exhibits it in its primitive form. The ordinary alexandrine of French
literature is a hexapod iambic, but in all questions of quantity in
modern prosody great care has to be exercised to recollect that all
ascriptions of classic names to modern forms of rhymed or blank verse
are merely approximate. The octosyllabic, or four-foot iambic metre, has
found great favour in English verse founded on old romances.
Decasyllabic iambic lines rhyming together form an "heroic" metre.
IAMBLICHUS (d. c. A.D. 330), the chief representative of Syrian
Neoplatonism, is only imperfectly known to us in the events of his life
and the details of his creed. We learn, however, from Suidas, and from
his biographer Eunapius, that he was born at Chalcis in Coele-Syria, the
scion of a rich and illustrious family, that he studied under Anatolius
and afterwards under Porphyry, the pupil of Plotinus, that he himself
gathered together a large number of disciples of different nations with
whom he lived on terms of genial friendship, that he wrote "various
philosophical books," and that he died during the reign of
Constantine,--according to Fabricius, before A.D. 333. His residence
(probably) at his native town of Chalcis was varied by a yearly visit
with his pupils to the baths of Gadara. Of the books referred to by
Suidas only a fraction has been preserved. His commentaries on Plato and
Aristotle, and works on the Chaldaean theology and on the soul, are
lost. For our knowledge of his system we are indebted partly to the
fragments of these writings preserved by Stobaeus and others, and to the
notices of his successors, especially Proclus, partly to his five extant
books, the sections of a great work on the Pythagorean philosophy.
Besides these, Proclus (412-485) seems to have ascribed to him[1] the
authorship of the celebrated book _On the Egyptian Mysteries_
(so-called), and although its differences in style and in some points of
doctrine from the writings just mentioned make it improbable that the
work was by Iamblichus himself, it certainly emanated from his school,
and in its systematic attempt to give a speculative justification of the
polytheistic cultus of the day, marks the turning-point in the history
of thought at which Iamblichus stood.
As a speculative theory Neoplatonism (q.v.) had received its highest
development from Plotinus. The modifications introduced by Iamblichus
were the elaboration in greater detail of its formal divisions, the more
systematic application of the Pythagorean number-symbolism, and chiefly,
under the influence of Oriental systems, the thorough-going mythic
interpretation of what the previous philosophy had still regarded as
notional. It is on the last account, probably, that Iamblichus was
looked upon with such extravagant veneration. As a philosopher he had
learning indeed, but little originality. His aim was to give a
philosophical rendering of the popular religion. By his contemporaries
he was accredited with miraculous powers (which he, however,
disclaimed), and by his followers in the decline of Greek philosophy,
and his admirers on its revival in the 15th and 16th centuries, his name
was scarcely mentioned without the epithet "divine" or "most divine,"
while, not content with the more modest eulogy of Eunapius that he was
inferior to Porphyry only in style, the emperor Julian regarded him as
not even second to Plato, and said that he would give all the gold of
Lydia for one epistle of Iamblichus.
Theoretically, the philosophy of Plotinus was an attempt to harmonize
the principles of the various Greek schools. At the head of his system
he placed the transcendent incommunicable one ([Greek: hen amethekton]),
whose first-begotten is intellect ([Greek: nous]), from which proceeds
soul ([Greek: psychê]), which in turn gives birth to [Greek: physis],
the realm of nature. Immediately after the absolute one, Iamblichus
introduced a second superexistent unity to stand between it and the many
as the producer of intellect, and made the three succeeding moments of
the development (intellect, soul and nature) undergo various
modifications. He speaks of them as intellectual ([Greek: theoi
noeroi]), supramundane ([Greek: hyperkosmioi]), and mundane gods
([Greek: egkosmioi]). The first of these--which Plotinus represented
under the three stages of (objective) being ([Greek: on]), (subjective)
life ([Greek: zôê]), and (realized) intellect ([Greek: nous])--is
distinguished by him into spheres of intelligible gods ([Greek: theoi
noêtoi]) and of intellectual gods ([Greek: theoi noeroi]), each
subdivided into triads, the latter sphere being the place of ideas, the
former of the archetypes of these ideas. Between these two worlds, at
once separating and uniting them, some scholars think there was inserted
by Iamblichus, as afterwards by Proclus, a third sphere partaking of the
nature of both ([Greek: theoi noêtoi kai noeroi]). But this supposition
depends on a merely conjectural emendation of the text. We read,
however, that "in the intellectual hebdomad he assigned the third rank
among the fathers to the Demiurge." The Demiurge, Zeus, or
world-creating potency, is thus identified with the perfected [Greek:
nous], the intellectual triad being increased to a hebdomad, probably
(as Zeller supposes) through the subdivision of its first two members.
As in Plotinus [Greek: nous] produced nature by mediation of [Greek:
psychê], so here the intelligible gods are followed by a triad of
psychic gods. The first of these is incommunicable and supramundane,
while the other two seem to be mundane though rational. In the third
class, or mundane gods ([Greek: theoi egkosmioi]), there is a still
greater wealth of divinities, of various local position, function, and
rank. We read of gods, angels, demons and heroes, of twelve heavenly
gods whose number is increased to thirty-six or three hundred and sixty,
and of seventy-two other gods proceeding from them, of twenty-one chiefs
([Greek: hegemones]) and forty-two nature-gods ([Greek: theoi
genesiourgoi]), besides guardian divinities, of particular individuals
and nations. The world is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings
influencing natural events, possessing and communicating knowledge of
the future, and not inaccessible to prayers and offerings.
The whole of this complex theory is ruled by a mathematical formulism of
triad, hebdomad, &c., while the first principle is identified with the
monad, [Greek: nous] with the dyad, and [Greek: psychê] with the triad,
symbolic meanings being also assigned to the other numbers. "The
theorems of mathematics," he says, "apply absolutely to all things,"
from things divine to original matter ([Greek: hylê]). But though he
thus subjects all things to number, he holds elsewhere that numbers are
independent existences, and occupy a middle place between the limited
and unlimited.
Another difficulty of the system is the account given of nature. It is
said to be "bound by the indissoluble chains of necessity which men call
fate," as distinguished from divine things which are not subject to
fate. Yet, being itself the result of higher powers becoming corporeal,
a continual stream of elevating influence flows from them to it,
interfering with its necessary laws and turning to good ends the
imperfect and evil. Of evil no satisfactory account is given; it is said
to have been generated accidentally.
In his doctrine of man Iamblichus retains for the soul the middle place
between intellect and nature which it occupies in the universal order.
He rejects the passionless and purely intellectual character ascribed to
the human soul by Plotinus, distinguishing it sharply both from those
above and those below it. He maintains that it moves between the higher
and lower spheres, that it descends by a necessary law (not solely for
trial or punishment) into the body, and, passing perhaps from one human
body to another, returns again to the supersensible. This return is
effected by the virtuous activities which the soul performs through its
own power of free will, and by the assistance of the gods. These virtues
were classified by Porphyry as political, purifying ([Greek:
kathartikai]), theoretical, and paradigmatic; and to these Iamblichus
adds a fifth class of priestly virtues ([Greek: hieratikai aretai]), in
which the divinest part of the soul raises itself above intellect to
absolute being.
Iamblichus does not seem ever to have attained to that ecstatic
communion with and absorption in deity which was the aim of earlier
Neoplatonism, and which Plotinus enjoyed four times in his life,
Porphyry once. Indeed his tendency was not so much to raise man to God
as to bring the gods down to men--a tendency shown still more plainly in
the "Answer of Abamon the master to Porphyry's letter to Anebo and
solutions of the doubts therein expressed," afterwards entitled the
_Liber de mysteriis_, and ascribed to Iamblichus.
In answer to questions raised and doubts expressed by Porphyry, the
writer of this treatise appeals to the innate idea all men have of the
gods as testifying to the existence of divinities countless in number
and various in rank (to the correct arrangement of which he, like
Iamblichus, attaches the greatest importance). He holds with the latter
that above all principles of being and intelligence stands the absolute
one, from whom the first god and king spontaneously proceeds; while
after these follow the ethereal, empyrean, and heavenly gods, and the
various orders of archangels, angels, demons, and heroes distinguished
in nature, power, and activity, and in greater profusion than even the
imagination of Iamblichus had conceived. He says that all the gods are
good (though he in another place admits the existence of evil demons who
must be propitiated), and traces the source of evil to matter; rebuts
the objection that their answering prayer implies passivity on the part
of gods or demons; defends divination, soothsaying, and theurgic
practices as manifestations of the divine activity; describes the
appearances of the different sorts of divinities; discusses the various
kinds of sacrifice, which he says must be suitable to the different
natures of the gods, material and immaterial, and to the double
condition of the sacrificer as bound to the body or free from it
(differing thus in his psychology from Iamblichus); and, in conclusion,
states that the only way to happiness is through knowledge of and union
with the gods, and that theurgic practices alone prepare the mind for
this union--again going beyond his master, who held assiduous
contemplation of divine things to be sufficient. It is the passionless
nature of the soul which permits it to be thus united to divine
beings,--knowledge of this mystic union and of the worship associated
with it having been derived from the Egyptian priests, who learnt it
from Hermes.
On one point only does the author of the _De mysteriis_ seem not to go
so far as Iamblichus in thus making philosophy subservient to
priestcraft. He condemns as folly and impiety the worship of images of
the gods, though his master held that these _simulacra_ were filled with
divine power, whether made by the hand of man or (as he believed) fallen
from heaven. But images could easily be dispensed with from the point of
view of the writer, who not only held that all things were full of gods
([Greek: panta plêrê theôn], as Thales said), but thought that each man
had a special divinity of his own--an [Greek: idios daimôn]--as his
guard and companion.
The following are the extant works of Iamblichus: (1) _On the
Pythagorean_ (_Life_ [Greek: Peri tou Pythagorikou biou]), ed. T.
Kiessling (1815), A. Nauck (St Petersburg, 1884); for a discussion of
the authorities used see E. Rohde in _Rheinisches Museum_, xxvi.,
xxvii. (1871, 1872); Eng. trans. by Thomas Taylor (1818), (2) The
_Exhortation to Philosophy_ ([Greek: Logos protreptikos eis
philosophian]), ed. T. Kiessling (1813); H. Piselli (1888). (3) The
treatise _On the General Science of Mathematics_ ([Greek: Peri tês
koinês mathêmatkês epistêmês]), ed. J. G. Friis (Copenhagen, 1790), N.
Festa (Leipzig, 1891). (4) The book _On the Arithmetic of Nicomachus_
([Greek: Peri tês Nikomachou arithmêtikês eisagôgês]), along with
fragments on fate ([Greek: Peri heimarmenês]) and prayer ([Greek: Peri
euchês]), ed. S. Tennulius (1688), the _Arithmetic_ by H. Pistelli
(1894). (5) The _Theological Principles of Arithmetic_ ([Greek:
Theologoumena tês arithmêtikês])--the seventh book of the series--by
F. Ast (Leipzig, 1817). Two lost books, treating of the physical and
ethical signification of numbers, stood fifth and sixth, while books
on music, geometry and astronomy followed. The emperor Julian had a
great admiration for Iamblichus, whom he considered "intellectually
not inferior to Plato"; but the _Letters to Iamblicus the Philosopher_
which bear his name are now generally considered spurious.
The so-called _Liber de mysteriis_ was first edited, with Latin
translation and notes, by T. Gale (Oxford, 1678), and more recently by
C. Parthey (Berlin, 1857); Eng. trans. by Thomas Taylor (1821).
There is a monograph on Iamblichus by G. E. Hebenstreit (_De
Iamblichi, philosophi Syri, doctrina_, Leipzig, 1764), and one of the
_De myst._ by Harless (_Das Buch v. d. ägypt. Myst._, Munich, 1858).
The best accounts of Iamblichus are those of Zeller, _Phil. d.
Griechen_, iii. 2, pp. 613 sq., 2nd ed.; E. Vacherot, _Hist. de
l'école d'Alexandrie_ (1846), ii. 57 sq.; J. Simon, _Hist. de l'école
d'Alexandrie_ (1845); A. E. Chaignet, _Histoire de la psychologie des
Grecs_ (Paris, 1893) v. 67-108; T. Whittaker, _The Neo-Platonists_
(Cambridge, 1901). (W. R. So.)