Life of Hierocles (Print)

PART I
The Life and Philosophy

of Hierocles
1
The Life of Hierocles
a. dates
For the life of Hierocles we have only two chronological points of
reference. Both derive from his treatise On Providence, which has
been preserved in short summaries and extracts by Photius, the
ninth-century Byzantine scholar and Patriarch of Constantinople,
in his monumental compendium of learning, the Bibliotheca.
According to Photius, Hierocles dedicated On Providence to the
historian Olympiodorus of Thebes (in Egypt), whose work is in
turn dedicated to the Emperor Theodosius II and covers the years
ad 407 to 425.
1
In 412 Olympiodorus led a successful embassy to
the Huns, and he generally enjoyed such renown among the
barbarians that around 418 he was invited to visit the Blemmyes
(a nomadic Egyptian tribe).
2
These events appear to be incorp-
orated in the praise given him by Hierocles: `He brought many
great barbarian nations into the sphere of Roman inuence, which
caused him to earn the greatest honours among them.'
3
The On
Providence should therefore be dated to some time after 418.
4
The second date comes from the seventh and last book of On
Providence, in which Hierocles covers the school (h2 diatribh3) of
Ammonius:
Plotinus and Origen, and also Porphyry and Iamblichus and their
followers, as many as were born (as Hierocles himself says) of the sacred
1
A summary of Olympiodorus' lost work is given by Phot. Bibl. cod. 80 pp. 16687. On
Olympiodorus see Blockley (1981), 2747.
2
Cod. 80. 58b 3559a 2 p. 173 =fr. 19 Blockley; 62a 922 p. 182 =fr. 35. 2 Blockley. The
Blemmyes wished to meet Olympiodorus expressly `because of his reputation' (th9w e1ntyxi3aw
ay1 toy9). The date of this visit is disputed. Haedicke (1939), 201, makes it as late as 423 (so also
Henry ad cod. 80. 62a 910 p. 182 n. 2), but I have followed Blockley (1983), 164 n. 21, who
places it in the period from 415 to 418.
3
Cod. 214. 1, 171b 269 p. 125; cf. Blockley (1981), 27, Chuvin (1990), 945. The indirect
discourse shows that these words belonged to Hierocles, not to Photius.
4
Elter (1910), 177, and Aujoulat (1976), 20, settle for 415, though neither take into account
Olympiodorus' visit to the Blemmyes.
race, up to Plutarch of Athens, whom Hierocles describes as his own guide
in such doctrines; all these thinkers agree with the philosophy of Plato in
its puried form. (Cod. 214. 8, 173a 3440 pp. 12930)
Here we learn that Hierocles was a student of Plutarch of Athens.
Plutarch died an old man in 431/2. As we do not know how many
years Hierocles survived his teacher, it seems the safest course to
locate the main activities of Hierocles' lifehis studies, his teach-
ing, his writingin the rst half of the fth century ad, corres-
ponding to the reign of Theodosius II (40850).
5
How far he lived
on into the second half of the century is a matter of speculation.
6
b. phi losophi cal heri tage and studi es
at athens
The above summary of Book VII of On Providence also gives us the
philosophical lineagea wholly Platonic oneof which Hierocles
saw himself a descendant. It is therefore appropriate, as part of an
attempt to portray the philosophical heritage of Hierocles, that we
allow his predecessors to pass in review before we reach the
culminating point with his studies under Plutarch of Athens.
Ammonius (sometimes surnamed `Saccas') is an enigmatic gure
in the history of philosophy.
7
He lived from about ad 175 to 243.
Porphyry tells the story that when Plotinus, at the age of 28, rst
heard Ammonius lecturing, he said: `This is the man I was seeking.'
Plotinus thereupon spent the next eleven years with Ammonius in
Alexandria (from c.231/2 to 242),
8
but he never refers to him in his
writings, and little is known of Ammonius' teaching. It is fairly
certain, however, that Ammonius engaged in an exegesis of Plato's
Parmenides that was taken up by Plotinus.
9
In the eyes of Hierocles
Ammonius was a key gure in the history of Platonism for having
The Life and Philosophy of Hierocles 4
5
Cf. Zeller (1923), 812 n. 3, who places Hierocles' period of teaching between 415 and 450.
6
In both Damascius' Vit. Isid. (ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 54, 338b 28339a 7 p. 18 =p. 80
Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi) ) and Aeneas of Gaza's Theophr. (p. 2, 910, 1920 Colonna)
Hierocles is spoken of as one who has already passed away. But this does not give us a denite
teminus ante quem for Hierocles' death, since neither work can be dated with precision. The
Vita Isidori was written somewhere between 497 and 526; the Theophrastus falls anywhere
between 484 and 534, though, as Hadot (1978), 2034, points out, the setting of the dialogue
points rather towards the end of that period.
7
The surviving testimonia are collected and discussed by Schwyzer (1983); on Ammonius
see also Baltes (1985), Schroeder (1987), Goulet (1989b), 1658.
8
Vit. Plot. 3, 1021. Thereto Schwyzer, ap. Dodds (1960), 55: `Wer einen Plotin in diesem
Alter so lange zu fesseln wusste, muss eine Personlichkeit von einem erstaunlichen Charisma
gewesen sein.'
9
See Sarey (1987), 32, Schwyzer (1987), 478. Cf. Ch. 2, n. 39.
demonstrated the unity of thought between Plato and Aristotle. As
this bit of information derives from Hierocles' On Providence, we
will return to Ammonius in our examination of Hierocles' writings.
The `most illustrious' (e1pifane3statoi) pupils of Ammonius, as
Hierocles calls them in Book VI of On Providence (cod. 214. 8, 173a
201 p. 129), were Plotinus and Origen. Of Origen there only
survive references and testimonies found in other authors.
10
His
doctrine on intellect as the supreme metaphysical principle is
thought by some to have inuenced Hierocles and will therefore
be discussed in the chapter on Hierocles' philosophy. Origen's
colleague, Plotinus, after his studies with Ammonius (followed by
an expedition with the Emperor Gordian III against the Persians),
returned to Rome in 243/4 and became the founder of a school of
philosophy referred to in modern times as Neoplatonism.
11
Plotinus died in 270. The propagation of his fame and phil-
osophy was secured by his close disciple Porphyry (c.234305),
who some thirty years after Plotinus' death edited and published
the master's works (known as the Enneads after Porphyry's
arrangement of them in six books of nine treatises). Porphyry
wrote several important works of his own, among which we should
mention not only the biography of Plotinus that prefaces the
Enneads, but also a short Life of Pythagoras and a treatise in
defence of vegetarianism, On Abstinence.
12
These compositions
evince Porphyry's enthusiasm for Pythagoreanism and the moral-
ascetical dimensions of Platonic thoughtthemes that received less
attention from Plotinus but were of increasing signicance to later
Neoplatonists, including Hierocles. Porphyry's pupil Iamblichus
(c.240325) also turned to Pythagorean topics, writing a lengthy
disquisition On Pythagoreanism. After his studies with Porphyry
Iamblichus set up his own school in Syria.
13
In his writings
Iamblichus took Neoplatonism in new directions, particularly in
his pronounced `Pythagoreanizing' of Platonic philosophy and in
emphasizing the practice of sacred rites (theurgy) as a necessary
ingredient in the philosophical life (on this topic he did not refrain
The Life of Hierocles 5
10
For a reconstruction of Origen's philosophy see Weber (1962). This Origen is
considered by most scholars of Neoplatonism to be a dierent person from the famous
Christian apologist of the same name; see Schroeder (1987) with a summary of the
scholarship. Patristic scholars generally argue, not convincingly in my view, for the case of
a single Origen; cf. Beatrice (1992).
11
On Plotinus' school and his professorship in Rome see Goulet-Caze (1982), 23176. For
an accessible introduction to Plotinus' thought see O'Meara (1993a).
12
On Porphyry see Smith (1987).
13
On Iamblichus' choice of Apamea see Fowden (1982), 401; cf. Dillon (1987a), 86970.
According to Larsen (1972), 3942, Iamblichus lived, studied, and taught for a considerable
time in Alexandria.
from some harsh polemics against his former teacher as well as
against Plotinus).
14
The inuence of Iamblichus made itself felt in Athens. The
traditional home of philosophy, the city that housed Plato's Acad-
emy and Aristotle's Lyceum and in the Hellenistic age became the
focal point for Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, Athens had,
however, suered a stark decline since its conquest by Sulla in
87/86 bc. The last notable philosopher that we hear of in the rst
century bc is Antiochus (Cicero attended his lectures); from then
until the fourth century of the Christian era Athens was a shrine
which one visited to remember the ghosts of philosophers past.
15
New life came with Plutarch.
16
It was probably through followers of
Iamblichus that Plutarch was led to embrace Neoplatonism.
17
As
head of a Platonic school in Athens, he enjoyed a position that
allowed him to disseminate Neoplatonic teaching with authority.
18
His writings, largely interpretations of Plato and Aristotle, do not
survive, but we know from references in the works of his students
that his philosophy was in many respects Iamblichean.
19
Plutarch is
thus an important link between Iamblichus and Hierocles.
Although Hierocles could have had independent recourse to the
works of Iamblichus, it is undoubtedly during the time that he
spent with Plutarch that the signicance of Iamblichus' philosophy
in all its manifestations (e.g. Pythagoreanism, theurgy) was
impressed upon him. We do not know when and for how long
Hierocles studied with Plutarch, but the fact that he pays express
homage to him as his `guide' (kauhghth3w) in Platonic doctrines
indicates that the inuence of Plutarch on Hierocles' philosophical
formation was considerable. The role of the kauhghth3w (similarly
kauhgemv3 n or h2 gemv3 n) in the ancient philosophical schools extended
far beyond the teacher/student relationship such as we are used to in
14
Iamblichus' Pythagorean programme and the concomitant mathematization of phil-
osophy are excellently treated by O'Meara (1989). On Iamblichus and theurgy see Ch. 2,
n. 236.
15
Cf. Cic. De n. 5. 12 (= DorrieBaltes I, Baustein 43.1a); Habicht (1995), 3278.
Though Habicht, 328, stresses that the lectures of Academics, Epicureans, and Stoics
apparently continued to take their regular course in the 1st cent. bc, it is incontrovertible
that the philosophical heyday of Athens lay in the past.
16
This is not to say there was no philosophical life in Athens before Plutarch (cf. n. 15
above), but it was of minor importance in comparison with the renewal that Plutarch achieved
by taking up Neoplatonism; cf. Fowden (1982), 434. For a short philosophical history of
Athens from the late 2nd to the beginning of the 5th cent. see SareyWesterink (1968),
xxxvxlviii.
17
SareyWesterink (1968), xlvii.
18
Cf. Glucker (1978), 1534. Plutarch's personal wealth may have also been a factor; see
Blumenthal (1978), 3735.
19
Cf. O'Meara (1989), 11011.
our times and came much closer to the function of what we would
call a `spiritual director' or `guru'; for as philosophy was a way of
life, so it was the teacher's task `to show the way' (kauhgei9suai) by
initiating his or her student not only in theoretical philosophy but
also in the spiritual practices and religious rites that were part and
parcel of the philosophical life.
20
Another disciple of Plutarch was
Syrianus. He is not mentioned by Hierocles in his list of philo-
sophical succession, probably because he was Hierocles' fellow-
student. Plutarch appointed Syrianus as his successor, and Syrianus
in turn became the mentor of Proclus.
Before we return with Hierocles from Athens to Alexandria, it is
necessary to say a few words about Proclus. Born in Constantinople
c.411/12, Proclus was about 19 years old when he came to Athens
around 430/431 to hear Plutarch. The scholarch was now an old
man, shortly to die. The most he could still do for the young
Proclus, after giving him a few lessons in Aristotle and Plato, was to
entrust him to the care of Syrianus.
21
It is not likely that Proclus
met Hierocles in Athens, since the latter must have left the city
many years before.
22
Yet even if we cannot arrange a historical
meeting, it is important to stress that Proclus shared the same
philosophical heritage. Indeed, the Platonic succession of phil-
osophers from Plotinus to Syrianus that Proclus establishes at the
beginning of his work on Platonic theology reads very similarly to
that of Hierocles, especially in its religious tone;
23
inter alia, where
Hierocles speaks of the `sacred race' (i2era4 genea3), Proclus speaks of
20
Cf. Hadot (1989), 4445; Fowden (1982), 39; P. Hadot (1989b), 13 (Rist (1965), 219,
misses this point when he says that Hierocles' reference to Plutarch `need only mean that
Hierocles accepted Plutarch as one of his eminent predecessors'). That Hierocles in turn
initiated his students in the accompanying rituals of philosophy is indicated by a character in
Aeneas' Theophr. (see n. 41 below), who asks if there are still in Alexandria `those who reveal
the rites (teletai3) of philosophy, such as Hierocles the professor used to be?'
21
SareyWesterink (1968), xiii; Siorvanes (1996), 5.
22
It is possible, as Aujoulat (1986), 2, speculates, that they met earlier in Alexandria when
Proclus went there to gain a footing in Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics before going
on to higher studies in Athens (cf. SareyWesterink (1968), xii). But if there ever was such
an encounter, it seems to have left no impact on Proclus, and we have no indication of it from
his many known works in which Hierocles is never mentioned. The points of contact between
Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus and Hierocles' Commentary on the Golden Verses, which
for Mullach (1853) constituted proof that Proclus was in some sense complementing the work
of Hierocles, seem to rest rather on a common foundation of Pythagorean and Platonic
teaching; see Aujoulat (1976), 228.
23
Theol. Plat. I 1 pp. 6, 167, 8 SareyWesterink; on the mystery language used here by
Proclus see Dillon (1982), 735. For a comparison of this passage with the Platonic diadoxh3
(succession) given by Hierocles see Fowden (1982), 334, who uses both texts as the starting-
point for his discussion of the philosopher qua holy man and of Neoplatonic piety in late
antiquity. Cf. also Glucker (1978), 31113, 320.
the `divine chorus' (uei9ow xoro3w),
24
and where Hierocles singles out
Plutarch as his spiritual guide (kauhghth3w), Proclus singles out
Syrianus as his (h2 gemv3 n). Philosophy as a sacred vocation had
been assumed by Plotinus and Porphyry, but the impetus `towards
a more explicit hieraticism'
25
came from Iamblichus, who took his
example from Pythagorean writings and the Chaldean Oracles.
Iamblichus' understanding of philosophy as a sacrosanct task and
of its practitioners as holy men of god was handed on to Hierocles
by Plutarch, and to Proclus by Syrianus. Having studied with
Syrianus, Proclus went on to a productive career, writing numerous
commentaries on Plato and elaborate syntheses of Platonic thought.
His distinction as the great systematizer of (Neo-) Platonic doctrine
and his voluminous output are the reasons why he has eclipsed
Hierocles in the subsequent history of Neoplatonism. Hierocles,
less prolic, less inclined to complex metaphysical schematizations,
naturally suers in comparison with his younger contemporary, but
he was none the less a clear thinker and not devoid of originality. As
an able professor of philosophy he enjoyed, as we shall see next,
considerable popularity in his native city, where he attracted a
number of disciples.
c. teachi ng i n alexandri a
When Hierocles came back to Alexandria he was returning to a city
whose intellectual history had run along very dierent lines from
those of Athens.
26
In Athens philosophy had more or less lain
dormant from the time of Antiochus (died 68/67 bc) until re-
awakened by Plutarch in the late fourth/early fth century, whereas
in Alexandria, from the rst century bc, when it had taken the place
of Athens as the philosophical centre of gravity, it had never slept.
27
Eudorus the Platonist (. 35 bc), Philo the prominent Jewish
24
Hierocles also refers to the true philosophers before Ammonius as a `great chorus' (poly4 w
xoro3w); see cod. 214. 2, 172a 23 p. 126 and n. 7.
25
Fowden (1982), 37.
26
For an engaging essay on the philosophical movements in Alexandria from the 1st cent.
bc until the period of Hierocles' activity see Kremer (1981). In view of the importance that
Kremer assigns to the school of Ammonius, he sees Alexandria as `the cradle of Neoplatonic
philosophy'. See also Blumenthal (1993a) on the later philosophical developments at
Alexandria.
27
Even before the 1st cent. bc Alexandria was a city ourishing with intellectual activity.
Thanks to the founding of the famous Museum and Library by Ptolemy I (367/6283/2 bc),
Alexandria became the chief centre of learning in the ancient world, producing a series of
distinguished scholar-poets, philologists, and scientists. The rst philosophers, though, did
not appear until the end of the pre-Christian era. Cf. Larsen (1972), 39.
theologian and Platonist (died c. ad 50), the Christian philosophers
Clement (c.150215) and Origen (c.185253) and their catechetical
schools, and above all Ammonius and his students, who included
not only Origen the Platonist (. c.250) but perhaps also the
Christian Origen just mentioned
28
these are only some of the
names we need to invoke as representatives of the strong Platonic
legacy in Alexandria during the centuries preceding Hierocles.
Eudorus and Philo, moreover, who both saw in Pythagoras a
forerunner of Plato, mixed their Platonism with Pythagorean
ingredients and may thus be seen as Alexandrian witnesses to the
general revival of an intellectual Pythagoreanism.
29
Let us also
recall that Alexandria in the second century was a hotbed of
Gnosticism, a syncretistic religious movement ercely combated
by Christian and pagan philosophers alike, and that by ad 300 the
inuence of Manichaeism too had made itself felt in upper Egypt.
30
Within these ongoing currents and cross-currents of pagan, Jewish,
and Christian philosophizing and polemical disputing, which only
saw a temporary cessation under Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla),
31
what place did Hierocles come to occupy?
As even this brief survey has shown, the Alexandrian
28
Porph. ap. Eus. Hist. eccles. VI 19, 6 p. 114 Bardy, refers to Origen the Christian as a
`hearer' (a1 kroath3w) of Ammonius, implying at the least that Origen once attended Ammonius'
lectures. According to Schwyzer (1983), 37, this experience had not the slightest consequence
on Origen's teachings and later writings, but I would rather suppose with Waszink (1965),
160, that Origen's early discipleship with Ammonius, even if he was only a `casual pupil'
(Schroeder (1987), 508), at least contributed to making Platonic conceptions a matter of
course in his thinking. Cf. Kremer (1981), 43, Dillon (1988), 216 n. 1.
29
Eudorus, as the rst Alexandrian Platonist, deserves additional comment (see the still
valuable article by Dorrie (1944) ). His appearance must be seen in the light of Antiochus'
break with academic scepticism. As Dillon suggests (1977), 612, 115, it was probably one of
Antiochus' pupils active in Alexandria, like Dion, who transmitted Antiochus' teaching to
Eudorus. While Eudorus' philosophy took a dierent turn from the dogmatic, stoicizing
Platonism advanced by Antiochus, it none the less owed much to Antiochus' call `to follow
the ancients' and the consequent renewal of interest in the original works of Plato, particularly
the Timaeus, which now came to be seen as virtually a Pythagorean tractate. (Thus Hierocles
will later, citing Plato's dialogue, refer to the character Timaeus as `that keen teacher of
Pythagorean doctrines', Proem 2 (6, 2).) Signicantly, Eudorus stands out as one of our
earliest commentators on the Timaeus. His Pythagoreanism is well illustrated by a fragment in
which Socrates and Plato are said to agree with Pythagoras that the goal of life is likeness to
god (see ch. 2, n. 280). The idea, shared by many later Platonists, that Pythagoras was a
forerunner of Plato is not to be dismissed out of hand, especially when we consider that
Plato's indebtedness to Pythagorean and Orphic writings (cf. Procl. Theol. Plat. I 5 p. 26, 24
SareyWesterink) has a core of truth; see Kingsley (1995), ch. IV, esp. 1303; cf. below,
Ch. 2, n. 281. As for the theme of `likeness to god', it resurfaces frequently in the ethical
thought of Middle and Neoplatonists and takes a prominent place in Hierocles' philosophy.
30
Kremer (1981), 41, 44; Haas (1997), 150 and n. 30 (on Gnostics, Hermetics, and
Manichaeans). See in particular the Platonist refutation of Manichaeism by Alexander of
Lycopolis, trans. by van der Horst and Mansfeld (1974).
31
On Caracalla, `the common enemy of mankind' (Gibbon), and his persecution of the
Alexandrians in 215, particularly the philosophers, see Kremer (1981), 40.
philosophical scene prior to Hierocles was by no means stagnant.
Yet for the period immediately before his appearance we know of
no truly outstanding Neoplatonic philosopher in Alexandria. To
be sure, there were individuals whose names are linked to the
philosophy of Plato in our sources, but nothing specic about their
philosophical teaching has come down to us. Thus we read in
Eunapius of one Antoninus who settled at the Canopic mouth of
the Nile, where many students and pilgrims, `desirous of phil-
osophy', ocked to him from nearby Alexandria; those who posed
him a logical problem were ìmmediately lled with an abundance
of Platonic wisdom'. Yet Eunapius tells us no more about
Antoninus' philosophy, preferring to linger over his religious
devotions, occult rites, and feats of clairvoyance.
32
Alexandria
itself could of course boast of Hypatia. But again, very little is
actually known of her philosophy.
33
Although she lectured on
Plato and Aristotle, her renown on the whole seems to have
depended more on her work in mathematics than in Neoplatonic
philosophy and ultimately on her famous martyrdom (in 415).
Hypatia's interests in mathematics, as those of her father Theon,
who was associated with the Museum and composed mathematical
and scientic treatises, accord with Alexandria's status as a
university town celebrated for mathematics, astronomy, and med-
icine. That Hypatia and Theon dedicated themselves to scientic
studies did not rule out a concomitant interest in occult subjects.
Theon wrote on divination.
34
Hypatia's student Synesius showed a
keen interest in the Chaldean Oracles, which he undoubtedly owed
to her.
35
The religious-theurgical activities of Antoninus too
attracted a great deal of attention.
36
All this indicates that Alex-
andria was not just known as a place to study Aristotle and the
exact sciences. Iamblichus' philosophy with its emphasis on
theurgy had surely found a footing in Alexandria and its environs
even before Hierocles. He shared in this Iamblichean tradition,
32
Antoninus appears passim in Eunap. Vit. soph. VI 10. 611. 12 Giangrande. He died
c.390/1, shortly before the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria (thereto see n. 107
below), an event he had supposedly predicted. In relating the religious and prophetic
practices of Antoninus, Eunapius means to stress that Antoninus was following in the
footsteps of his spiritually gifted mother, Sosipatra of Pergamum, on whom see Penella
(1990), 5862.
33
For discussions of Hypatia's teaching, writings, and her inuence upon the philosopher-
bishop Synesius see Bregman (1982), 205, Cameron and Long (1993), 4058, Dzielska
(1995), 4679.
34
Suda s.v. Ue3vn (II 702 Adler); Dzielska (1995), 74.
35
Cameron and Long (1993), 52; cf. Dzielska (1995), 625.
36
Even Hypatia in her youth may have studied with Antoninus; cf. Cameron and Long
(1993), 51. On Antoninus' theurgical practices cf. n. 139 below.
though, like Proclus, he probably received it in Athens. But if we
single out Hierocles and contrast him with Antoninus or Hypatia
and members of the Museum, it is because he pursued a more
strictly philosophical programme whose Neoplatonic content is
manifest. When the intellectual history of Alexandria is seen in
this light, it is perhaps not an exaggeration to claim that Hierocles
gave a renewed impetus to Neoplatonic studies in that city.
Hierocles' lectures, both for their style and content, created quite
an impression on their Alexandrian hearers. For this we have an
important testimony found in Damascius' Life of Isidorus:
Hierocles, who adorned the schools in Alexandria with his lofty spirit and
elevated speech, was exceptional in combining rmness and magnicence
with the breadth of his thought; he distinguished himself by his ne
tongue and facility with the most beautiful names and terms so that he
everywhere astounded his hearers, ever rivalling the elegant language and
copious thought of Plato.
37
From the continuation of Damascius' account we also get some
insight into Hierocles' curriculum:
Once he was expounding Plato's Gorgias to his retinue. One of his
auditors, Theosebius, wrote down the exposition. When, as is customary,
Hierocles arrived a second time at the Gorgias after a certain interval,
Theosebius wrote down the exposition again. Comparing the rst exposi-
tion with the second, he found no repetitions, as it were, but nevertheless
eachwhich is surprising to hearadhered as closely as possible to Plato's
purpose. Now this shows how great was this man's ocean of thoughts.
38
This anecdote not only gives us an inkling of Hierocles' originality
in his exegetical method (any modern university professor will allow
how dicult it is to come up with something new when lecturing
repeatedly on the same material), but it also reveals that Hierocles
taught suciently long in Alexandria to be able to repeat his course
of studies: for him to return a second time to the Gorgias may well
mean that in the interim he had covered a major portion, if not all,
of the Platonic corpus and possibly even some of the works of
37
Ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 54, 338b 2835 p. 18 =p. 80, 15 Zintzen (fr. 45A
Athanassiadi); cf. Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 47 Adler) =fr. 106 p. 81, 1215 Zintzen.
38
Cod. 242. 54, 338b 35339a 7 p. 18 =p. 80, 512 Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi). Plato's
Gorgias was an integral component of the Neoplatonic curriculum; see DorrieBaltes III
1956. According to Iambl. ap. Anon. Proleg. 26, 25 p. 49 Westerink (cf. xxxviixl), of the
Platonic corpus the Gorgias should be one of the rst dialogues read, since it is of a political
nature (v2 w politiko4 n o5nta), i.e. deals with the ethical/social virtues (cf. 22, 910 p. 41). To
Theosebius we owe this further remnant from Hierocles' lectures: `Hierocles once explaining
the words of Socrates likened them to cubes, for wherever they fall, they land faultlessly';
Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 911 Adler) =fr. 106 p. 83, 24 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi).
Aristotle, which were considered propaedeutic to the study of Plato
in the Neoplatonic schools.
39
Theosebius, it is worth while adding,
became a moral philosopher in his own right. In Damascius' Life of
Isidorus he is characterized as à man who more than anyone known
to us was accustomed to look into the souls of men' and is called `the
Epictetus of our times'.
40
Another indication of Hierocles' inuence as a teacher and lasting
reputation is furnished by Aeneas of Gaza in his Theophrastus. At
the beginning of this dialogue one of the characters, Euxitheus,
complains to his friend, Aegyptus, that on his sea voyage to Athens
he has been forced by contrary winds to put to port in Alexandria.
Aegyptus, a native of Alexandria, reminds Euxitheus that he has
landed among friends and asks him to remember the philosophy of
Hierocles with whom they both studied in their youth (p. 2, 910
Colonna). Euxitheus, in turn, questions Aegyptus whether there are
still among the Alexandrians `those who reveal the rites of phil-
osophy, such as Hierocles the professor (o2 dida3skalow) used to be'.
41
Aegyptus sadly has to respond that those beautiful times are past.
From these passages it has often been surmised that Aeneas himself
was a student of Hierocles, but this cannot be said with certainty.
42
The only certainty is that Aeneas knew of Hierocles and knew his
work On Providence.
43
Important for our evaluation of Hierocles'
reputation is to note the respectful tones of the references to him
and that he takes the stage as the primary representative of phil-
osophy in Alexandria.
44
Passages in Damascius corroborate the
39
Cf. Hadot (1978), 18. On Aristotle as a preliminary to Plato and on the Alcibiades,
Gorgias, and Phaedo as preparatory for the study of Plato's metaphysical dialogues see Lloyd
(1970), 315, cf. Goulet-Caze (1982), 2789.
40
Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 89 Adler) =fr. 106 p. 83, 12 Zintzen (fr. 45B
Athanassiadi); o2 toy9 kau h2 ma9w xro3noy Epi3kthtow, Suda s.v. Epi3kthtow (II 366, 45 Adler) =fr.
109 p. 87, 5 Zintzen (fr. 46D Athanassiadi). See also the short sketch of Theosebius in
Martindale (1980), 1110.
41
P. 2, 1920 Colonna. At p. 18, 14 Colonna Hierocles is likewise called o2 dida3skalow,
where this simple identication serves to distinguish him from another Hierocles, an
otherwise unknown writer of marvellous tales.
42
Hadot (1978), 203; cf. Segonds (1989), 83.
43
Hadot (1978), 20. For possible points of contact between Hierocles and Aeneas see
Wacht (1969), 367, 64 n. 7 (see also his index locorum s.v. `Hierocles'), but it is to be
doubted, contra Wacht, that Aeneas undertook a point-by-point refutation of Hierocles. As
Aujoulat (1987) has shown, the doctrinal dierences on metempsychosis, providence, and
creation are of a general nature, and, I would add, only those to be expected between a
Christian and a pagan author. It should be cautioned, moreover, that Wacht none the less sees
in Hierocles' theology an Ànnaherung des Platonismus an das Christentum'. But the thesis,
originally put forward by Praechter (1910 and 1912), followed by Kobusch (1976) and, more
guardedly, by Aujoulat (1986), that Alexandrian Neoplatonism, in contrast to Athenian
Neoplatonism, approximated Christianity has been eectively repudiated by Hadot (see
Ch. 2, n. 107).
44
That is, until the end of the 5th cent. when the school of Ammonius, the son of
impression that Hierocles assumed a prominent position in the
philosophical circles of his city. Thus for Damascius to summarize
a newer generation of philosophers it suces to speak of `Hierocles
and those like him', and in general we hear mention of his `hearers'
and `retinue'.
45
Hierocles then had no lack of students who were
devoted to him for his teaching and lecturing. Can this phenomenon
be explained simply by his gifts for language and elegant ex-
pression, or should we not also assume that he àdorned the schools
of Alexandria' by his thought, particularly as a renewer of Neo-
platonic philosophy?
d. wri ti ngs
It is no less reasonable to suppose that Hierocles made an impact on
the contemporary philosophical scene through his literary eorts as
well, even though he appears to have written only two works. These
are described in the Suda as follows:
It is possible to learn about Hierocles' grandness of thought from the
treatises he wrote on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans and from
another series of books On Providence. In these the author is revealed to be
lofty-minded in his way of life, but not accurate in his knowledge.
46
The mixed praise the Suda accords Hierocles is based upon a
judgement found in Damascius, whose validity we will examine in
due course. For now let us simply introduce Hierocles' writings, in
the order given in the Suda.
Hermeias, began to ourish in Alexandria. Hadot (1978), 204, suspects that it is Ammonius
who is hiding behind the gure of Theophrastus in Aeneas' dialogue.
45
tv9 n de4 nevte3rvn Ierokle3a te kai4 ei5 tiw o7moiow . . ., ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 242. 36, 337b 334
p. 15 =p. 62, 56 Zintzen; oi2 a1 krov3 menoi, oi2 e2tai9roi, cod. 242. 54, 338b 33 and 36 p. 18 =p. 80,
4 and 6 Zintzen (fr. 45A Athanassiadi); cf. oi2 plhsia3zontew, Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 18
Adler) =fr. 106 p. 83, 11 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi)
46
e5jesti de4 mauei9n th4 n Ierokle3oyw megalognv3 mona fro3nhsin a1 po4 tv9 n syggramma3tvn, v n
ge3grafen ei1w ta4 Xrysa9 e5ph tv9 n Pyuagorei3vn kai4 e2te3rvn bibli3vn peri4 pronoi3aw syxnv9 n: e1n oiw
fai3netai o2 a1 nh4 r th4 n me4 n zvh4 n y2chlo3frvn, th4 n de4 gnv9 sin oy1 k a1 kribh3w, Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616,
1822 Adler) =Dam. fr. 106 p. 83, 1215 Zintzen (fr. 45B Athanassiadi). Concerning e2te3rvn
bibli3vn peri4 pronoi3aw syxnv9 n, Aujoulat (1986), 12, rightly insists that the phrase is not to be
translated òther numerous books on providence', since syxnv9 n points to the continuity that
unites the seven books composing the single treatise On Providence. Whether or not
Hierocles wrote other works besides On Providence and the Commentary is simply not
known. (Aujoulat, ibid. 2, also refers to the extracts found in Stobaeus under the name of
Hierocles. This, however, is not our Hierocles but a Stoic philosopher of the 2nd cent. ad;
cf. Balleriaux (1988), 458.)
1. Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans
Many of the manuscripts that have transmitted to us Hierocles'
Commentary have also preserved the text of the Golden Verses of the
Pythagoreans (in 71 verses). It naturally suggests itself that we
should say a few words about this poem before we turn to Hierocles'
Commentary on the same. From Hellenistic times until late an-
tiquity and even into the Byzantine era the Golden Verses were
immensely popular.
47
The poem appears to have been known to
Chrysippus in the third century bc, and it is frequently referred to
or alluded to by subsequent authors.
48
Chrysippus' quotation from
the poem also furnishes us a conceivable terminus ante quem for its
composition.
49
The familiar title, Golden Verses, appears, however,
to be a comparatively late appellation; it occurs rst in the third
century ad with the sophist Alciphron and Iamblichus.
50
Even
thereafter references to the poem still contain à consciousness of
the descriptive value of the title'.
51
Hierocles accepts the title at least
as a byname (e1pvnymi3a). He refers to `the Pythagorean verses, the
so-called ``golden'' verses' (Proem 2 (5, 1213) ) and adds his own
justication of the title by making an analogy to the `golden age' of
mankind (Proem 5 (7, 114) ). No author is attested for the poem,
but its anonymity was probably intentional, in order that it might be
seen as the common property of the Pythagorean community.
52
47
For a detailed treatment and just appreciation of the Golden Verses see now the
introduction, text, translation, and commentary by Thom (1995).
48
For a collection of the testimonia see Thom (1995), 1314.
49
Chrysippus ap. Aul. Gell. VII 2. 12 (SVF II 1000 =62D LongSedley); for a
comparison of Chrysippus' interpretation of Golden Verses 578 with that of Hierocles see
pp. 14852 below. Concerning the date of the Golden Verses, Thom (1995), ch. 5, argues that
there are no cogent reasons why the poem could not have been known by Chrysippus (and
even, as Thom suggests, by Cleanthes before him); he therefore posits a date between c.350
and 300 bc. Baumgarten (1998), 154 n. 58, objects, on the grounds that Thom's arguments
apply only to particular verses and not the poem as a whole.
50
See Thom (1995), 15. Before the 3rd cent. ad the poem `must have circulated without a
denite title, and it was perhaps just vaguely referred to as ``Pythagorean verses'' . . . or
``Pythagorean precepts'' . . .' (Thom, ibid. 33).
51
Thom (1995), 34.
52
Thom (1995), 312. The attribution of the poem to Pythagoras himself in some of the
testimonia is plainly wrong, mainly for chronological reasons, but cannot be ruled out on the
basis of the tradition that Pythagoras left no writings (cf. Thom, ibid. 15 n. 6). This tradition
has recently been put into doubt by Riedweg (1997). Hierocles himself generally refers to `the
text' (o2 lo3gow) and only once to the anonymous `composer' (o2 syggrafey3w, XX 20 (89, 1617) ).
As to the relation between the Golden Verses and the Ionian hexameter poem known as the
Sacred Text (Iero4 w Lo3gow, possibly referred to by Hierocles in XX 5 (85, 212); see n. 9 ad
loc.), which was also attributed to Pythagoras, Delatte's attempts (1915) to reconstruct the
latter on the basis of the former, have been correctly criticized, most recently by Thom
(1995), 567, and Baumgarten (1998), 14859. My position here is that, while I do not rule
out altogether that isolated verses of the Golden Verses could have come from the Iero4 w Lo3gow,
I prefer to think that in many instances both poems drew on the same Pythagorean material,
which would naturally make for some overlapping.
This is also Hierocles' opinion: `You could in truth say they [the
Golden Verses] are the most beautiful token of human nobility and
the memorial of not just one of the Pythagoreans, but of the entire
sacred assembly, and, as they themselves would say, an apophthegm
common to all of the school' (XXVII 11 (122, 59) ). As for its
structure and contents, the poem can be divided into two parts: the
rst part (vv. 149a) sets out basic moral precepts and conditions,
the second part (49b-71) transmits more esoteric insights, of both
an intellectual and religious nature, culminating in the promise of
immortalization for the spiritually mature person.
53
While the poem
denitely arose out of a Pythagorean-Orphic tradition, it embodies
at the same time a universal ethical and religious wisdom that
appealed to a wide readership, and its relatively simple and practical
precepts would have added to its attractiveness as an introductory
guide to the spiritual life.
54
Among Neoplatonists before Hierocles it was Iamblichus who
gave special attention to the Golden Verses. In his Exhortation to
Philosophy (or Protrepticus, which forms Book II of his larger work
On Pythagoreanism), after having delivered a series of prose aphor-
isms as part of an initial primary instruction, he introduces the
Golden Verses as ànother type [i.e. poetic]' of exhortative instruc-
tion `which uses maxims' (3 p. 10, 14 Pistelli). He goes on to cite
and comment on a number of verses from the second part of the
poem and concludes: `Hence it appears that the method of such
exhortations turns us to all the species of goods and to all the forms
of the better life' (3 p. 16, 710 Pistelli). Like Hierocles later,
Iamblichus considered the poem a propaedeutic to philosophy.
55
Iamblichus supposedly also wrote a separate commentary on the
Golden Verses. There is an Arabic version preserved in a single
manuscript from the thirteenth century whose title names Iambli-
chus as author. Although the editor and translator (into German) of
this Arabic commentary accepts the attribution to Iamblichus,
56
the
authorship remains uncertain. But whether Iamblichus was the
author or not, this work certainly originates from a Neoplatonic
background and is therefore a further indication of the interest
53
See the outline and analysis in Thom (1995), ch. 6.
54
See ch. 8, `Historical Locus and Value', in Thom (1995); in the preceding chapter Thom
links the Golden Verses to the genre of gnomic literature.
55
According to O'Meara's analysis (1989), 41, of the Protrepticus, the Golden Verses would
belong to the rst of Iamblichus' three stages of protreptic: à protreptic to philosophy in
general, not restricted to a specic system (chapters 23) . . .'. More narrowly, Iamblichus, in
a way similar to Hierocles, regarded the rst part of the poem an exhortation to civic virtue,
the second part to contemplative philosophy; see further Thom (1995), 1718.
56
Daiber (1995), 1532, argues for Iamblichean authorship on the basis of similarities
between the Arabic commentary and what is otherwise known from Iamblichus' works.
aroused among Neoplatonic philosophers by the Golden Verses.
57
Much the same can be said of another commentary in an eleventh-
century Arabic translation by Ibn-at
-T
ayyib, the Greek original of

which is attributed to Proclus.
58
Again, while Proclus knew the
Golden Verses, it cannot yet be determined with certainty that he
wrote a commentary on them.
59
Be that as it may, the Arabic text,
like the commentary attributed to Iamblichus, does furnish at least
at several junctures material for comparison with Hierocles' Com-
mentary.
60
Hierocles' work is a running commentary, broken up into a
proem and 27 chapters.
61
It survives in its entirety.
62
Since
Hierocles interprets the Golden Verses as dealing rst with civic
philosophy, then with contemplative philosophy, and nally with
telestic philosophy (theurgy), he gives his Commentary a corres-
ponding thematic structure.
63
The following order results (with
57
Cf. O'Meara (1989), 2301, whose remarks concerning the purported Iamblichus
commentary have not been invalidated, in my view, by Daiber's publication (1995) of the
text in the meantime.
58
Text and English trans. by Linley (1984).
59
See Westerink (1987), O'Meara (1989), 2312, Thom (1995), 236. It should be added
that Proclus had considerable inuence on Arabic thinkers; see the brief remarks by Siorvanes
(1996), 312 (though without mention of the purported commentary by Proclus).
60
In the notes to my translation I indicate some of the closer parallels between Hierocles'
Commentary and Ibn-at
-T
ayyib's version. Generally, however, Hierocles' work, in detail and

complexity, far exceeds what is found in the Arabic commentary. In regard to the supposed
Iamblichean commentary, although it is far shorter than Hierocles' work (cf. O'Meara (1989),
230: `Where the [Arabic] commentary is fuller, it gives expression to rather banal moral
ideas.') and, as Daiber (1995), 33, remarks, was not used by Hierocles (an observation that
should raise some doubt concerning Iamblichus' authorship), it none the less contains a few
passages worth comparing, and contrasting, with Hierocles' Commentary. The most signi-
cant commonality among all three commentaries is that they see in Golden Verses 458 a
transition from human to divine virtue, from practical/ethical to theoretical/contemplative
philosophy; see Comm. XX 1 (84, 711), n. 1; cf. Westerink (1987), 68, O'Meara (1989), 231,
Thom (1995), 256.
61
The word `commentary' (y2po3mnhma) appears in some of the titles preserved in the MSS,
as in the form `The Commentary of Hierocles the Philosopher on the Pythagorean Verses'
(Z). Comparable is the loose description of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism as `Pythagorean
Commentaries' (Pyuago3reia y2pomnh3mata); thereto see O'Meara (1989), 32. Hierocles himself
describes his work as an ìnterpretation' (or èxegesis', h2 e1jh3ghsiw): Proem 6 (7, 19), XI 1 (42,
16), XXV 15 (109, 15), XXVII 10 (121, 19).
62
But we have neither internal nor external clues as to its date (and place) of composition,
nor do we know if it preceded or followed On Providence. If, as Aujoulat (1976), 21 (cf. n. 4
above) supposes, On Providence was written around 415 when Hierocles was approximately
only 25 years old, then the Commentary would probably not have been his rst work. But I
have supposed a later date for On Providence, sometime after 418, and will therefore not
venture to say whether it came before or after the Commentary.
63
That Hierocles attempted to impose a structural unity on the Golden Verses is to his
credit. Bernays' criticism (1866) seems to me excessively harsh: `Dieser Pythagoreer des
fu nften Jahrhunderts n. Ch., welcher seinen Scharfsinn daran verschwendet hat, in die
unverbundenen Spru che der jetzt unter dem Titel ``Goldene Worte'' gehenden Sammlung
einen systematischen Zusammenhang hineinzudeutelen . . .'.
naturally some overlapping of material): (1) civic philosophy in
chapters IXIX (on verses 144); (2) contemplative philosophy
in chapters XXXXV (on verses 4566); (3) telestic philosophy in
chapters XXVIepilogue (on verses 6771). Hierocles clearly indi-
cates his transitions within this threefold structure at the end of
chapters XIX and XXV.
There are three salient features that characterize the Commentary:
its introductory nature, its mainly ethical import, and its Neo-
pythagoreanism.
1. That Hierocles intended the Commentary to serve as an
introduction to philosophy is relatively clear from his referring to
his interpretation of the Golden Verses as `within measure a synopsis
of Pythagorean doctrines' (tv9 n Pyuagorei3vn dogma3tvn metri3an sy3no-
cin, XXVII 10 (121, 201) ) and to the poem itself as à compendium
of its [philosophy's] more central doctrines' (tv9 n kefalaivdeste3rvn
. . . dogma3tvn e1pitomh3) and à basic pedagogical exposition' (paidey-
tikh4 stoixei3vsiw, XXVII 11 (122, 25); cf. XI 38 (54, 24) ). In the
Proem he says of the Golden Verses: `the aim and arrangement of the
verses is precisely this, to impress upon the students [lit. `listeners']
a philosophic character before the other readings'.
64
It is therefore
probable that Hierocles began his oral teaching with the interpreta-
tion of the Golden Verses.
65
In line with this understanding of the
poem as a rudimentary teaching device would also be his descrip-
tion of the Commentary as an account that, while not having to be
conned to the brevity of the poem, still did not extend to `the
whole of philosophy', since he sought to keep his interpretation
`proportionate to the intent of these verses', that is, conned to the
precepts laid down in the Golden Verses and matching their level of
diculty.
66
2. Its second feature follows closely upon the rst. Just as the
usual Neoplatonic school curriculum began with studies in ethics,
reserving metaphysical topics for advanced courses,
67
so Hierocles'
Commentary is for the most part an ethical composition, largely
based on Pythagorean-Platonic moral principles, but also incorpor-
ating tenets from Aristotle and the Stoics. Although Hierocles in
64
See Proem 4 (6, 267, 1) and n. 12.
65
As suggested by Westerink (1987), 72; cf. Thom (1995), 79, Mansfeld (1998), 56.
66
XXVII 10 (121, 216). Cf. IV 4 (22, 810), in regard to the Golden Verses and probably
other, similar Pythagorean texts: their composers `have set down in writing for the common
good the basic teachings (ta4 stoixei9a) about the virtues and the standards of truth'. O'Meara
(1989), 11415, compares Hierocles' Commentary, in its niveau and purpose, with the rst two
books of Iamblichus' On Pythagoreanism (cf. n. 55 above). In another study O'Meara (1992),
504, points out that the Golden Verses, like the Manual of Epictetus, may be added to the
Gorgias, the Republic, the Laws, and the Politics of Aristotle, as texts that provided a
grounding in the political virtues.
67
See Hadot (1984), 201 n. 58.
the course of his extensive comments necessarily touches upon
metaphysical issues, such as the nature of god and man, it is
important to realize, as we will have occasion to reiterate, that
the Commentary is not primarily a metaphysical disquisition. If the
Commentary, as Hierocles says himself, does not extend to `the
whole of philosophy', it should not for that reason be esteemed
the less. Its great value lies in bringing to the fore and elucidating
some cardinal Middle- and Neoplatonic themes: the function of the
demiurge, the threefold classication of beings, the signicance of
the virtues, the vehicle of the soul, the role of theurgy, the pursuit of
god, and the attainment of divine likeness.
3. While from the perspective of contemporary scholarship we
may broadly characterize these themes as `Platonic', to the minds of
Hierocles and many of his predecessorsEudorus, Philo, Alcinous,
Numenius, Nicomachus, Porphyry, and especially Iamblichus
they originated with Pythagoras and his followers, whereby Plato
was seen as the most eminent adherent of Pythagorean teaching.
This `Pythagoreanizing' trend in the later history of Platonism,
which brings us to the third feature of Hierocles' book, is referred
to by scholars, for convenience sake, as `Neopythagoreanism'.
68
When therefore Hierocles chooses to comment at length on a
popular Pythagorean poem, the Golden Verses, seeing them as
encompassing `the universal doctrines of all philosophy, both
practical and contemplative' (Proem 2 (5, 1415) ), he stands
forth as a major exponent of Neopythagoreanism in late antiquity.
Before Hierocles it was Iamblichus in particular who had articu-
lated a similar Pythagorean programme, notably in his multi-
volume work On Pythagoreanism. Dominic O'Meara has made
some fruitful comparisons between that work and Hierocles'
Commentary, though without positing Iamblichus' On Pythagor-
eanism as the direct nor the sole source for Hierocles' treatise.
69
O'Meara cautiously concludes: Ìf the Commentary, however, does
not depend on On Pythagoreanism as its immediate source, it
remains that Iamblichean Pythagoreanism provides a context for
explaining why a Neoplatonic teacher of the late fourth/early fth
century would choose, as a way of initiating beginners to phil-
osophy, to comment on the Pythagorean Golden Verses.'
70
We may
add our earlier suggestion that it was during Hierocles' period of
study with Plutarch of Athens that many of Iamblichus' Pythagor-
ean concerns were transmitted to him.
68
For surveys of Neopythagorean thought and individual Neopythagoreans see Dillon
(1977), 34183, Reale (1990), 23572.
69
O'Meara (1989), 11418.
70
Ibid. 118.
For the sake of an overview I summarize here Hierocles' Comment-
ary chapter by chapter, indicating the main themes of each:
Proem. Denition of philosophy, divided into the practical and
contemplative. Introduction to the Golden Verses, which unveil the
aim (skopo3w) of Pythagorean philosophy.
Chapter I. On piety. The creator-god and the three classes of
rational beingsimmortal gods, glorious heroes, and humansthat
merit honour according to their substance. The creative law that
preserves the order and ranking of beings in the cosmos. Piety
manifested not in external sacrices but in inner purity.
Chapter II. On reverence for the oath as guarantor of divine law
and cosmic order. The divine and human manifestations of the
oath. On the proper use of oaths.
Chapter III. On the honour towards glorious heroes. Denition
of glorious heroes as natural daemons who occupy the median rank
of rational beings.
Chapter IV. On earth-dwelling daemons, dened as know-
ledgeable and virtuous human beings who are daemons by relation,
insofar as they resemble the daemonic class. We honour these
outstanding human beings by following their way of life.
Chapter V. On the honour towards parents and kin. On caring for
one's parents. Divine law takes precedence when parents are not
virtuous.
Chapter VI. On voluntary friendship. Whereas parents are
honoured by reason of natural ties, friends are to be sought for
the sake of a partnership in the virtues.
Chapter VII. On behaviour towards friends. Friendship is to be
maintained with all forbearance as long as a partnership in virtue is
possible or a lost friend is able to be recalled to virtue. Human
kindness (filanurvpi3a) is extended to all men, but friendship only to
the good.
Chapter VIII. On controlling the irrational soul. On the conicts
arising from its spirited and desiderative parts. The irrational and
aective faculties must be habituated to obey reason.
Chapter IX. On avoiding shameful deeds, both when alone and in
company. Self-knowledge (i.e. respect of oneself as a rational
substance) and conscience act as guardians against shameful prac-
tices.
Chapter X. On the four cardinal virtues, notably on practical
wisdom as chief of the virtues. How practical wisdom and right
reason are able to evaluate and bear misfortunes. On nding the
cause of evils in ourselves and not blaming the superior beings.
Chapter XI. On `heaven-sent fortunes'. Providence, fate, and
deliberate choice are the primary causes of man's fortunes, in which
chance and accident play a subsidiary role. God is blameless of evils,
but man puts himself in a position to require the corrections of
providence. How to endure life's fortunes with virtue.
Chapter XII. On good and bad arguments. On nding the mean
between a hatred and a love of speaking, and on the correct way to
refute falsehoods.
Chapter XIII. On the steadfastness of the man of reason in the
face of attering or threatening words and deeds. Denition of the
human self as the rational soul; body and externals are instruments
for use of the soul. On guarding the soul with truth and virtue.
Chapter XIV. On good counsel and deliberate action proting the
soul. The value of corrective punishment to bring on repentance,
`the beginning of philosophy'. Counsel and right reason oppose
thoughtlessness and procure the best way of life.
Chapter XV. On knowledge and the right evaluation of pleasures.
True pleasure comes from a virtuous life.
Chapter XVI. On moderation in food, drink, and exercise. Health
and moderation are worth while as far as they serve the soul's
activity of contemplation.
Chapter XVII. On moderation (continued). On avoiding the
extremes of luxury and squalor, proigacy and miserliness, by
following the maxim `nothing too much'.
Chapter XVIII. On reecting before acting so as to avoid harm to
the philosophical life.
Chapter XIX. On the daily, threefold examination of conscience.
On self-admonition with the aid of memory.
Chapter XX. On the transition from human (civic) virtue and
practical philosophy to divine virtue and contemplative philosophy.
On the Pythagorean tetrad/tetractys, identied with the demiurge,
and its properties.
Chapter XXI. On prayer. The eectiveness of prayer depends
upon both man's work and zeal and the cooperation of the divine.
Chapter XXII. On the ordered relation (sy3ntajiw) of the three
classes of rational beings within the cosmos. On the division of the
cosmos into an incorporeal order and the visible (physical) world.
Chapter XXIII. On nature and the visible cosmos. On man's
amphibious nature between the incorporeal realm of intellect and
the irrational, corporeal world. Man should respect the divine
measures for creation and align his hopes according to the limits
imposed upon him in virtue of his worth and substance.
Chapter XXIV. On man's fall and the descent of the soul. On the
role of free will in both man's fall and deliverance. Miseries are self-
imposed. On the evil and ignorance of the majority of men.
Chapter XXV. On the name and nature of god. On the deliver-
ance from evils, limited to a minority who voluntarily turn to
philosophy, while the majority fail to recognize their own sub-
stance. God remains blameless.
Chapter XXVI. On the purication of the luminous body, also
called the vehicle of the soul. Its purication is intimated by the
Pythagorean symbols on abstinence. On telestic philosophy (i.e.
theurgy), which, as a branch of practical philosophy along with civic
philosophy, is subordinate to contemplative philosophy.
Chapter XXVII. On the end of philosophy: the soul's deication
and its restoration, along with the congenital body, to the ethereal
realm. Man's place in the cosmic hierarchy is ordained by divine
providence. Epilogue.
2. On Providence
As noted at the outset, our knowledge of Hierocles' other work, On
Providence, is limited to the resumes and extracts given by
Photius.
71
In codex 214 Photius lists the title of Hierocles' book
as On Providence and Destiny and the Relationship of Free Will to
Divine Governance,
72
whereas in codex 251 he refers to it simply as
On Providence; the rst was probably the exact title.
73
But whether
we accept the full or the abbreviated version, from the title alone we
should never get a proper appreciation of the contents of Hierocles'
work, since it was more than strictly a treatise about divine
providence and human will. The summaries that Photius provides
of each of the seven books add up, in eect, to a history of
philosophy extending from archaic times to Hierocles' own day,
from Homer to Plutarch of Athens. To get an idea of the scope of
Hierocles' treatise and to facilitate our discussion of its structure,
contents, and methods, I give here a condensed version of Photius'
summaries of the seven books (taken from cod. 214. 8, pp. 12830):
71
According to Treadgold's hypothetical analysis (1980) of Photius' method of composi-
tion, the rst part of the Bibliotheca (codd. 1233) contains general summaries and Photius'
personal opinion on the books read; these codices were dictated to his secretary. The second
part (codd. 23480) consists mostly of Photius' copious reading notes, usually in the form of
excerpts (signalled by a heading such as Ek toy9 b' lo3goy) copied by his secretary. Thus a book
introduced summarily in the rst part might be reviewed at more length in the second part,
though without cross-references to the rst review. The characteristics of codd. 214 and 251,
containing the material on Hierocles' On Providence, appear to t this schema.
72
peri4 pronoi3aw kai4 ei2marme3nhw kai4 th9w toy9 e1f h2 mi9n pro4 w th4 n uei3an h2 gemoni3an synta3jevw, cod. 214.
1, 171b 1921 p. 125.
73
Cf. Elter (1910), 1756.
Book I sets out Hierocles' research on providence, justice, and
judgement according to merit.
Book II collects Platonic opinions and proves them from Plato's
writings.
Book III refutes opposing opinions.
Book IV harmonizes the Chaldean Oracles and sacred laws with
Plato's teachings.
Book V attributes to Orpheus, Homer, and all other well-known
gures before Plato a Platonic philosophy about Hierocles' subject
matter.
Book VI treats the continuation of Platonic philosophy from
Aristotle till Ammonius of Alexandria, showing that all reputable
philosophers were in accord with Plato while condemning those
who deny the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle.
Book VII covers the school of Ammonius: Plotinus, Origen,
Porphyry, and Iamblichus and their followers up to Plutarch of
Athens; all these thinkers agree with the philosophy of Plato in its
puried form.
This overview shows that On Providence was to a signicant extent a
thematic history of philosophy, written of course from a Neo-
platonic perspective. The major themes of providence, free will,
and divine judgement also included, as we learn from other passages
in Photius and especially from the extracts in codex 251, such
related topics as the creation and structure of the rational world-
order, the status of the material world, and the immortality and
transmigration of the soul.
74
These topics are related because an
examination of providence naturally raises the question of all that
which falls and does not fall within its domain. Our survey from
Photius further shows that Hierocles followed a chronological
scheme. After an introduction of his own examinations (Book I),
an exposition of Platonic doctrine (Book II), and a refutation of
non-Platonic views (Book III), Hierocles gives the next four books a
balanced chronological structure: two books (IV and V) are ded-
icated to ancient material and major gures before Plato, who is
treated as an axial point, and again two books (VI and VII) to
philosophers after Plato; tellingly, it is Ammonius who provides the
axis for post-Platonic thinkers.
75
74
According to Phot. cod. 214. 2, 171b 358 p. 125, Hierocles' attempt to harmonize Plato
and Aristotle led him to consider their accounts not only about providence but also those ìn
which they consider the soul to be immortal and wherever they have philosophized about
heaven and earth'. On the pre-existence and transmigration of the soul as the `great argument
on which Hierocles counted most', see cod. 214. 6, 172b 202 p. 128 and n. 26.
75
Cf. Weber (1962), 63, Baltes (1985), 330.
Let us now consider in somewhat more detail each of the seven
books, eshing out, as it were, the bare bones of our survey.
Photius tells us that On Providence was dedicated to the historian
Olympiodorus. The dedication appears to have taken the form of an
introductory epistle that ended with some words of comfort to
Olympiodorus on the loss of his adoptive son, but it also included
an exposition (ei1w e5kuesin diatypoy9tai) of Hierocles' main themes,
indicated by a table of contents, as a kind of prospectus to the work.
It is dicult to determine whether this preliminary material was
written separately or belonged to Book I. In either event, the rst
book certainly contained a prolonged introduction of Hierocles'
own views, for which the remaining books then furnished the
necessary critical and historical details.
76
After introducing his themes in the rst book, Hierocles under-
takes to interweave them in a universal history of philosophy,
beginning in Book II. His method is systematic and orderly. He
establishes rst of all the Platonic basis of his research by collecting
the `Platonic opinions' (platvnikai4 do3jai) on his subject matter. The
`Platonic opinions' consisted of the exegetical eorts of Middle- and
Neoplatonists, which Hierocles would have studied with Plutarch
of Athens, `his guide', as Photius tells us in the summary of Book
VII, ìn such doctrines' (kauhghth4 n ay2toy9 tv9 n toioy3tvn . . . dog-
ma3tvn).
77
In good Neoplatonic fashion Hierocles adduces the
writings of Plato as the touchstone of philosophy. We can conrm
this procedure from the actual extracts from Book II, which are
replete with quotations of and references to several of Plato's
dialogues (Phaedrus, Laws, Theaetetus, Republic).
78
Book III then takes up and seeks to refute the arguments of the
opponents of Platonic philosophy; the adversaries were Epicureans
and Stoics, pseudo-Platonists and pseudo-Aristotelians, and astrol-
ogers and magicians. The philosophers, including Alexander of
Aphrodisias, and the astrologers were attacked for their false
76
I have largely followed the structural analysis of Elter (1910), 17599 (esp. 177, 18990,
196), summarized by Schwyzer (1983), 40 (cf. also in brief Hagg (1975), 196 n. 7). Both Elter
and Schwyzer (cf. also Hadot (1978), 69), believe Hierocles wrote his preliminary survey as a
separate introduction, that is before Book I. Although Photius, cod. 214. 1, 171b 302 p. 125,
refers to Hierocles' consolatio to Olympiodorus as coming àt the end of the rst book', Elter's
analysis makes a good case for a Prouevri3a, from which cod. 251. 16, 460b 23461b 31
pp. 18993, is an excerpt and which concluded with the table of contents that appears in cod.
214. 8, 173a 540 pp. 12830. Thereupon Book I contained the material given by Photius in
cod. 251. 716, 461b 32463b 28 pp. 1938. As to the length of the seven-volume work in toto,
Photius gives us no exact indications, but his extensive extract in cod. 251 from Book III,
which is specied as chapter 10 of that book, allows us to suspect that On Providence was a
sizeable undertaking.
77
Cf. Hadot (1978), 6970.
78
See cod. 251. 1824, 463b 39465a 12 pp. 198202 passim.
views about providence and fate, the magicians for their belief that
fate could be swayed by the devices of magic.
After this polemical interlude Hierocles continues in Book IV
with his Platonic programme by showing that `what are called the
Oracles' (ta4 lego3mena lo3gia) and `the sacred laws' (oi2 i2eratikoi4 uesmoi3)
were in accord with Plato's teachings. The Òracles' are the
Chaldean Oracles, a collection of hexameter verses of religious and
quasi-philosophical content, dating from the second century ad.
79
In the Neoplatonic schools, from Porphyry to Damascius, the
Chaldean Oracles were widely read and commented on, being
regarded as àuthoritative revelatory literature equal in importance
only to Plato's Timaeus', and, accordingly, great stock was placed in
trying to prove their conformity to Platonic philosophy.
80
As a
soteriological document, the Chaldean Oracles have as their focal
point the purication of the soul, the indispensable prerequisite for
ultimate union with god. To attain the cooperation of the gods in
purifying the soul the Oracles prescribed certain practices whose
ritual enactment was known as theurgy or the sacred art (h2 i2eratikh4
te3xnh). Neoplatonists in general, with the notable exception of
Plotinus, accepted the important role that theurgy played in
purifying the soul, although there were dierences of opinion
regarding the extent of its ecacy. The strongest proponent of
the Chaldean Oracles and theurgic practice was Iamblichus. When
therefore Hierocles dedicates Book IV of On Providence to showing
how the Chaldean Oracles and `the sacred laws', which is clearly a
reference to the prescriptions of theurgy, conform with Platonic
philosophy, it appears once more that he took his lead from the
school of Iamblichus.
81
In passing to the next book, we must interject another word about
the ordering of Hierocles' topicsChaldean Oracles in Book IV,
followed by Orpheus and Homer in Book V; the order does not
appear to be accidental. Hierocles, like Proclus, probably felt that
the material of the Chaldean Oracles was very ancient.
82
Next comes
79
The Chaldean Oracles are available to us only in fragments. On title, authorship, and
general content see the excellent introduction in Majercik's edition (1989). See also the
important essay by Athanassiadi (1999a).
80
Majercik (1989), 2; cf. Goulet-Caze (1982), 279, Sarey (1984b), 169. Syrianus wrote a
treatise on The Agreement of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the [Chaldean] Oracles
(Suda s.v. Syriano3w (IV 4789 Adler) ). According to Marinus, Vit. Procl. 38, Proclus said, Ìf
I were in charge, the only ones of the ancient books I would make people read would be the
Oracles [ta4 Lo3gia, i.e. the Chaldean Oracles] and the Timaeus . . .'. On the signicance Proclus
attached to his exegesis of the Chaldean Oracles, cf. Dorrie (1974), 2723. See also Ch. 2,
nn. 232, 247.
81
Cf. Hadot (1978), 701.
82
For Proclus on the antiquity of the Chaldean Oracles see Marin. Vit. Procl. 38 (quoted in
n. 80 above); Lamberton (1986), 180.
Orpheus, whom Hierocles places before Homer according to the
widespread belief that the poems attributed to Orpheus pre-dated
Homer.
83
The remaining books then, as we pointed out earlier,
follow a recognizable chronological pattern.
We continue with Book V in which Hierocles enlists Orpheus and
Homer and other notables from Greek antiquity into the Platonic
camp. It is a pity that we are not informed in more detail how
Hierocles proceeded here, but his overall purpose can none the less
be understood as part of the Neoplatonic agenda that sought to
appropriate for itself all the best of Greek intellectual culture even
before the appearance of Plato. Particularly of interest to the
Neoplatonists were poets and quasi-philosophical writers in
whom they could detect, often only by means of ingenious inter-
pretative methods, a special knowledge of the gods and the divine.
Orpheus, Musaeus, the Chaldeans, Hesiod, Homer, Pherecydes,
and Pythagoras are the names we nd most frequently in Neo-
platonic literature among that broad spectrum of authors referred to
as ueolo3goi.
84
Let us consider the names specically mentioned by
Photius as part of Hierocles' account. Orpheus, though a gure of
myth, was accredited, from the sixth century bc onwards, with a
body of religious poems whose favourite motifs were sacred
histories of the gods and the peregrinations and fate of the human
soul; many of these poems appear to have originated in a Pythagor-
ean milieu.
85
Hence there were enough footholds in the so-called
Òrphic' writings for Orpheus to be seen as a forerunner of Plato.
Syrianus, Proclus' teacher, wrote a treatise entitled The Agreement
of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the [Chaldean] Oracles.
86
Proclus' own exegesis of Orphic literature, especially of the Orphic
Rhapsodies, a theogonical poem considered a classic by the Neo-
platonists, is a continuation of the work of Syrianus and, even
before him, of Iamblichus.
87
But while the religious and eschato-
logical nature of Orphic writings allowed the Neoplatonists to make
83
This applies at any rate to the Orphic Hymns (see Lamberton (1986), 1801) but may be
surmised to have been the prevalent belief about most of the other Orphic writings as well.
84
On the history and development of the term ueolo3gow from Herodotus to late Neo-
platonism, particularly in reference to Homer, see the survey by Lamberton (1986), 2231.
Procl. De prov. 1, 1419 pp. 10910 Boese, refers briey to the `theologians' before Plato who
spoke of providence but not with the sober methods of argument and lack of enigma found in
Plato. See Erler (1980), 4 n. 2.
85
On Orphic literature see West (1983), esp. 315 (Orpheus and Pythagorean Orphica).
86
See n. 80 above.
87
Marin. Vit. Procl. 27; thereto, West (1983), 2278, Brisson (1995), ch. V, esp. 4851.
According to Dorrie (1974), 2736, the zeal with which Neoplatonists turned to Orpheus can
also be explained as a deliberate reaction to Christianity, though not in order to hold up a
pagan counterpart to the gure of Christ but rather to present a great and far older theologian
of their own.
a special claim on Orpheus, the epic poems of Homer are another
matter. At least from a modern perspective, it is not easy to see how
Hierocles could have turned Homer into a Platonist. We must
remember, however, that the Iliad and the Odyssey had enjoyed
by Hierocles' time a long tradition of mystical allegorizing. What-
ever the exact origins of the allegorical interpretation of Homer
(which may go back to the ancient Pythagoreans, who had certainly
adopted the Homeric poems as sacred texts), we see its full ower-
ing in Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. The allegorical read-
ings of the Homeric epics by Numenius, Plotinus, Porphyry, and
later in a most systematic manner by Proclus, yielded a theologian
par excellence, a Homer who could discern a non-material reality
and pronounce authoritatively on the afterlife of the soul and whose
poems were a divine revelation on a par with the myths of Plato.
88
When therefore Hierocles ascribes a Platonic philosophy to Homer,
he plugs into a well-established Neoplatonic tradition of spiritualiz-
ing Homer. Besides Orpheus and Homer, it is reasonable to suppose
that Hierocles in Book V discussed other ueolo3goi as well: Hesiod
and Pythagoras come to mind rst of all. Though not mentioned by
Photius, they were probably included among àll the other well-
known gures before the epiphany of Plato'.
89
The same may be
said for certain of the Presocratic philosophers.
90
In Book VI Hierocles takes up the philosophers after Plato until
Ammonius. As Photius does not list any names, other than that of
Aristotle, for this roughly 500-year span, we do not know which of
Plato's successors in the Academy, which of the Middle Platonists,
or which of the Peripatetics Hierocles dealt with specically.
Certainly Aristotle was the major star in the great chorus of
philosophers until Ammonius, but only insofar as his light reected
Plato's. The unanimity of Plato and Aristotle was an overriding
concern of Hierocles in Book VI:
88
The evolution of Homer the theologian as a result of Neoplatonic allegorical reading has
been well described by Lamberton (1986), to whom we have already referred (n. 84 above) for
his study of the term ueolo3gow; cf. Weber (1962), 6474. The hermeneutic principle used by
Neoplatonists would be spelled out later by Proclus: the Homeric myths must be interpreted
àccording to the secret doctrine', which is concealed from the profane and those of an
unpuried mind by the surface meaning of the texts (In Remp. I 140, 1113; I 74, 1230);
thereto, Lamberton (1995), 1468. On the topic `Plato and Homer' in Platonism see also
DorrieBaltes III 2505.
89
So also O'Meara (1989), 114, in regard to Pythagoras, given his overall importance for
Hierocles as attested by the Commentary. Hesiod gures in the Proem (5 (7, 25) ) of the
Commentary, where Hierocles intimates an allegorical reading of Hesiod's ages of mankind.
90
In the Commentary, at any rate, Hierocles mentions Empedocles (`the Pythagorean',
XXIV 2 (98, 10) ), Heraclitus (XXIV 1 (98, 7) ), and Hippocrates (XVI 11 (74, 13) ). In
general, to harmonize the Presocratics with Plato was part of the Neoplatonic programme of
unifying the whole history of philosophy; cf. Sorabji (1990b), 45.
The author wants to connect the thoughts of these men not only in their
accounts of providence, but also in all those in which they consider the
soul to be immortal and wherever they have philosophized about heaven
and earth. He attempts to show that all those who make them disagree
have strayed very far from the purpose of these men and fallen from the
truth, some having freely given themselves up to strife and senselessness,
others enslaved by prejudice and ignorance.
91
The detractors of the harmony between Plato and Aristotle
included their own disciplesfalse disciples, in Hierocles' view:
As for all those who try to break up the unanimity of Plato and
Aristotle, he consigns them to the thinkers that are trivial and to be
avoided; they have corrupted many of the Platonic accounts, and yet
they claim Plato as their teacher, just as is the case with the writings of
Aristotle among those who confess to honour his school. And their
machinations have no other purpose than to make the Stagirite clash
with the son of Ariston.
92
We see here the radical extent to which Hierocles carries his
Platonic agenda. Aristotle, as Plato's pupil, cannot be seen as merely
agreeing with his teacher at one time and disagreeing with him at
another, but must be shown to be fully in accord with him, at least
in essential points of doctrine. Hence Hierocles charges all those
philosophers, be they Platonists or Aristotelians, who point to
dierences between Plato and Aristotle, with having corrupted
91
Photius makes these remarks near the beginning of cod. 214. 2, 171b 35172a 2 pp. 125
6, after introducing the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle as `the professed aim of the present
inquiry' (h2 e1paggeli3a th9w paroy3shw ske3cevw). He thus gives the impression that Hierocles
professed this intention at the very start of On Providence and pursued it throughout the
work, but, as Elter (1910), 17984, was the rst to point out (cf. also O'Meara (1989), 112),
this is misleading insofar as Photius' own table of contents reveals that Hierocles in the rst
ve books laboured primarily at expounding Platonic doctrines and bringing previous
thinkers into Plato's train. Most of what Photius tells us at the outset of codex 214 about
the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle and about the detractors of that harmony applies in
actuality to Book VI, as part of Hierocles' discussion of the historical development of true
Platonism. Photius has anticipated this issue, not necessarily already from Book VI itself but,
as Elter (1910), 18990, 193, 198, surmises, from Hierocles' prospectus in Book I, and given it
undue prominence at the beginning of his summary, most likely because of his own
predilection for Aristotle (cf. Aujoulat (1986), 11).
92
Thus Photius' summary (in part) of Book VI in cod. 214. 8, 173a 2532 p. 129. Cf. 251.
3, 461a 2430 p. 191: `many of the students of Plato and Aristotle have applied their zeal and
attention to show that their teachers clashed with one another concerning the critical points of
their doctrines; their contentiousness and daring have driven them to the point of falsifying
the writings of their teachers in order better to show that these philosophers fought against
each other.' At the beginning of cod. 214. 2, 171b 38172a 2 pp. 1256, Photius also
announces the theme of disharmony but says nothing about forgeries and corruptions. It
appears then that Hierocles, while he may have indicated in Book I (as part of his prospectus)
the general problem presented by the false disciples of Plato and Aristotle, waited until Book
VI to introduce his claim that these pseudo-philosophers actually corrupted the thought of
their teachers through forged writings.
and deliberately falsied the teachings of their masters.
93
This
discordant state of aairs he characterizes as a sickness aicting
the philosophical schools.
94
It was nally brought to an end by
Ammonius:
This man, divinely inspired with the truth of philosophy and disdaining
the vulgar opinions that had made philosophy a cause of reproach, was the
rst to behold clearly the teachings of both Plato and Aristotle, and to
bring them into one and the same mind, and to hand on to all his pupils a
philosophy free from factional strife, particularly to the best of his
students, Plotinus, Origen, and their successors.
95
How did Hierocles come to see in Ammonius the great restorer of
the harmony between Plato and Aristotle? Most scholars agree with
Dorrie's suggestion that Hierocles got this information about
Ammonius from reading Porphyry's On the One School of Plato
and Aristotle.
96
Since Porphyry could have hardly ascribed the unity
93
O'Meara (1989), 112, notes here a subtle dierence from Iamblichus: whereas Iam-
blichus was content to regard Aristotle as sometimes right and sometimes wrong, Hierocles
takes a more positive view of Aristotle, but only at the price of his theory of falsication,
whereby the blame is removed from Aristotle himself and shifted to later thinkers. None the
less, as O'Meara (ibid. 113) goes on to remark, the kind of harmony assumed by both
Iamblichus and Hierocles is essentially the same: ìf Aristotle is brought into agreement with
Plato, it is of course on Platonic terms'.
94
to4 pa3uow tai9w filoso3foiw diatribai9w e1nskh9can, cod. 251. 3, 461a 301 p. 191. Unfortunately,
we have no historical information that allows us to substantiate Hierocles' dire diagnosis (and
no indication which of Plato's or Aristotle's works Hierocles thought were forgeries). Cf.
Dorrie (1976a), 345: `von einem ha- und neiderfu llten Streit der Philosophen zu jener Zeit,
von Falschungen und Boswilligkeit in solchem Grade konnte gewi nicht die Rede sein'.
Dorrie further points out that from the time of Antiochus of Ascalon the general trend was to
accept the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle, with Albinus (= Alcinous) exemplifying this
conciliatory tendency, and only a few authors (Plutarch of Athens, Atticus, Democritus) in
opposition. Although Dorrie's point that Hierocles must have been exaggerating is well taken,
the harmony between Plato and Aristotle was perhaps still not as widely accepted as Dorrie
thinks (cf., contra Dorrie, Weber (1962), 534). That Antiochus served as a universal model
for Middle and Neoplatonists is somewhat doubtful when we consider that Numenius, as
Hadot (1978), 76, points out (though without reference to Dorrie), counted Antiochus as a
traitor for introducing Stoic dogmas into the Academy, and that Numenius himself did not
accept the unanimity of Plato and Aristotle (see Hadot, ibid. 75 n. 22). Plotinus, too, did not
hesitate to criticize Aristotle and the Peripatetics on occasion (especially for their notions of
substance and of divine intellect as the ultimate principle); cf. V 3. 12, VI 1. 2, VI 7. 37, VI 7.
40; further criticisms listed by Wallis (1972), 24; see also DorrieBaltes III 249 n. 3.
95
Cod. 251. 3, 461a 329 pp. 1912. Cf. 214. 2, 172a 49 p. 126.
96
Dorrie (1976a), 3468; sim. Hadot (1978), 75, Schwyzer (1983), 45, Schroeder (1987),
51112, O'Meara (1989), 113, DorrieBaltes III 2489; on Porphyry and Aristotle see also
Smith (1987), 7545. On the other hand, Dodds (1960), 26, has suggested that Hierocles'
source was Ammonius' other pupil, Origen the pagan. In his work, That the King is the only
Maker (which Hierocles may have known), Origen subscribes to the Peripatetic position that
intellect is the highest level of beingan instance of a reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle
decidedly not found in Plotinus. But according to Proclus' Theol. Plat. II 4 and recent studies
of this text, Origen in rejecting a One beyond intellect and Being did not follow Ammonius'
teaching; thereto see Sect. 2.B.1.a. A more immediate source may have been Hierocles' own
teacher, Plutarch of Athens; cf. Baltes (1985), 327.
of Plato and Aristotle to Plotinus, given the latter's oft severe
criticisms of Aristotle,
97
he settled on Ammonius, whom he also
introduces elsewhere as a great solver of problems.
98
Be that as it
may, we still do not know in what way Ammonius supposedly
eected a reconciliation between Plato and Aristotle, as we know
generally very little about Ammonius' teaching.
99
Possibly Ammo-
nius did no more than to accentuate Aristotle's standing as the pupil
of Plato; yet this might have been enough for Hierocles to include
Aristotle in the brilliant chorus of post-Platonic philosophers and to
search out those areas of philosophy where Aristotle could be shown
to harmonize with Plato, even if it meant tacitly ignoring funda-
mental dierences.
100
There can be no doubt, however, that Hierocles, whatever the
97
See n. 94 n. above. What Porph. Vit. Plot. 14 grants is that in Plotinus' writings Stoic
and Peripatetic doctrines are hiddenly mixed in (e1mme3miktai . . . lanua3nonta), particularly
concentrations (katapepy3knvtai) of the Metaphysics.
98
See Dorrie (1976a), 347, Hadot (1978), 75 with n. 24. It may seem strange, since
Plotinus was known to have criticized Aristotle, that Porphyry should have made Ammonius
the proponent of the concord between Plato and Aristotle, the same Ammonius whose
teaching, as Porphyry himself emphasizes, had such profound inuence on Plotinus (thus it
would be interesting to know how Plotinus `brought the mind of Ammonius to bear on his
investigations' when he was reading the commentaries of anti-Aristotelian authors such as
Numenius and Atticus; see Porph. Vit. Plot. 14). But one might argue that Porphyry could
have deliberately evoked Ammonius to prove a point to Plotinus, since the unity of Plato and
Aristotle appears to have been a bone of contention between them. In fact, Sarey (1992), 44,
suggests that Porphyry's conviction on this topic, as witnessed by his treatise On the One
School of Plato and Aristotle, was one of the reasons he did not assume the succession of
Plotinus in Rome.
99
Heinemann's (1926) elaborate and often cited reconstruction of Ammonius' philosophy
from Hierocles' On Providence has been shown by Schwyzer (1983), 435, to be invalid,
resting largely on Heinemann's misunderstanding of certain texts as transmitted by Photius
(cf. the summary of Schwyzer's critique in Schroeder (1987), 50912). The only two
undisputed assertions that Hierocles makes about Ammonius, that he maintained the
agreement of Plato and Aristotle and that he restored the true Platonic philosophy, are, as
Schwyzer (1983), 445, remarks, `ganz allgemeine Aussagen, die hochstens erkennen lassen,
wie hoch Ammonios eingeschatzt wurde, die aber keine genaueren Kenntnisse ammonia-
nischer Lehren verraten'. Besides these two general bits of information about Ammonius, all
we know further of his teaching is that his exegesis of Plato's Parmenides yielded a One
beyond Being and intellect; this is of course not insignicant, since Ammonius' interpretation
was taken up by Plotinus (see Sect. 2.B.1.a and n. 39). After Heinemann (1926), two scholars,
Langerbeck (1957; 1967) and Theiler (1966), further sought to restore Ammonius' teaching
in some detail. Theiler especially expended much labour in locating parallels between Origen
the Christian and Hierocles, leading him to conclude that Ammonius was the common
source. Although Theiler's conclusion could not be conrmed, his scholarship, as it applies to
Hierocles, remains none the less useful; cf. Lloyd (1968), den Boeft (1977), 50 n. 10, Baltes
(1985), 328.
100
As Hadot (1978), 68 n. 3, observes, the notion of a concord between Plato and Aristotle,
as strange as it seems to us, may have come more easily to ancient authors in view of their
belief that certain pseudo-Platonic and pseudo-Aristotelian writings, such as the Second
Letter for Plato and the De mundo for Aristotle, were authentic. The harmony of Plato and
Aristotle was, in any event, a traditional Neoplatonic tenet and is also found in the ancient
commentators on Aristotle; see Sorabji (1990a), 35.
basis and validity of his claims, saw in Ammonius an axial gure in
the history of philosophy, whose divine stature was rivalled only by
Plato (and Pythagoras, whose importance to the mind of Hierocles
is clear from his Commentary on the Golden Verses). As Plato's
appearance constituted an èpiphany' (e1pifa3neia), a term intimating
the manifestation of deity, so in time the wisdom of Ammonius
`revealed its splendour' (die3lamcen), and he and his school were a
`sacred race' (i2era4 genea3).
101
Ammonius is given the epithet `the one
taught by god' (ueodi3daktow) and described as `divinely inspired for
the truth of philosophy' (e1nuoysia3saw pro4 w to4 th9w filosofi3aw a1 lhui-
no3n).
102
In restoring this truth (i.e. Platonism), he was fullling, as it
were, a sacred mission. Thus Ammonius deserves a chief place
among the followers of Zeus whom Plato in the Phaedrus (253a3, cf.
249d2, e1) describes as `divinely inspired' (e1nuoysiv9 ntew). Indeed, in
calling Ammonius `divinely inspired' Hierocles is probably thinking
more of the philosophical lover of the Phaedrus than of the inspired
medium that Iamblichus describes in his technical discussion of
`divine inspiration' (e1nuoysiasmo3w).
103
On the whole, though, the
terms that Hierocles uses in connection with Plato and Ammonius
do point to his Iamblichean understanding of philosophy as ultim-
ately a religious enterprisephilosophy as divine revelation and its
interpreters as hierophants.
104
The last book (VII) takes up the school of Ammonius: Plotinus,
Origen, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and their followers (unnamed) up to
101
th9w Pla3tvnow e1pifanei3aw, cod. 214. 7, 173a 167 p. 129; h2 Ammvni3oy sofi3a die3lamcen, 214.
2, 172a 34 p. 126; th9w i2era9w genea9w, 214. 8, 173a 367 p. 129.
102
ueodi3daktow, cod. 214. 2, 172a 4 p. 126; 251. 3, 461a 32 p. 191. As there is no teacher
recorded for Ammonius, ueodi3daktow could also imply that Ammonius was self-taught,
ay1 todi3daktow (cf. Dodds (1960), 47), but this does not necessarily allow us to shear the
word of its divine plumage to make it mean `probably no more than a polite equivalent of
ay1 todi3daktow (so Dodds, ibid. 30, following Inge). On the contrary, the notion that being self-
taught is intimately bound up with divine inspiration nds a well-known precedent in the
Homeric bard, Phemius: Ì am self-taught (ay1 todi3daktow), and a god has implanted all kinds of
songs in my mind' (Od. 22. 3478). ueodi3daktow in this sense is further underscored by
e1nuoysia3saw pro4 w to4 th9w filosofi3aw a1 lhuino3n, cod. 251. 3, 461a 33 p. 191. Admittedly, e1nuoysia9n in
many of its usages had lost its sacred connotation and could therefore simply be rendered as
ènthusiastic' or èxcited' (cf. Dodds (1960), 30, and Dorrie, ap. Dodds, ibid. 44). None the
less, in light of the hierophantic role he ascribes to Ammonius, I think that Hierocles meant to
stress the divine impetus of Ammonius' zeal for philosophical truth, and I have accordingly
translated the term as `divinely inspired'. Fowden (1982), 35 n. 9, compares Julian, Orat. XI
136bc: Omhro3w te kai4 Hsi3odow . . . e1pipnoi3a uei3a kaua3per oi2 ma3nteiw e1nuoysiv9 ntew pro4 w th4 n a1 lh3ueian.
103
De myst. III 48 pp. 1038 . The qualities of Iamblichus' inspired medium are well
exemplied in Sosipatra of Pergamum, who Eunapius says (Vitae soph. VI 9. 2 Giangrande)
was worshipped by her students for her e1nuoysiasmo3w, referring more likely to her prophetic
gifts and theurgical abilities than to the philosophy that she taught in her home.
104
Cf. O'Meara (1989), 113. Specically it is Pythagoras who is called a `hierophant',
Comm. XX 21 (90, 2), though Hierocles would not have begrudged Plato and Ammonius this
description.
Plutarch of Athens. It stands to reason that the latter, as Hierocles'
own teacher, was the chief conduit through whom the thought and
writings of this `sacred race' of philosophers owed to Hierocles.
Since we have already introduced these philosophers in our discus-
sion of Hierocles' philosophical heritage, we need only point out
here that when all these thinkers are said to agree with the phil-
osophy of Plato in its puried form (diakekauarme3nW), a tribute is
again extended to Ammonius. It is Ammonius who puried
(diakaua3ranta) the opinions of the ancient philosophers, meaning
Plato and Aristotle, insofar as Plato provided the true pattern of
philosophy to which Aristotle's thought could be joined seamlessly,
once Ammonius had removed the ùseless elements that clung to
them both' (cod. 214. 2, 172a 49 p. 126). Ammonius was thus able
to hand on to his pupils à philosophy free from factional strife'
(cod. 251. 3, 461a 367 p. 191). That there were signicant
dierences among Plotinus, Origen, Porphyry, and Iamblichus,
not only in their attitudes towards Aristotle but also in their own
complex philosophies, is something that Hierocles apparently dis-
regards for the sake of presenting a post-Ammonian history of
`pure' Platonic philosophy.
Thus far an overview of On Providence. Following Hierocles'
chronological progression, we have concentrated on the major
gures and writings that he saw as preguring and carrying on the
Platonic tradition. But of course On Providence was more than a
catalogue of names and books, since Hierocles interwove his histor-
ical survey with an exposition of his own philosophy and theory of
providence. In our discussion in Chapter 3 we will attempt to
reconstruct his views about providence, fate, and free will.
e. pagans and chri sti ans
The world in which Hierocles lived had undergone monumental
changes since Constantine the Great (274337). Secular authority
now rested in the hands of Christians. The brief pagan revival
initiated by Julian (3613), the àpostate' emperor, and sought to be
perpetuated by his followers was decisively quenched when Theo-
dosius I, beginning in 381, issued a series of decrees of increasing
severity against pagan cults and sacrices. In 391 Theodosius
enacted laws forbidding all sacrice and closing the temples to
public worship, and in the following year another law penalizing
even private worship.
105
As a result of this imperial anti-pagan
105
Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 1012. On Theodosius' anti-pagan policies see Cochrane (1944),
legislation many temples and rural shrines were desecrated or
destroyed, with or without ocial sanction. Bronze statues of the
òld gods' were often seized upon, molten down, and turned into
coins.
106
In Alexandria the Christians received permission of the
emperor to close the hallowed temple of Serapis, after it had been
occupied by a pagan philosopher named Olympius and his fol-
lowers. The downfall of the Serapeum was a severe blow to
paganism.
107
In the political arena pagan resistance came to an
end when Theodosius crushed the forces of the usurper Eugenius
and the Frankish magister militum, Arbogast, at the battle of the
Frigidus in 394. For the Christians of the empire Theodosius'
victory represented a miraculous triumph in the `Holy War' against
the old gods.
108
Theodosius died soon after. His anti-pagan laws remained in
eect under Arcadius and the pious Theodosius II, but paganism
could not be eradicated simply by the promulgation of laws, the
closure or even destruction of temples, and military successes.
109
32932, Jones (1964), 1659, Noethlichs (1971), 16682, Trombley (1993), 1323 passim,
Williams and Friell (1994), 11925; cf. also the brief summaries in Noethlichs (1986), 11603,
Bregman (1982), 18 and n. 3, and Brown (1992), 113.
106
There is a marvellously satirical epigram to this eect written by the pagan Alexandrian
poet Palladas in the 390s:
Xristianoi4 gegav9 tew Oly3mpia dv3 mat e5xontew
e1nua3de naeta3oysin a1 ph3monew: oy1 de4 ga4 r ay1 toy3w
xv3 nh fo3llin a5goysa fere3sbion e1n pyri4 uh3sei. (Anth. Pal. IX 528)
(The dwellers of Olympus, having become Christians, live here unharmed; for the melting
pot will not put them in the re to make small change.)
Palladas is addressing statues of the gods that apparently had been used to adorn a Christian
building; by their `conversion' they have escaped the usual fate of being molten down. On the
poem and its reference to Alexandria see Alan Cameron (1965), 2235. On Palladas cf. also
Haas (1997), 167.
107
See Chuvin (1990), 659, Trombley (1993), 12935, Dzielska (1995), 813, and esp.
Haas (1997), 15969. On the date, probably 391, see Cameron and Long (1993), 53 n. 191,
Barnes (1995), 92. A measure of the pagan reaction to the destruction of the cult of Serapis
the temple was turned into a church by the Patriarch Theophiluscan be taken from
Eunapius of Sardis; see Kaegi (1968), 78, Penella (1990), 142.
108
See the fascinating account of this civil war, its background and major players
(including Runus and Ambrose), in Williams and Friell (1994), 12640. As the authors
remark (ibid. 133): Èven had Arbogast's army won (which it nearly did), the very most that
could have been hoped for was toleration for pagan practices and support for the state cults . . .
The established organization of the Christian Church could not now be abolished, and even
the most zealous pagan emperor would have been mad to try.' Towards the end of the 5th
cent. much pagan hope was attached to the rebellion of Illus against the Emperor Zeno, but it
too was crushed (in 488); see Jones (1964), 2289, 943, Kaegi (1966), 2534.
109
See Noethlichs (1986), 11635 (on Arcadius), 11657 (on Theodosius II). In 423 and
435 Theodosius II renewed the laws against pagan cults; see Jones (1964), 938, 1390 n. 2;
cf. Trombley (1993), 2335, who comments (ibid. 11): `The laws of Theodosius II . . .
reect a certain grudging realism about the survival of Hellenes and their ineradicable
sacrices.'
The laws, though by no means empty of force, were in most
instances applied on an ad hoc basis,
110
while erce internecine
disputes and theological controversies, for which fth-century
Alexandria provided an outstanding showcase, often left the Chris-
tian authorities too little time to worry about pagan activities.
111
So
much of what early Christian writers and historians heralded as the
victory of Christianity over a demonic, pagan past was, in the words
of Peter Brown, `part of a Christian discourse of triumph', in eect,
à literary construct',
112
whereas in actual life the various forms of
polytheism proved remarkably tenacious and enduring. Its religious
sentiments, steeped in tradition and tied up with ancestral cults,
were deeply ingrained in the pagan populace of all classes. Festivals
and processions continued to be held in honour of Greek and
Hellenized Egyptian deities (notably the goddess Isis), and many
shrines, as in Menouthis near Alexandria, remained popular centres
of pagan worship.
113
Overt pagans, moreover, might still attain high
oces of state.
114
Imperial legislation could not penetrate the pagan soul, much less
topple the imposing edice of Greek learning. Intellectual culture
(paidei3a), as manifested especially in rhetoric, literature, and phil-
osophy, remained the legacy of the Hellenic, in other words, of the
pagan, tradition.
115
There was no dearth of learned pagan men and
110
Cf. Liebeschuetz (1990), 153: Ìn fact one might generalize that these laws represented a
demonstration of religious commitment, and of readiness to support bishops or ocials who
wanted to take action against non-Catholic religion, much more than a set of rules which the
government was bound to implement throughout the Empire.'
111
In addition, more zeal was generally expended in hunting heretics than in pursuing
pagans; see Noethlichs (1986), 1182, 1186.
112
Brown (1992), 129.
113
On the preservation of pagan life in the dierent provinces of the Roman Empire see
Gecken (1929), 17897 (esp. 191 ., the eastern provinces). Gecken's study remains a
valuable account of how the rising tide of Christianiaity was accompanied by only a slow
ebbing of paganism. But see also Kaegi (1966) and (1968), 5998, Demandt (1989), 41430,
Brown (1992), 12832, Averil Cameron (1993), 6971, 1414, and in general Chuvin (1990);
cf. Harl (1990) on paganism in Byzantium. For a detailed study of the continuation of
Hellenic religion as practised in dierent localities of the ancient world see now the two-
volume work of Trombley (1993/4). On the pagan community specically in Alexandria and
its temples, shrines, and cults see Haas (1997), ch. 5.
114
Educated and skilled men, regardless of their confession, could not easily be dispensed
with. This applies even after the edict of 415 (Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 21) which prohibited
pagans from military, administrative, and judicial posts. See von Haehling (1978), 4989,
6015.
115
The survival of the intellectual culture of Hellenism among both pagans and Christians
is the subject of numerous studies; for succinct accounts see Laistner (1951), esp. ch. 1, Harl
(1990), 16 n. 36, and Averil Cameron (1993), 1318 (with numerous bibliographical refer-
ences in the notes); cf. Demandt (1989), 427. On the equation of `Hellenism' and `paganism'
in late antiquity see Bowersock (1990), 910. The rise of Christian hegemony, as Haas (1997),
1368, notes apropros Alexandria, only made the pagan community more self-conscious of its
own identity.
women who were living testimonials to the abiding presence of the
Hellenic tradition. Merely a catalogue of distinguished pagans that
graced the fth century would cover many pages. Let it suce to
single out Hierocles' own friend, Olympiodorus of Thebes, who
combined his pursuit of historical writing and literature with a
successful diplomatic career and never made a secret of his pagan-
ism.
116
The beneciaries of Greek culture also included, as we all
know, the great Christian apologists and churchmen who had
received a `classical' education, even if they then used their learning
as a weapon to combat paganism.
117
The very existence of numerous
polemical tracts written by Christians in the fth century is a telling
indication that pagan thinking was still considered a serious
threat.
118
And with good reason. Pagan philosophers continued to
teach and write, transmitting their knowledge to new generations of
students. For the most part they enjoyed freedom of thought and
expression under the Christian regime.
119
And it was not at all
unusual for them to have Christian disciples, as perhaps Hypatia's
tutelage of Synesius, the later Bishop of Cyrene, shows best.
120
There was no systematic holocaust of pagans, though individual,
sporadic acts of persecution did occur. The lynching of Hypatia was
such a haphazard event. Her misfortune was that as a leading citizen
of Alexandria, enjoying the friendship of both philosophers and
politicians, she was caught up in the midst of the bitter power
struggle between Orestes, the prefect of the city, and Cyril, the
nephew of Theophilus. After his succession to the patriarchy in 412
116
Olympiodorus called himself a poet by profession (thereto see Thompson (1944), 45),
which can also be understood in the wider sense of litterateur (cf. Blockley (1981), 27).
Photius refers to him as a `Hellene', meaning `pagan', and indeed the fragments of
Olympiodorus' work reveal unequivocally that he believed the welfare of the Roman Empire
depended upon the maintenance of pagan ritual (he favoured, inter alia, apotropaic magic);
see Kaegi (1968), 8691, Blockley (1981), 3840. Hierocles speaks of Olympiodorus' fondness
for philosophizing (cod. 214. 1, 171b 245 p. 125). Von Haehling (1978), 604 n. 332,
appropriately remarks: `Das Vorhandensein eines gewissen Freiraumes zugunsten der
heidnischen Geisteselite bezeugt der heidnische Autor Olympiodor, der es wagen konnte,
dem christlichen Kaiser Theodosius II. sein Geschichtswerk zu widmen . . .'.
117
And in the process constructed a vital Christian paidei3a of their own; see Jaeger (1961),
esp. 723.
118
Kaegi (1966), 2468, and (1968), 63.
119
A law passed in Constantinople in 423 (Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 24) expressly forbade
Christian acts of violence against Jews and pagans `who live quietly and attempt nothing
disorderly or contrary to the law . . .'. Thereto see Trombley (1993), 32.
120
Synesius was a Christian from birth; see Cameron and Long (1993), 1935. On other
students and men of inuence, some of them Christian, who were associated with Hypatia,
see Dzielska (1995), 2946. Marrou, in his article on Synesius (1963), rightly stresses the
intermingling of pagans and Christians in Alexandrian philosophical circles (cf. Haas (1997),
1545), but I do not accept his corollary, which he bases in part on Praechter's interpretation
(1912), that Hierocles was `tending gradually closer to the Christian position', nor is it certain
that the Christian Aeneas of Gaza was a student of Hierocles (see nn. 423 above).
Cyril ruthlessly sought to consolidate his power, supported by
fanatical monks that were roaming the city, and opposed by Orestes,
who wished to curb the patriarch's secular ambitions. Taking
advantage of the conict between Jews and Christians in the city,
Cyril had the Jewish quarter plundered and expelled the large
Jewish population. For this he was held accountable by Orestes.
The monks, in turn, accused Orestes of sacricing to the ancient
gods (in violation of Theodosius' edict of 391), and one actually
wounded him with a rock. This man was arrested and executed by
the authorities, but proclaimed a martyr by Cyril. Cyril's strong-
armed supporters, the so-called parabolani, could not with impun-
ity vent their wrath on Orestes, who was not only the prefect but
also a baptized Christian; instead, they fell upon the eminent pagan
lady who, known as a public-spirited philosopher, may indeed have
been an ally of Orestes.
121
Hypatia in any event became a convenient
scapegoat. One day in 415 as she was riding through the city, the
parabolani, attended no doubt by an inamed mob, dragged her
from her chariot and tore her to pieces.
122
The brutal murder of Hypatia could have been witnessed, for all
we know, by Hierocles. He certainly would have been informed of
it, as he spent most of his career during the tumultuous times of
Cyril's patriarchate of Alexandria (41244). Hierocles himself
suered at the hands of Christians, though not in Alexandria but
in Constantinople. The story is told by Damascius:
Having gone up to Byzantium he collided with the authorities, was
brought to court, and ogged at the hands of men. Dipping the hollow
of his hand in the blood owing from his body, he sprinkled the judge and
said: `Here, Cyclops, drink the wine, now that you have eaten human esh'
[Od. 9. 347]. He was sentenced to exile; some time later he returned to
Alexandria and continued to philosophize with his disciples about the
things he was accustomed to.
123
Damascius relates this somewhat macabre tale to illustrate Hiero-
cles' `courageous and great-spirited disposition' (to4 a1 ndrei9on kai4
megalo3uymon huow). The authorities (oi2 kratoy9ntew) that Hierocles
fell foul of were undoubtedly Christian (or acting under the
121
Hypatia is described as `prudent and civic-minded in her actions' (e1n . . . toi9w e5rgoiw
e5mfrona3 te kai4 politikh3n); Suda s.v. Ypati3a (IV 644, 31 Adler) =Dam. Vit. Isid. fr. 102 p. 79,
12 Zintzen (fr. 43E Athanassiadi). A letter of Synesius (Ep. 81) notes her inuence with both
private citizens and magistrates. Cf. Dzielska (1995), 41, 87; Haas (1997), 31013.
122
For a full reconstruction of the events surrounding Hypatia's death, with an account
and assessment of the sources, see Dzielska (1995), 83100, 104, 11317; Haas (1997), 30716
(who, however, does not link the parabolani directly to Hypatia's murder).
123
Suda s.v. Ieroklh9w (II 616, 1318 Adler) = Vit. Isid. fr. 106 p. 83, 611 Zintzen (fr. 45B
Athanassiadi).
mandate of Christian legislation),
124
though Damascius does not
make a point of it. He delights, as do we, in Hierocles' apt quotation
from Homer. Hierocles' repartee, however, should not be inter-
preted as the response of a `learned' pagan vis-a-vis his unlettered
Christian tormentors and thus as typifying a supposed opposition
between pagan renement and Christian barbarism. On the con-
trary, its eectiveness depends upon a common literary culture that
would have enabled Hierocles' judge to appreciateto his chagrin,
of coursethe source and context of the quotation.
125
The point is
the appropriateness of the Homeric quotation, not the fact that it
comes from the mouth of a pagan.
126
Nevertheless, even if Hierocles' response is to be seen in this
neutral light, the story on the whole must implicate the pagan-
versus-Christian thematic, since the charges that Hierocles was
tried for in all likelihood involved his paganism. Here indeed we
come up against a series of interesting questions: What was the
purpose of Hierocles' trip to Constantinople (a long and arduous
voyage, probably by sea)? What was the oence that brought him
before the authorities? Where and for how long was his exile?
Unfortunately, given the paucity of information in Damascius'
account, we can only answer these queries, if at all, with con-
jectures.
Constantinople, styled the `New Rome' by its namesake emperor
when he founded the city on the site of ancient Byzantium in ad
324, had quickly grown into the imperial and administrative capitol
of the East.
127
The seat of the emperor's residence, of the supreme
courts and governmental oces (a senate was created after the
124
Cf. Labriolle (1934), 483 n. 2. According to von Haehling (1978), 11314, of the
seventeen prefects of Constantinople serving under Theodosius II, eight were Christians, the
rest undetermined. On the senate of Constantinople, `probably from its origin a predomin-
antly Christian body', see Jones (1963), 31.
125
Hierocles equates his blood with the wine that Odysseus oers Polyphemus after the
monster had devoured a number of Odysseus' comrades. By casting the judge in the role of
the Cyclops Hierocles' retort carries a stinging rebuke, since the Cyclopes were a race
epitomized in Homer as impious, lawless, and uncivilized, in short, `the embodiment of the
non-human' (Heubeck (1989), 21).
126
It is well known that Christian authors themselves quoted or alluded to Homer with
alacrity (see, for example, Cyrus of Panopolis' encomium to Theodosius II, Anth. Pal. XV 9,
quoted in Bowersock (1990), 65), and that a knowledge of Homer was an obvious part of the
education (paideia) of the governing classes; see Brown (1992), 3941, 122 (who explains the
social signicance of paideia to Christendom). Kaegi (1966), 248, has unearthed a story from
Sophronius Monacus that compares well with the anecdote about Hierocles' quotation of
Homer. According to Sophronius, the pagan physician Gesius, when he was forced to convert
to Christianity by the Emperor Zeno, rose from the baptismal fount and recited: Àjax utterly
perished when he drank the briny water'an ironic adaptation of Od. 4. 511.
127
On the rise of Constantinople from its founding in 324 and its inauguration in 330 see
Jones (1964), 834, 68792, Demandt (1989), 3919, Averil Cameron (1993), ch. 1.
Roman model in 340, a prefect installed in 359), Constantinople
attracted lawyers, litigants, and petitioners from all provinces of the
empire. It was also, next to Rome, the major ecclesiastical centre,
housing a powerful clergy and thronged with pilgrims visiting its
many and glorious churches.
128
Whereas it is out of the question
that Hierocles came to Constantinople on church-related matters, it
is conceivable that he sought out the imperial capitol on ocial
business, perhaps as a petitioner. But the story of his visit as worded
by Damascius rather gives the impression that Hierocles collided
with the authorities in the course of his customary activities. What
naturally suggests itself then is that Hierocles came to Constantin-
ople to teach philosophy.
129
The city had a renowned university,
intended by Theodosius II to be the Christian counterpart to the
university in Athens. Its professors were appointed by the senatea
body now composed mostly of Christians
130
and received a state
salary. An edict passed by Theodosius II in 425 sought to limit the
competition from non-ocial teachers; these had now to conne the
instruction of their pupils to private houses.
131
Although under
these conditions Hierocles would not very likely have been ocially
associated with the university,
132
he might none the less have hoped
to attract hearers as a private teacher, since university towns, then
and now, are always bustling with students and the intellectually
curious.
Rather than assume that Hierocles violated the edict of 425 by
teaching in public (for which the penalty was deportation), we
should suspect that his oence had something more specic to do
with his philosophical practice, especially since Damascius makes a
point of the fact that after his exile Hierocles continued philoso-
phizing in his customary manner (literally, `the things he was
accustomed to'ta4 ei1vuo3ta). His punishment was severe: ogging
and exile. Torture was generally used to elicit a confession, though
if such was the purpose in the case of Hierocles it was probably
applied gratuitously; he may have been ogged simply to be
128
In 381 the Council of Constantinople gave the Bishop of Constantinople primacy after
the Bishop of Rome.
129
Kaegi (1966), 267, assumes the same motive: `The philosopher Hierocles . . . was
beaten, jailed and banned from Constantinople after he vainly attempted to teach there.'
130
Jones (1963), 31; cf. Dagron (1974), 384, Demandt (1989), 425.
131
On the university at Constantinople, its control by the senate, and the edict of 425 (Cod.
Theod. XIV 9. 3), see Jones (1964), 7078, 999, Dagron (1974), 142 n. 3, 383, Kaster (1988),
217.
132
But this cannot be ruled out. Cf. Harl (1990), 15, who sees in the Theodosian edict no
cause for alarm: `Pagans also lled the teaching professions as grammarians, philosophers and
lawyers, and when the university was opened at Constantinople in 425 there is no report of
discrimination against scholars based on their pagan beliefs.'
humiliated. As a rule members of the higher classes, including those
of the liberal professions, were exempt from torture except in
treason trials.
133
We know too little about the circumstances of his
case to pinpoint the law that Hierocles violated, but if not the
ogging, certainly his sentence to exile is a fair indication that he
had been brought to court on a serious charge, one tantamount to
treason. Broadly speaking, there were two types of laws in the
Theodosian Code that treated their violations as treasonable acts
and under one or the other of which Hierocles' oence may have
fallen: the laws dealing with magic and those with sacrices.
134
The former directed themselves against all forms of magic and
sorcery: potions and poisons, incantations, augury, astrology, and
the like.
135
Although an attempt was made to exempt what one
might call white magic, that is, non-malevolent magic intended, for
example, to heal sicknesses or divert natural disasters, in practice it
seems that zealous ocials were prone to punish anything that
smacked of the magical arts.
136
Hierocles was not a magician (he in
fact argues against astrologers and magicians), but he unequivocally
recommended the rites of theurgy, and there can be little doubt that
in common with the `divine' Iamblichus, his own teacher Plutarch,
and most Neoplatonists he practised these rites or solicited the help
of theurgists in fulling them. The theurgist, unlike the magician,
did not try to coerce supernatural powers to attain some mundane
goal (such as love, money, or vengeance); rather he sought to attain
the help of the gods for the sake of purifying his soul and uniting
with the divine.
137
None the less, in spite of the lofty aim of theurgy,
its external rites did involve the use of stones, plants, mock-burial
rites, and invocations, so that to Christian eyes theurgy appeared
indistinguishable from magic. As Augustine remarks, speaking of
incantations, charms, and the occult arts: `these the pagans call
magic or witchcraft, or, using a more honourable name (nomine . . .
133
See Jones (1964), 519. The distinction between honestiores and humiliores cannot,
however, be taken as a central criterion for judging the practices of Roman penal law; see
the critical study by Rilinger (1988). In regard to corporal punishment, Brown (1992), 524,
notes instances that indicate the upper classes were increasingly subjected to oggings and
beatings. See also Demandt (1989), 250.
134
Essentially both types of law fall under the same political rubric insofar as they sought
to ensure the safety of the emperor.
135
The laws against magic, beginning with Constantine and continuing through the
Theodosian era, are discussed by Trombley (1993), 5972. Cf. also the study of Martroye
(1930), the substance of which is that the laws against magic were not aimed against the
solemn rites of traditional Roman religion. See further, Ch. 3, n. 99.
136
Trombley (1993), 645; cf. Phillips (1986), 271820.
137
On the dierences between theurgy and magic (gohtei3a), especially as set out by
Iamblichus, see Cremer (1969), 2536, Luck (1985), 203, Majercik (1989), 223, Stacker
(1995), 11921.
honorabiliore), theurgy'. He accordingly took a dim view of those
who, like Porphyry, would distinguish between magic and
theurgy.
138
Eunapius, after describing the practices of Antoninus,
which all point to the puricatory rites of theurgy, tells us some-
what to our surprise that Antoninus did not make a display of
theurgy, though the given reason is understandable: `probably
because he kept a wary eye on the imperial directives against
it'.
139
If Hierocles was apprehended for theurgical practice in
Constantinople, he was lucky to have escaped with his life, since
the laws against magic usually called for capital punishment.
The laws against pagan sacrice were hardly less severe. Thus the
edict of 392 put individuals who sacriced victims and practised
divination by consulting the entrails on a level with those charged
with maiestas, even if such inquiries had no political motives: ìt is
enough to convict them that they should have desired to break the
laws of nature itself, to pry into forbidden matters and to unfold
mysteries (occulta) . . .'.
140
Another law, passed in Constantinople in
423, reiterates the matter tout court: `The pagans who survive, if
ever caught in the accursed sacrices to pagan gods (in execrandis
daemonum sacriciis), although they deserve capital punishment,
they shall be checked by the conscation of goods and exile.'
141
From his Commentary on the Golden Verses we learn of Hierocles'
attitude towards sacrices. He condemns the gifts and sacricial
rites of fools as so much food for the re, their votive oerings as
merely serving to feed temple-robbers. His concern was with the
inner disposition of the sacricer, who by becoming godlike
`renders above all himself as a sacrice . . .' (I 18 (13, 414), cf.
IV 4 (22, 112) ). But Hierocles' emphasis on the spiritual aspect of
sacricing does not mean that he regarded the outward rites as
superuous, any more than the Psalmist meant to dispense with the
Mosaic sacricial code when he declared: `The sacrices of God are
a broken spirit' (Ps. 51. 17). As a pagan Hierocles believed in the
necessity of sacricing to the gods.
142
It would not have been merely
138
Civ. Dei X 9, 112 (Porph. De regr. an. fr. 2 p. 27, 520 Bidez (286F Smith) ). See
further Gecken (1929), 6870, J. O'Meara (1959), 1048, Luck (1989), 1889.
139
Vitae soph. VI 10. 7 Giangrande. As Penella (1990), 59, comments: Èunapius . . . is
implying, of course, that Antoninus did have theurgic powers.' On Antoninus, see also
Dzielska (1995), 801 and n. 32 above.
140
Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 12. Cf. Trombley (1993), 13: `Penalties for treason were laid on
those who sacriced, the assumption being that where devotional sacrices existed, politically
motivated sacrices designed to reveal the names of future monarchs might also crop up or
even ourish.'
141
Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 23.
142
On the signicance attached to sacrice, including animal sacrice, by Iamblichus and
Sallustius cf. Nock (1926), lxxxiiilxxxvi. Despite imperial edicts, sacricial practices
continued as an integral part of pagan belief; see Harl (1990).
for his belief, however, that he was banished from Constantinople.
For whether it be sacrices or theurgical rites, or, as is perhaps most
likely, a combination of both, Hierocles would have had to be
denounced for actual practices in order to be prosecuted.
143
The
anti-pagan laws, at least in the fourth and fth centuries, did not
extend to the punitive censorship of pagan thought and writings.
144
The suggestion that Hierocles was charged with practising magic
or performing sacrices (whereby one could have entailed the other)
may seem adventuresome, but it at least provides some specic
possibilities to undergird the general verdict that Hierocles was
`denounced as a polytheist'.
145
Concerning the place and duration of
Hierocles' exile, however, we will not even begin to make surmises,
since Damascius gives us no clue whatsoever. All we know is that
Hierocles returned from exile to Alexandria and took up again his
usual philosophical pursuits with his students. The vignette that
Damascius gives us of Hierocles' life is certainly that of the stalwart
pagan philosopher. This impression is corroborated by his writings
which, contrary to what has often been claimed of them, do not in
their overall message make any accommodations to Christianity.
Yet it would be hard to imagine that Hierocles was not somehow
aected by the historical conditions of his world. We have tried to
describe the Christian ambience of Hierocles' life, paying particular
attention to his persecution, for to render as complete a portrayal of
the man as possible it does not suce to picture him living an
unperturbed professorial existence and occupying his thoughts
solely with Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. These heroes of
Hierocles' mental pantheon knew nothing of the Nazarene and his
disciples, and even Ammonius and Plotinus had not yet to contend
with a Christian empire. The publication of laws against pagan cult
and ritual, the presence of powerful bishops, the threat of fanatical
monks, the suering of torture and exilehistorical realities of this
kind all contributed to the spirit of the times in which Hierocles
143
Theurgy often involved sacrices as part of its material rites; see Iambl. De myst. V 14.
218, 410 p. 169; Shaw (1993), 123, Stacker (1995), 2046. Many of the rites and mysteries
carried on by Proclus in Athens, of which we have copious evidence in Marinus' Vita Procli,
entailed sacrices, even if privately performed. Proclus also practised theurgy. Although his
religious activities must have put him at risk, he did not fall foul of the law on account of
these. But it must be remembered that Athens remained a bastion of Hellenism well into the
late 5th cent. On Proclus and the survival of traditional cults in Athens and Attica see
Trombley (1993), 30722.
144
An exception were magical and astrological texts and avowedly anti-Christian writings
(notorious among these, Porphyry's Against the Christians, which as late as 448 was the
subject of an imperial decree), but although these types of books were sought out and
destroyed, there is no sure evidence that their owners or composers suered severe punish-
ments (unless they were caught in actual practices or conspiracies); see Speyer (1981), 1306.
145
Brown (1992), 143.
lived. To be sure, a concept as vague as the `Zeitgeist' can only
inspire an equally vague eect. But perhaps we shall not be far o
the mark to suppose that the circumstances of the later Roman
Empire, particularly in such tumultuous cities as Constantinople
and Alexandria, created in our philosopher, at least in the under-
currents of his thoughts, a siege-mentality akin to that ascribed by
Plato to the authentic philosopher living in an unjust society:
When he takes account of all this [i.e. the frenzy of the masses and general
savagery of his age], he lives quietly and minds his own aairs, like a man
who stands under a wall during a driving storm of dust and hail, and
seeing the rest of the world full of lawlessness he is content if he can keep
himself free from wickedness and wrongdoing in this life, and nally leave
it with good will, grace, and composure. (Rep. 496d5e1)

Life of Hierocles (Print)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life of Hierocles (Print)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PART I

The Life and Philosophy

ayyib, the Greek original of

ayyib's version. Generally, however, Hierocles' work, in detail and

You might also like