Table Of ContentFROM PLATONISM TO NEOPLATONISM
IAMBLICHUS (?)
See H. P. L'Orange, Studien zur Geschichte des spiitantiken
Portrats (Oslo 1933) p. 43
PHILIP MERLAN
DR.IUR.,DR.PHIL. (VIENNA)
PROFESSOROFPHILOSOPHY
SCRIPPSCOLLEGEANDCLAREMONTGRADUATESCHOOL
FROM PLATONISM TO
NEOPLATONISM
Third edition, revised
•
THE HAGUE
•
MARTINUS NIJHOFF
PHOTOMECHANICAL REPRINT 1975.
ISBN-13: 978-90-247-0107-0 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-1592-9
DOl: 10.1007/978-94-010-1592-9
© 1975 by Martinus Niihoff, The Hague, Netherlands
All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to
reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form
UXORI
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
The first edition of this book appeared in 1953; the second,
revised and enlarged, in 1960. The present, third edition is
essentially a reprint of the second, except for the correction of a
few misprints and the following remarks, which refer to some
recent publications* and replace the brief preface to the second
edition.
Neither Eudemus nor Theophrastus, so I said (p. 208£.) knew
a branch of theoretical philosophy the object of which would be
somethingcalled0'.1 ~ 0'.1andwhichbranchwouldbedistinct from
theology. And there is no sign that they found such a branch
(corresponding to what was later called metaphysica generalis) in
Aristotle.
To the names of Eudemus and Theophrastus we now can add
that of Nicholas of Damascus. In 1965 H. J. Drossaart Lulofs
published: Nicolaus Damascenus On the Philosophy of Aristotle
(Leiden: Brill), Le. fragments of his m:pr. njc; 'ApLO''t'o't'&AOUC;
qJLAOO'OqJLiXC; preserved in Syriac together with an English trans
lation. In these fragments we find a competent presentation of
Aristotle's theoretical philosophy, in systematic form. Nicholas
subdivides Aristotle's theoretical philosophy into theology,
physics, and mathematics and seems to be completely unaware
of any additional branch of philosophy the object of which
would be 0'.1 ~ 0'.1 distinct from theology with its object (the
divine). Drossaart Lulofs is puzzled by this, as should indeed be
everybody who attributes to Aristotle a distinction between
theology (or what was later called metaphysica specialis) and a
science of 0'.1 ~ 0'.1. To solve the puzzle, Drossaart Lulofs avails
himself of a theory of Aubenque **. According to Aubenque,
when Aristotle introduced the science of 0'.1 ~ 0'.1, he made an
entirely original contribution to philosophy, a science sans
• Somethesesof thepresentbookarereferred toin thecontextof thecurrentre
interpretation of Plato, the originators of which are H. ]. Kramer (Arete bei Piaton
und Aristoteles [1959]; Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik [1964]) and K. Gaiser
(Platons ungeschriebene Lehre [1963]), sometimes critically, more often approvingly.
In this place, this brief notice mustsuffice.
Part of my reply to Strycker's review of the first edition of my book (below, p.
85-7) is now beside the point, as in his review of the second edition (L'Antiquite
Classique 33[1964] 166f. Strycker modified one of hiscriticisms.
•• P. Aubenque, Le probtemede I'etrechez Aristote (1962).
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
ancetres et sans tradition. But precisely for this reason he was
misunderstood by his successors. They (particularly the author
of Arist. Met. K which Aubenque considers to be spurious)
named the science of being-qua-being metaphysics; a name
designating at the same time theology. They were blind to the
radical difference between the two.
It seems to me that prospects to understand Aristotle better
than he was understood by his immediate pupils and as we see
now,alsobyNicholas ofDamascus, who must havehadaccess to
works by Aristotle which we no longer possess, are rather dim.
The traditional interpretation of Aristotle with thedichotomy
theology- science of being-qua-being has most recently been
upheld by Duering *. He objects especially to my interpretation
of Aristotle's Met. E I, 1026a27-32, where I, erroneously, says
Duering, found Aristotle professing that the subject matter of
'first philosophy' is
7tpw't"I) OUGLiX.
But I think a simple juxtapositionof two keypassages justifies
my interpretation.
r 3, lOOSa33-100Sbl , E I, 1026a27-32
E7td 3'~G't'LV ~'t'L 't'01) CjlUGLX01) 't'L~ €L I-Ltv oov (J.'Y) ea't't 't'tC; E"C'Ep<X
eXvw't's:pw (~v y<xp 't'L YS:vo~ 't'01) OUGLIX 7tIXP<X 't'<X~ CjlUG€L (f\)V€G't"I)
ov't'o~ ~ CjlUGL~), 'fOU )(a66~ou XULIX~, ~ CjlUGtX~ .xv d'Y) npw't'Yj
XiXL't'01)7t€PL 't'ljvnpw't'Yjv oucrlav ~nlcrTljIA-Yj; e:L 3't:G't'L 't'L~ oucrla
8EWpYj'fl)(OU XiXL ~ 7t€PL 't'ou't'wv ci)(lvYj't'o~, 1X\)'t"I) (sci!. CjltAOGOCjlLiX
(sci!. 7t€PL 't'ii)V EV 't'OL~ fLiX6~fLiXGt 7t€PL OUGLIXV eXxLV'Y)'t'OV, 7tpO't'S:pIXV
XiXAoufLS:vWV eX~LWfL!X't'WV XiXL 7t€pt nj~ CjlUGLX:;j~ OUGLIX~) 7tpO't'S:PiX XIXL
't"-I)~ OU"Gtl)X~ I"X1\V €L"'Y) GX€''t'.Lf~.'€"G't'L 6l~ocrocpla npw't'Yj, XiXL )(a6
3e GOCjlLIX 't'L~ XlXt ~ CjlUGtX~, eXAA' 6~ou o{hw~ O't'L npw't'Yj' XIXL
ou npw't'Yj. 7t€pt 't'01) ov't'o~ ~ OV 't'IXU't"I)~ .xv
€t'Y) 6EwpYjcral XlXt 't'L ~G't'L xlXt 't'<X
~
\>7t!XPXOV't'1X ov.
Verbal differences notwithstanding both passages express one
and the same idea: physics has no claim to be declared first
philosophy, because there exists an higher than the
OUGLiX OUGLiX
• I. Duering, Aristoteles (1966), passim, esp. 598f. Duering is of theopinionthat
the two definitions of First Philosophy in Aristotle (viz. as theology and asscience
of being·qua-being) are incompatible. This'is the 'classic' positionofJaeger.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
of physics and this higher oucrLOC can also be designated as 1tpw't"YJ
oucrLOC. Because it is first oucrLOC, the branch of 'theory' dealing
with it can be called first philosophy. The 'theorist' of this first
oucrLoc can also be designated as 'catholicist'; and first philo
sophy as 'catholic' - in the sense of firstness. This first philo
sophy deals with QV ~ 6v. When juxtaposed, the two passages
leavenoroomfor twofirst philosophiesorforonefirst philosophy
with two different subject matters *.
• In his A,istotle's P,ot,epticus (1961),esp. p. 123; 158; 209, Dueringalso objects
to my assertion (below, p. lSI) that ch. XXIII of Iamblichus, De communi mathe
matica scientia essentially consists of excerpts from Aristotle's P,ot,epticus. Un
fortunately, Dueringexpresses himself very brieflyandsomewhatdogmatically (the
language of the chapter ischatty and inflated and many of itsideas are un-Aristo
telian, he says) so that it is very difficult for me to reply. But it seems to me that
some of these objections have been met in advance by A.-J. Festugiere in "Un
fragment nouveau du Protreptique d'Aristote", Revue philosophique 81 (1956) 117
27,apapernevermentionedby Duering. Evenso, Dueringisready toadmit that p.
72, 1-6 Festa could have been written by Aristotle, that some Aristotelian ideas
"shimmer through" and that Iamblichusisspinning them out.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mycolleagues, Dr. Richard Armourof ScrippsCollege and the
Claremont Graduate School and Dr. Benjamin F. Bart, formerly
of PomonaCollege, nowat the Universityof Michigan, corrected
the English of the original draft of the present book. However,
in view of numerous changes in and additions to that draft,
I must assume full responsibility for the style of the whole.
Criticisms from several anonymous readers helped me very
greatlywith the manuscript.
The Claremont Graduate School, the American Philosophical
Association, andthe PacificCoastCommitteeforthe Humanities
contributed to the expenses connected with the writing and
publication of this book.
The library staff of the Claremont Graduate School was
extremely cooperative, especially the head librarian, Dr. David
W. Davies, whoassisted meinmanyways.
One set of proofs was read by my colleague Dr. William
T. JonesofPomonaCollegeand theClaremont Graduate School.
To all these persons and institutions I want to express my
most sincere gratitude.
Claremont, Calif.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. • . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
The present tendency to bridge the gap between
Platonism and Neoplatonism and the main factors of
that tendency (1-3). - The purpose of the present
book: to strengthen this tendency. The way of achiev
ing that purpose (3). - The intention of interpreting
even Aristotle's metaphysics as essentially neoplatonic
(3-4) - The importance of Iamblichus, De communi
mathematica scientia for the present investigation (4-5).
- A noteonexcessiverealism (4). - A noteonthe use
oflaterphilosophicandscientifictheoriesininterpreting
Greek philosophy (5-6). - Appendix (6-8). - Biblio
graphical note (8-10). - Appendix (10).
I. SOUL AND MATHEMATICALS 11-33
The excessively realistic, anti-abstractionist (in
tuitionist) interpretation of mathematicals in Iam
blichus and Proclus and the intermediacy of mathema
ticals (the mathematical sphere of being) between in
tel1igibl~and physicals(11-13).- How is this interme
diacyofthe mathematicalsrelated to the intermediacy
of the soul between ideas and physicals according to
Plato's Timaeus (13-15)? - The problem of the "mo
tive" character of mathematicals in De communi ma
thematica scientia ch. III and its solution ibid. ch. IV:
mathematicals not "motive" and therefore different
from the soul (15-17). - Resumption of the problem
concerning the identity of mathematicals with the soul
in De communi mathematica scientia ch. IX; this time
the solution favors such an identification, stressing
particularly the necessity of identifying the soul with
all branches of mathematicals, viz. arithmeticals, geo
metricals, and harmonicals, the mathematicals, thus,
assumed to be tripartite (17-19). - This doctrine
illustrated also from Iamblichus, On the Soul (19-21)
and from Proclus, in whom, however, the identification
is with quadripartite mathematicals, including astro
nomi.cals, Le. "motive" mathematicals (21-24).
Further discussion of the identification of the soul with
(tripartite) mathematicals in De communi mathematica
scientia ch. X (24-25). - This identification incom
patible with the results of De communi mathematica
scientia ch.s III and IV, this incompatibility revealing
thepresenceofdifferentsourcesfrom whichDecommuni
mathematicascientiaderived(25-26).
Analysis of ch. X resumed; the identification of the
soul with mathematicals explained by Iamblichus (26).
Description:The first edition of this book appeared in 1953; the second, revised and enlarged, in 1960. The present, third edition is essentially a reprint of the second, except for the correction of a few misprints and the following remarks, which refer to some recent publications* and replace the brief prefac
