by the doxography concerning the theme of the Philebus with which Damascius opens his Commentary on this dialogue:5 "?t? 6 okottos ?at? "??µ,ß????? ?a? Tous tte?? t?? S???a??? ?a? t?? ??????? tte?? t?? te????? a?t??? tt?s? ToXs ??s??, d ?st? tte?? t?? d?a tt??t?? d?????t?ß a?a???, ??? ?tt??d de ??t?ß* ?? ?a? d?tt?? t?? ?????µ,????, ???a t?? ?at ' a?t? ta ??t? Te????µ???? ?a? ef d stte?de? ta tt??ta ?a? ?? ?f???e?ta?· t? ?a? ?????µe??? ??ef??t??. The theme, according to Iamblichus and the school of Syrianus and Proclus, is the final Cause of the universe, that is, the Good that permeates everything; with this restriction, however, that it is not of course the transcendent Good, but the Good that is manifested in existing things themselves, to which all things aspire and which they actually attain, the transcendent Good being unattainable. This passage, too, bears witness to a high esteem for the Philebus on the part of Iamblichus, but it presents manifestly a different view on the scope of the dialogue. Here it is stated explicitly that the Philebus does not speak of the transcendent Good, whereas this was precisely the account given in the Prolegomena. Westerink (ad loc.) points out that "if...