Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T11:49:24.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IAMBLICHUS’ EPISTLES, FOURTH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL EPISTOLOGRAPHY AND THE NEOPLATONIC CURRICULA AT ATHENS AND ALEXANDRIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Moysés Marcos
Moysés Marcos*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
*
mmarc005@ucr.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a literary genre and practice, philosophical and political epistolography seems to have been alive and well in the fourth-century Roman empire. We have fragments of twenty letters of the late third- and early fourth-century c.e. Platonist (Neoplatonist to us) philosopher Iamblichus of Chalcis (which are preserved in the early fifth-century Ioannes Stobaeus’ Anthologium [ = Flor.]) to former students and other contemporaries, some of whom appear to have been imperial officeholders (see Appendix); the Epistle to Himerius of Sopater the Younger (which is partially preserved in Stobaeus, 4.5.51–60, in sequential extracts; this Sopater is the homonymous son of the philosopher who had been Iamblichus’ student) to his brother Himerius on the latter's assumption of an unknown governorship (ἡγεμονία) in the East, probably sometime in the 340s or 350s (and so under the Emperor Constantius II); the Emperor Julian's Epistle to Themistius, which was likely written and published c.December 361/early 362; and the Epistle to Julian of the Aristotelian philosopher Themistius on proper rule (preserved in two Arabic manuscripts from the eleventh and fourteenth/fifteenth centuries), which seems to have been a response, in part, to Julian's Epistle to Themistius and perhaps was written to the emperor when both men likely resided in Constantinople at the same time. These philosophical and political letters are but a few examples from this period. All four authors mentioned above, who are representative of intellectual life in the East during the fourth century, produced epistles which reflect Greek political theory in a Roman imperial context.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 275 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

As a literary genre and practice, philosophical and political epistolography seems to have been alive and well in the fourth-century Roman empire. We have fragments of twenty letters of the late third- and early fourth-century c.e. Platonist (Neoplatonist to us) philosopher Iamblichus of Chalcis (which are preserved in the early fifth-century Ioannes Stobaeus’ Anthologium [ = Flor.]) to former students and other contemporaries, some of whom appear to have been imperial officeholders (see Appendix);Footnote 1 the Epistle to Himerius of Sopater the Younger (which is partially preserved in Stobaeus, 4.5.51–60, in sequential extracts; this Sopater is the homonymous son of the philosopher who had been Iamblichus’ student) to his brother Himerius on the latter's assumption of an unknown governorship (ἡγεμονία) in the East, probably sometime in the 340s or 350s (and so under the Emperor Constantius II);Footnote 2 the Emperor Julian's Epistle to Themistius, which was likely written and published c.December 361/early 362;Footnote 3 and the Epistle to Julian of the Aristotelian philosopher Themistius on proper rule (preserved in two Arabic manuscripts from the eleventh and fourteenth/fifteenth centuries), which seems to have been a response, in part, to Julian's Epistle to Themistius and perhaps was written to the emperor when both men likely resided in Constantinople at the same time.Footnote 4 These philosophical and political letters are but a few examples from this period.Footnote 5 All four authors mentioned above, who are representative of intellectual life in the East during the fourth century, produced epistles which reflect Greek political theory in a Roman imperial context.Footnote 6

Iamblichus’ extant (fragmentary) letters are part of a long tradition of philosophical letter-writing that includes (authentic or spurious) letters of Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreans, Plato (for example Epistle 7, To Dion), Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca, Apollonius of Tyana, Longinus and Porphyry, among others. Indeed, Stobaeus preserves excerpts from Plato's epistles, such as Epistle 7 (Flor. 4.25.40), in the same book as those from Iamblichus’ epistles on ruling, as well as those excerpts from the epistles of Apollonius of Tyana. Thus Stobaeus saw important connections between the letters of all three. Interest in Iamblichus’ letters has markedly increased in the past decade.Footnote 7 These letters will be closely scrutinized here, to the extent that is possible since they are fragmentary, so as to provide some observations about their circulation and influence.

It is my purpose here to support Dillon's and Polleichtner's suggestion, made in their English translation and commentary, that Iamblichus’ letters had been collected into a volume,Footnote 8 and published as such, and in the process to draw attention to the role that this philosophical correspondence played in social, political and scholastic settings in and after Iamblichus’ time. Furthermore, I argue that Iamblichus’ letters, in their original form before Stobaeus’ excerpting, perhaps were meant collectively to form a kind of Neoplatonic philosophical and political manual, since some addressees were former students turned imperial officeholders (under the Emperor Licinius) whom Iamblichus instructed on the ‘civic’ or ‘political virtues’, as transmitted from Plotinus through Porphyry.Footnote 9 And if this is correct, then it would further support O'Meara's conception of Neoplatonic political philosophy, that it was active,Footnote 10 and the currently evolving image of Iamblichus, who was once simply considered a Neoplatonist magician or quack but who is now seen as more of a serious philosopher in his own right.Footnote 11 Moreover, it has gone unnoticed that Iamblichus’ epistles became so influential that they were evidently being used for Platonic textual exegesis in the sixth-century Neoplatonic curricula at Athens and Alexandria under Damascius and Olympiodorus the Younger respectively.

I

Swain recently has noted (though briefly and only in a general fashion) that Sopater's Epistle to Himerius is ‘an example of a more standard Neoplatonic political letter in the direct tradition of Iamblichus’ and ‘is firmly in the Iamblichan mould’.Footnote 12 And Swain has also seen a connection between all four of our fourth-century epistolary theorists in that Iamblichus’ interest in political writing set a kind of immediate precedent for Sopater, and later for Themistius and Julian.Footnote 13 It is significant that all the above-named letters are philosophical treatises, which use epistolary form as the medium for communicating notions of proper kingship and behaviour with wide-ranging applications. One here might well adduce Seneca's Epistulae Morales to Lucilius as a near equivalent.Footnote 14 But Iamblichus’ ‘letters’ (which became new kinds of texts when Stobaeus excerpted them) appear to be somewhat unique; while letters of guidance were fairly common among the educated elite in antiquity, the fragments that we have of Iamblichus’ correspondence reveal a far more pointed focus on general and fundamental philosophical themes that go beyond typical topics of advice between notables. Far closer analogues are the letters of Sopater, Julian and Themistius. Since we know that all the fourth-century epistles named above apparently were written with an interest in public consumption, we might infer that Iamblichus, Sopater, Julian and Themistius all saw epistolary form, in part, as a preferred method for disseminating general philosophy or philosophical principles among a broader group of people owing to its didactic value. In fact, O'Meara has described Iamblichus’ letters as being ‘of a popularising and sometimes banal nature’.Footnote 15

Another aim or concern of these authors, no doubt, was their public image and reputation, both among contemporaries and posterity. This appears to be inherent in the (authentic or spurious) letters of the pagan holy man Apollonius of Tyana, which reached a high point of popularity in the fourth century.Footnote 16 The Latin historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who hailed from the East and held certain philosophers in high regard, describes Apollonius as amplissimus ille philosophus (23.6.19).Footnote 17 When we consider that this first-century philosopher, like Iamblichus, held Pythagoras in high esteem and practised ‘magic’,Footnote 18 and that his epistles had wide circulation in the East, we can see that Apollonius’ letters likely influenced Iamblichus in some way in the writing and circulation of his own epistles. Pythagorean correspondence probably also played a role in Iamblichus’ letter-writing. And the historical or fictitious Apollonius had addressed many letters to city magistrates, Roman officials and fellow intellectuals in the East, the kinds of addressees that Iamblichus himself would later write to.

Yet, this likely influence appears to have gone only so far, for Iamblichus’ extant letters differ from those of Apollonius in two important ways. First, they are far less personal and revealing of Iamblichus the man. And second, they are more focussed on the four cardinal virtues—ϕρόνησις, σωϕροσύνη, ἀνδρεία and δικαιοσύνη—as understood by Iamblichus the philosopher and teacher.Footnote 19 As Stirewalt has observed regarding epistles such as those of Epicurus to his students, ‘Some of the letter-writing in the study of philosophy was the result of the effort to preserve or propagate the doctrine of the schools.’Footnote 20 This can be extended, in my view, to the fourth century c.e. In Iamblichus’ case this was Neoplatonism, or more precisely his interpretation of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, among others, which differs in some places from that of Plotinus and Porphyry.Footnote 21 And these occasional differences of interpretation especially brought Iamblichus into serious intellectual conflict with his old teacher, Porphyry.Footnote 22 A disagreement on the level of importance of theurgy is one example. Porphyry's Epistle to Anebo (to Iamblichus) prompted the so-called On the Mysteries in reply;Footnote 23 but Iamblichus responded to Porphyry in more ways than one. Iamblichus also has a difference of opinion with Plotinus and Porphyry on the partial descent of the soul, which he showcases in his fragmentary commentary on Plato's Timaeus and in his De anima.Footnote 24 Consequently, Iamblichus’ letters may have been intended not only to disseminate his views to a wider Eastern audience but also as another way to preserve his views in writing and to define Iamblichus on degrees of difference, where they existed, between him and Porphyry in particular.

The twenty known epistles of Iamblichus, which are only partially quoted by Stobaeus and so only partially preserved, cover a wide range of themes and virtues that are closely connected to Neoplatonic political philosophy: proper kingship/rule; dialectic; practical wisdom; justice; fate; concord; and self-control. In fact, the incompleteness and the wide range of topics of the letters are themselves revealing, for Stobaeus preserves the epistles thematically, an organization that may imply the existence of a volume of Iamblichus’ letters collected upon a similar criterion, which were later sifted through and excerpted in large chunks according to their ability to complement surrounding texts in the Anthologium.

When one studies the locations of Iamblichus’ letters in Stobaeus in relation to the latter's chapter headings,Footnote 25 there would appear to be two possibilities regarding their selection and placement: either Stobaeus relied on the themes of Iamblichus’ letters for nearly all the headings to the chapters in which those letters were placed, or he chose the chapter headings first and then happily found letters from Iamblichus on the same subjects which he then included and used to represent his chosen themes.Footnote 26 In either case, a collected volume of Iamblichus’ letters may be implied. If correct, perhaps it was completed by one of his faithful students, like the elder Sopater, as recently suggested by Piccione.Footnote 27 The collation of a master's works by one of his top disciples was an established tradition, such as in the cases of Arrian, who had collected the lectures of his master Epictetus in the second century, and later Amelius and Porphyry, who dutifully collated and edited Plotinus’ treatises in the third century. And Porphyry, who was conscious of this long-standing tradition (cf. Porph. Vit. Plot. 24), may have imparted its importance to his student, Iamblichus, and Iamblichus in turn to his own student, Sopater.

If Iamblichus died by 324, and Epistle 6 (To Dyscolius) can be dated to around 323, it would seem unlikely that Iamblichus had sufficient time to collect and edit a complete edition of his own writings, although Epistle 6 may have been inserted into a collection at a later point. On the other hand, perhaps Sopater the Elder, who we know lived into the early 330s, subsequently had sufficient time to produce an edition of his master's treatises. Since Sopater is the most frequent addressee (see Appendix; more below), he may have collated and edited the letters, in part, with an eye to advertising his own philosophical importance and so augmenting his own social and political standing in addition to preserving and circulating the doctrines of his master. And such a presumed project is in keeping with a man who seemingly had a high opinion of himself (Σώπατρος … οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὁμιλεῖν).Footnote 28 However, as we shall see below, there is another possible candidate for subsequent collector, editor and/or disseminator of Iamblichus’ letters and works: Iamblichus of Apamea, son of Himerius and nephew of the younger Sopater, who wrote the Epistle to Himerius, and so grandson of the elder Sopater.Footnote 29

Interestingly, it has been suggested that extracts of Iamblichus’ letters may have been part of an Iamblichan collection that included not only Iamblichus’ writings but also Pythagorean texts on moral and political topics.Footnote 30 Perhaps Iamblichus himself contemplated such a collection, as is evident from his Protrepticus in which he carefully patched together various excerpts from numerous philosophical works, most often those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, and arranged them so as to form a new whole with an eye to instruction.Footnote 31 Plutarch had done something similar in the early second century with his Apophthegms of Kings and Commanders, which collectively formed a kind of philosophical and political manual for those with less time for otium and reading (Mor. 172D–E). It may be that Iamblichus envisaged a similar purpose for his public letters.

Indeed, as Peter Brown has noted, there was a close relationship between paideia and power, one that contributed to the production of philosophical manuals for non-philosophers and those among the elite who wanted to acquire some philosophical knowledge and training,Footnote 32 perhaps, we should add, in the same way that many among the elite in the late fourth century may have used and valued Latin short histories on Rome and her emperors, such as Eutropius’ popular historical work Breuiarium ab urbe condita: as a means by which to display and to perform paideia and so appear to hold it.Footnote 33 This, in turn, would have satisfied a qualification for those seeking office and helped to legitimize them as holders of authority. If correct, this is the social and political matrix in which Iamblichus’ philosophical correspondence clearly belongs. His epistles would have served as Neoplatonic manuals for those seeking philosophical knowledge and paideia for their own sakes; but there was another benefit. That some of Iamblichus’ addressees were former students who acquired high imperial offices and positions would not have been lost on those in the Eastern elite seeking distinguished public careers of their own. Indeed, Iamblichus’ letters, in modern parlance, would appear to showcase his ‘job placement’ record, though we lack detailed knowledge on the life and careers of most of his recipients.

In keeping with this view, we can see that Iamblichus was keenly interested in political subjects such as proper kingship, which is the topic of three epistles (Epistle 1, To Agrippa, On Ruling, and likely Epistle 6, To Dyscolius, and Epistle 20, To an unknown recipient, as well) and argumentation (Epistle 5, To Dexippus, and Epistle 13, To Sopater, On Dialectic). Proper rule, argumentation and philosophy are central topics in the younger Sopater's, Julian's and Themistius’ own letters. And it appears that some of the recipients of Iamblichus’ epistles were fellow notables from Syria (Olympius, Sopater the Elder and Dyscolius), as well as from Cappadocia (Eustathius; see Appendix). Unfortunately, Iamblichus’ addressees are so few and our knowledge of them so minimal that it is not possible to reconstruct his social network more fully, as recently has been done for Theodoret, the fifth-century bishop of Cyrrhus.Footnote 34

Like Plotinus and Porphyry before him, Iamblichus created a relatively small, intimate circle of disciples, and it is odd that we have no letter to Aedesius (also from Cappadocia and a relative of Eustathius), who was one of Iamblichus’ most prominent students and who continued his master's work at Pergamum after the death of the elder Sopater, eventually teaching Maximus of Ephesus, one of the teachers of the future Emperor Julian.Footnote 35 That we have no letter to Aedesius might reflect an editorial decision by Stobaeus or Aedesius’ instruction by Iamblichus late in the master's life, which would then indicate that those addressees that we do have were trained by Iamblichus earlier than Aedesius and so were more well-established disciples and members of his inner circle by 323.

This view is supported by the fact that Sopater the Elder is Iamblichus’ most frequent addressee, receiving no fewer than seven epistles (Epistles 12–18), which may illustrate that Sopater was Iamblichus’ favourite pupil and/or subsequently his most influential pupil at the court of Licinius by the early 320s (he also would be at Constantine's court by the early 330s), around the time when it seems that Iamblichus died.Footnote 36 The terminus ante quem for Iamblichus’ twenty fragmentary letters appears to be 323, the year in which the Dyscolius who is one of the recipients may have been a governor of Syria under Licinius, although the letter may have been written sometime shortly before or after 323. Indeed, we should also consider 18 September 324, the date of Licinius’ defeat and deposition, after which Iamblichus, if he was still alive, and his students enjoyed less influence at court under Constantine. Other than the elder Sopater, we know of no other former student of Iamblichus who certainly attained imperial office or influence under the Christian Constantine (though Julius Julianus may be another; see below), which consequently suggests that Sopater was an exceptional and flexible philosopher, perhaps not unlike Themistius later under Constantius. As for the terminus post quem, it may fall sometime in the late 310s, when Iamblichus’ addressees and former students might have been in their thirties, at an age that would have qualified them for imperial appointments under Licinius.Footnote 37 To be sure, Iamblichus’ philosophical and political letters are not formally structured as commendationes or letters of recommendation in the fragmentary forms that we have them; however, they may have served as advisory epistles for those who did receive appointments, such as Dyscolius and the elder Sopater.Footnote 38 In this light, it would seem that Sopater's epistles from Iamblichus influenced his homonymous son in some way, perhaps leading directly to the Epistle to Himerius.

As Swain has observed regarding Iamblichus’ public letters and other writings, ‘Iamblichus’ fame makes it reasonable to assume a wide readership for these texts’.Footnote 39 Yet, we might go further: Iamblichus’ fame and standing probably had a strong influence on subsequent philosophical and political epistolography in the East. Indeed, keeping in mind that the elder Sopater was a former student of Iamblichus and some kind of adviser to both Licinius and Constantine, we can see where the younger Sopater likely received inspiration for his own philosophical and political letter to his brother Himerius, in which this Sopater plays the role of an ‘adviser’ to a brother who had been appointed to an unknown governorship in the 340s or 350s under Constantius, the son of Constantine. Therefore, the Epistle to Himerius may be an example of imitatio and prosopopoeia,Footnote 40 both of Iamblichus and the elder Sopater, in a broad sense.

In fact, Iamblichus’ letters on proper rule take on a pointed but careful advisory tone, one that the younger Sopater apparently learned and appreciated when he tells us, in his Epistle to Himerius, that ‘Overt criticism is troublesome to those in power’ (βαρὺ γὰρ ἔλεγχος ἐμφανὴς τοῖς ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ, Stob. Flor. 4.5.52, trans. Swain). In a nutshell, this is Sopater's advice to Himerius as a new governor: ‘Be worthy of the office not by the practice of politics, but by the superiority of your virtue and attitude towards the ruled’ (καὶ γίγνου μὲν ἄξιος τῆς ἀρχῆς οὐ θέσει πολιτείας, ἀλλ’ ἀρετῆς καὶ προαιρέσεως τῇ πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχομένους ὑπεροχῇ, Stob. Flor. 4.5.55, trans. Swain). This theme and advice find some parallels in Fragment 1 of Iamblichus’ Epistle 1, To Agrippa, On Ruling, which Sopater may very well have consulted when writing an epistle for his brother on the same topic.Footnote 41

Moreover, Iamblichus’ advice for the good ruler, that he should exhort his subjects towards the happy life, which is the essence of ‘the fine practices’ (τὰ καλὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα, Epistle 20, On Ruling [?]), is echoed by the younger Sopater in his Epistle (Stob. Flor. 4.5.51), where in this same vein he goes on to speak of our aspiration to the best life (τῆς ἀρίστης ζωῆς μεταποιεῖσθαι μέλλοιμεν, Stob. Flor. 4.5.54).Footnote 42 In addition to ruling, Sopater also pointedly references many of the same virtues that are found as central themes of Iamblichus’ extant letters: self-respect (4.5.54, cf. Epistle 17, To Sopater); truth (4.5.54, cf. Epistle 18, To Sopater); virtue itself (4.5.51, 4.5.55, cf. Epistle 16, To Sopater); and, at greater length, justice (4.5.56–60, cf. Epistle 2, To Anatolius). Furthermore, Stobaeus himself testifies to a close association between Iamblichus’ Epistle 20 (4.5.62) and Sopater's Epistle to Himerius (4.5.51–60), when we consider that he placed them together in the same volume and chapter, with Iamblichus following Sopater almost immediately. And Iamblichus’ two additional excerpted epistles on ruling follow shortly thereafter (Epistle 1: 4.5.76–7; Epistle 6: 4.5.74–5). Stobaeus clearly believed that these texts complemented one another and so placed them together in Book 4, Chapter 5 on proper rule.

The Epistle to Himerius probably dates to sometime in the 340s or 350s, the next generation after the death of Iamblichus, at the very time when Themistius was embarking on a public career as a philosopher under and panegyrist for Constantius in the East.Footnote 43 Themistius apparently did not respect Iamblichus as a philosopher overall;Footnote 44 yet such disapproval would appear to presuppose familiarity with Iamblichus’ works and system. Philosophers often defined themselves by comparing and contrasting their beliefs to those of rival philosophical schools, such as the Stoic philosopher Seneca who had acquainted himself closely with Epicurus’ teachings via his letters and occasionally even found himself in agreement with them.Footnote 45 When we recall Iamblichus’ importance in the East as a Neoplatonist philosopher, one who also wrote commentaries on Aristotle,Footnote 46 and his political influence at Licinius’ court via a former student's promotion to some advisory position there by the early 320s, it is not surprising that the Aristotelian philosopher Themistius, who wrote paraphrases of some of Aristotle's writings and who was a political philosopher in his own right at the court of Constantius by late 355, might have had Iamblichus’ epistles and Sopater's Epistle to Himerius in mind when writing his own public letters, such as the Epistle to Julian.Footnote 47

Thus it is quite likely that Themistius used Iamblichus’ writings on topics of mutual interest, such as Iamblichus’ commentaries on Aristotle. By writing letters to some of his former students who held positions of political power, Iamblichus continued his role as teacher and mentor, the kind of role subsequently taken up by Themistius in his missive to the Emperor Julian, who, at one point, seems to have been one of Themistius’ own students before being promoted to Caesar in late 355.Footnote 48 In fact, like Iamblichus’ Epistle 3, To Arete, On Self-Control, Themistius’ Epistle to Julian expounds on the importance of self-control: to wholeheartedly commit oneself to physical pleasures is to lead the life of a beast, while to control (or to reject) them is consistent with the divine.Footnote 49

Furthermore, Sopater's quoting of Homer, that a good ruler is a ‘gentle father’ (τὸν ἤπιον φέρων ἐπέθηκε τῷ πατρί, Stob. Flor. 4.5.55),Footnote 50 although it is a common quotation and trope, may have inspired Themistius in his writings, such as the Epistle where the ruler is a ‘sympathetic parent’.Footnote 51 More importantly, this Homeric phrase was a common marker of paideia in fourth-century discourse among the powerful.Footnote 52 This marker lends some support to viewing the Epistle to Julian as an authentic work of Themistius, who uses the same Homeric phrase elsewhere and in much the same way that Libanius does (Them. Or. 1, 17A; cf. Lib. Or. 46, 3). And Julian also makes use of Homer's ‘gentle father’ in one of his own orations (πατὴρ ἤπιος, Mis. 345C). By deploying such a phrase in his Epistle, Themistius is at once reminding Julian of their shared paideia and exhorting him to be a good and gentle ruler like Odysseus, a prudent move after Julian's relatively poor reception of Themistius’ previous letter in the Epistle to Themistius. It is therefore attractive to consider that Themistius wrote his somewhat protreptic Epistle to Julian while he and the emperor both resided in Constantinople, probably from 11 December 361 to late May 362,Footnote 53 at a time and place where Themistius, as a prominent senator of Constantinople, may have felt that his potential influence with Julian was at its greatest.

As for Julian, admiration for and reliance on Iamblichus and his literary corpus is manifest in the emperor's own writings.Footnote 54 Indeed, Julian styles the Neoplatonist philosopher as ‘the divine Iamblichus’ (ὁ δαιμόνιος … Ἰάμβλιχος, Or. 6, 188B, ὁ δαιμόνιος Ἰάμβλιχος, Or. 7, 222B), as ‘truly godlike and third after Pythagoras and Plato’ (ὁ θεῖος ἀληθῶς καὶ μετὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ Πλάτωνα τρίτος Ἰάμβλιχος, Ep. ad Prisc. [2 Wright, 12 Bidez]) and simply as ‘the most godlike’ (Ἰαμβλίχου τοῦ θειοτάτου, Ep. ad Lib. [58 Wright, 98 Bidez] 401B).Footnote 55 And in another instance Julian appears to be alluding to Iamblichus, describing him as ‘a man whom I have considered to be superior to all those from my own time’ (ἀνδρὶ … ὃν νενόμικα τῶν κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν πάντων διαϕέρειν, Or. 7, 235B).Footnote 56 Such high praise and approval, when taken together with Julian's familiarity with Iamblichus’ writings, suggest, in my view, that Julian may have had Iamblichus’ letters in mind in some way when writing to (and at times taking issue with) the Aristotelian Themistius in the Epistle to Themistius, which at its core is about proper rule and philosophy from a Neoplatonic perspective.

Moreover, Julian's affinity for Iamblichus was so high that manuscript copyists and editors included in the emperor's epistolary corpus a series of six letters to the famed philosopher that were apparently written by another Julian who was a former pupil of Iamblichus, perhaps a Julian of Caesarea, who taught philosophy and rhetoric at Athens, or the emperor's maternal grandfather and namesake, Julius Julianus, who was the praetorian prefect in the East under Licinius and who continued to enjoy imperial favour after 324 under Constantine.Footnote 57 If the latter identification is correct, these letters would have been sources of great pride for Julian and would have provided him with further motivation to examine Iamblichus’ letters. Additionally, we should remember that the emperor's familiarity with Iamblichus’ writings had been fostered by Maximus of Ephesus, a student of Aedesius, who in turn had been a student of Iamblichus. Therefore, Julian's academic lineage and training, his conception of normative Neoplatonic texts, went back directly to Iamblichus and his literary corpus. Might Aedesius have included some of Iamblichus’ correspondence in the curriculum of his school at Pergamum, which would then have been learned by Maximus and later introduced to Julian? This seems like a rather strong possibility; in fact, Iamblichus’ epistles would be employed later in Neoplatonic curricula at Athens and Alexandria (Section II).

Undoubtedly, Iamblichus ranked high in fourth-century Neoplatonist circles, a status partly supported by the fact that his letters not only show hints of harmonizing Plato and Plotinus, among others, but also offer guidance on a wide range of subjects in addition to proper rule (Epistles 1, 6 and 20): justice (Epistle 2); self-control (Epistle 3); practical wisdom (Epistle 4); dialectic (Epistles 5 and 13); music (Epistle 7); fate (Epistles 8 and 12); concord (Epistle 9); courage (Epistle 10); providence (?) (Epistle 11); bringing up children (Epistle 14); ingratitude (Epistle 15); virtue itself (Epistle 16); self-respect (Epistle 17); truth (Epistle 18); and marriage (Epistle 19). There was something here for every (potential) Neoplatonist, whether he sought out a public career in politics or otherwise.

II

If the younger Sopater, Julian and Themistius did indeed use Iamblichus’ letters in their own philosophical and political epistolography, then it raises some interesting possibilities. Thus Iamblichus’ wide readership and the above-named three authors’ relative familiarity with his works would point to a rather quick collection and standardization in the East of Iamblichus’ letters as Neoplatonic texts. And we know that philosophical letters were included in one Neoplatonic curriculum among philosophical treatises, for in the sixth-century Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy we find numerous references to Plato's epistles, which indicate that they formed a part of the program.Footnote 58 Admittedly, there are no references to Iamblichus’ epistles here; however, when we consider that the Anonymous Prolegomena describes Iamblichus as ‘the divine Iamblichus’ (ὁ θεῖος Ἰάμβλιχος, 26.16),Footnote 59 similar to Julian's descriptions of Iamblichus above, and preserves an outline of his twelve-dialogue curriculum, it raises the prospect that Iamblichus’ letters were used alongside Plato's dialogues and letters for exegetical purposes. Indeed, Iamblichus often expounds on material from Plato and even quotes directly from many of his dialogues, such as the Laws, Meno, Phaedrus, Sophist, Alcibiades and Republic (see, for example, Epistles 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 20).

In fact, the late fourth- and early fifth-century Neoplatonist philosopher Plutarch the scholarch and his successors at Athens, Syrianus and then Proclus, were teachers of Iamblichus’ works and philosophical system.Footnote 60 And we know that the Neoplatonic school at Athens included Iamblichus’ letters in its curriculum, for later in the sixth century we find that Damascius, the last head of the school, consulted ‘epistles’ of Iamblichus for his commentary on Plato's Phaedo.Footnote 61 This use of Iamblichus’ letters is all the more interesting since the Phaedo represents a key Platonic text on the ‘purificatory virtues’.Footnote 62 But it is also connected to the ‘political virtues’ and so connected to the Gorgias, which immediately precedes the Phaedo in the first cycle.Footnote 63 It is difficult to determine which epistles Damascius is referring to; it may be any of them or all (if so, our extant letters might be a kind of ‘greatest epistolary hits’). Additionally, Damascius’ use of the letters might indicate that he relied on Iamblichus’ curriculum, which contained the Phaedo in the first cycle, to a great extent. Nevertheless, this inclusion of the letters in the Athenian curriculum likely predates the sixth century, for Damascius had studied under the Alexandrian Ammonius, who in turn had been trained by Proclus, Syrianus’ successor at Athens; and Ammonius’ father, Hermias, had been trained by Syrianus, his fellow Alexandrian and the successor of Plutarch the scholarch at Athens.Footnote 64

And then there is the late fourth- and early fifth-century Neoplatonist Antoninus—a pupil of Aedesius, his relative and son of that same Eustathius who had been Iamblichus’ student and one of his correspondents (Epistle 7, To Eustathius, On Music)—who was also devoted to Iamblichus’ philosophical system and had set up a school northeast of Alexandria at Canopus.Footnote 65 Antoninus likely knew of Iamblichus’ epistles. He may have regarded the one to his father as both a point of pride and evidence of his Iamblichan pedigree, and therefore his legitimacy as an Iamblichan teacher; perhaps Antoninus used Iamblichus’ epistles in his curriculum as well. Antoninus’ Iamblichan devotion was later continued by the sixth-century Neoplatonist Olympiodorus the Younger—head of the Alexandrian school after Ammonius—who refers to one of Iamblichus’ letters and treats it reverentially as an authority in his commentary on Plato's Gorgias.Footnote 66 This epistolary usage also indicates that, like Damascius, Olympiodorus based his curriculum to a great extent on that of Iamblichus, who also taught the Gorgias in the first cycle as a vital text representative of the ‘civic’ or ‘political virtues’. Once again we find another commentary on a Platonic text where Iamblichus’ epistles played some role in explicating certain virtues: ‘purificatory’ in the Phaedo and ‘political’ in the Gorgias. As with Damascius’ reference, it is difficult to ascertain which letter(s) Olympiodorus is referring to; however, the pointedly ‘political’ epistles, that is, Epistles 1, 6 and 20, seem like good candidates.

Such prosopographical connections as those made above, which trace academic lineage, might allow us also to trace the introduction of Iamblichus’ letters into the Neoplatonic curricula at Athens and Alexandria, and consequently the influence of one school on the other. While explicit references to Iamblichus’ correspondence are found only in the two fragmentary sixth-century commentaries by Damascius and Olympiodorus, it is none the less reasonable to presume that the epistles were used more widely as tools for Platonic textual exegesis and earlier than the late fourth-century Plutarch the scholarch.

Yet, if this is correct, how did Plutarch come to know Iamblichus’ philosophical letters and system? It is here that we can now return to Iamblichus of Apamea, who lived in Athens for a time as a philosopher during the late fourth century and likely contributed to the dissemination of the works of his famous namesake there. Iamblichus of Apamea probably began a relatively small, intimate circle of followers at Athens, a circle which may very well have contributed to the formation of the Neoplatonic school under Plutarch.Footnote 67 In fact, as suggested by Alan Cameron, perhaps it was through Iamblichus of Apamea that Plutarch was first introduced to the works of Iamblichus of Chalcis.Footnote 68 If so, then this would have included the letters. Moreover, it may be that Julian is earlier referring to these, among other things, when he remarks in a letter from the late 350s that there were revised works of Iamblichus of Chalcis in circulation (Τὰ Ἰαμβλίχου πάντα … εὐδιόρθωτα, Ep. ad Prisc. [2 Wright, 12 Bidez]) among intimates of the philosopher Priscus, who had been a student of Aedesius at Pergamum and who later taught at Athens.Footnote 69 If so, then Priscus might subsequently have incorporated Iamblichus’ correspondence into his curriculum at Athens and so contributed to their dissemination there in addition to Iamblichus of Apamea.

Iamblichus of Apamea also had the training (and the name) to form a philosophical circle, which undoubtedly gained further credibility through familial connections that went back directly to Iamblichus of Chalcis himself. If Antoninus was proud of a letter of Iamblichus to his father, Eustathius, then Iamblichus of Apamea must have felt far more on account of the seven letters to the elder Sopater, his grandfather. This would then help explain how Plutarch likely and later Damascius certainly acquired knowledge of the epistles. After their introduction to Plutarch and their continued use under his successors, Syrianus and then Proclus, we can then see how the letters made their way to Alexandria and into the curriculum of Olympiodorus via Ammonius and Hermias, both of whom had learned the Iamblichan system under Plutarch's successors at Athens. And the introduction of Iamblichus’ correspondence into the curriculum at Alexandria may be further explained by the proximity of Antoninus’ school at Canopus. As it has been said, ideas have legs. All these points suggest an Iamblichan collection of epistles and other works in circulation in the East by the mid fourth century, which, as we have noted above, is supported by a study of the early fifth-century Stobaeus’ chapter headings as they relate to Iamblichus’ fragmentary letters.

As noted above, each of Iamblichus’ twenty known letters contains an individual theme or, more specifically, an individual virtue. In fact, all four cardinal virtues are represented in Iamblichus’ epistles. Consequently, it would seem that Iamblichus’ epistolography revolved around reminding recipients about (and educating other readers on) the ‘civic’ or ‘political virtues’, which formed a sliding scale, before they theoretically moved on to the ‘purificatory’ ones, as promoted by Plotinus in Enn. 1.2, On Virtues.Footnote 70 Indeed, all the addressees appear to have been Eastern notables and former students of Iamblichus, some of whom held imperial offices and positions and would have had need of guidance in conceiving and practising ‘civic virtues’ in the act of carrying out their duties. Perhaps Iamblichus’ letters, taken collectively, were meant to form a kind of Neoplatonic philosophical and political manual which would also showcase and develop Iamblichus’ influence over former students turned officeholders and advisers, like Dyscolius and the elder Sopater, under Licinius.

In the end, based on what has been outlined here, it appears that it was not only for the fame of Iamblichus and his recipients that his letters were read, used and partially preserved but also for the wide-ranging applicability of the letters themselves: their didactic value in philosophical circles in the East by the mid fourth century as Neoplatonic texts of Iamblichan philosophical exposition and explication; their discussion of topics of popular and practical interest; and their value as prominent examples of Iamblichan Neoplatonic political philosophy at work, examples which would have been known to the younger Sopater, Julian and Themistius when they crafted their own Epistles. And the elder Sopater, Priscus, Iamblichus of Apamea and Antoninus all may very well be missing links between Iamblichus of Chalcis and Damascius and Olympiodorus with respect to the dissemination of Iamblichus’ epistles and their attested inclusion in the Neoplatonic curricula at Athens and Alexandria in the sixth century, evidently for Platonic textual exegesis.Footnote 71

APPENDIX

IAMBLICHUS’ EPISTLES AND THEIR RECIPIENTS

Epistle 1: To Agrippa (On Ruling): PLRE 1.31, Agrippa. He was possibly a student of Iamblichus; early fourth century.

Epistle 2: To Anatolius (On Justice): PLRE 1.59, Anatolius 1. He was a philosopher, possibly that Anatolius who taught Iamblichus before Porphyry; late third century. It would appear strange, as Dillon and Polleichtner note, for Iamblichus to write a didactic letter to a former master.Footnote 72 But we might have a similar example of this in Julian's Epistle to Themistius. None the less, there is an alternative possibility: perhaps this Anatolius was the son of Iamblichus’ teacher, whom Iamblichus may have taken on as a student.

Epistle 3: To Arete (On Self-Control): PLRE 1.101, Arete. She was a philosopher, probably a student of Iamblichus, the same Arete whom Julian helped in Phrygia in 351–352 c.e., when she was in danger of being removed from her property by hostile neighbours; early to mid fourth century.

Epistle 4: To Asphalius (On Practical Wisdom): PLRE 1.118. He was possibly a student of Iamblichus; early fourth century.

Epistle 5: To Dexippus (On Dialectic): PLRE 1.250, Dexippus 1. A philosopher, he was a student of Iamblichus and a commentator on Aristotle's Categories (he may have been inspired by Iamblichus’ own commentaries on the same subject); early fourth century. It is attractive to consider possible kinship with the Greek historian P. Herennius Dexippus (Dexippus 2).

Epistle 6: To Dyscolius (On Ruling?): PLRE 1.275, Dyscolius 2. A student of Iamblichus, possibly also to be identified with Dyscolius 1, who may have been a governor of Syria under Licinius c.323.

Epistle 7: To Eustathius (On Music): PLRE 1.310, Eustathius 1. A student of Iamblichus and a philosopher, later used by Constantius II as an emissary to the Persian king Shapur II in 358.

Epistles 8 and 9: To Macedonius (On Fate and On Concord respectively): PLRE 1.526, Macedonius 1. He was probably a student of Iamblichus and may have been an imperial officeholder.Footnote 73 And he may have been the father of Macedonius 2, who was defensor of Tarsus and had sons in Libanius’ school, one of whom was possibly Macedonius 4 (PLRE 1.526–7).Footnote 74

Epistle 10: To Olympius (On Courage): unattested in PLRE. He was probably a student of Iamblichus and possibly the father of Olympius 3 (PLRE 1.643–4), a lifelong friend of Libanius, and perhaps grandfather of Olympius 4 (PLRE 1.644–5), a student of Libanius, both of whom were native to Antioch (there is a relative abundance of Olympii attested during the 360s, which makes identification quite difficult). This is another possible connection between Iamblichus of Chalcis and Libanius (Iamblichus of Apamea, son of Himerius and grandson of the elder Sopater, was a relative of Libanius), which, in my view, cannot be coincidental. If correct, this may further explain the relatively close relationship between Libanius and Julian, who was strongly devoted to the teachings and the followers of Iamblichus.

Epistle 11: To Poemenius, On Fate (?): PLRE 1.709, Poemenius 1. He was possibly a student of Iamblichus.

Epistles 12–18: To Sopater (On Fate, On Dialectic, On Bringing Up Children, On Ingratitude, On Virtue, On Self-Respect and On Truth respectively): PLRE 1.846, Sopater 1. He was a student of Iamblichus and a philosopher who served first at the court of Licinius by the early 320s and then at the court of Constantine by the early 330s.

References

1 PLRE 1.450–1, Iamblichus 1; Dillon, J., ‘Iamblichus of Chalcis (c.240–325 a.d.)’, ANRW 36.2 (1987), 862–909Google Scholar. For the first English translation and arrangement of the fragments of the letters with text and commentary, see Dillon, J.M. and Polleichtner, W. (edd.), Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 19) (Atlanta, 2009)Google Scholar. The subsequent citations of Iamblichus’ epistles follow the enumeration of Dillon and Polleichtner, although I prefer to use ‘Epistle’ in place of ‘Letter’. It is important to note that none of these epistles has greetings or farewells or personal references or touches typical of a letter (see Trapp, M. [ed.], Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation [Cambridge, 2003], 1–5Google Scholar; and Gibson, R.K. and Morrison, A.D., ‘Introduction: what is a letter?’, in Morello, R. and Morrison, A.D. [edd.], Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography [Oxford, 2007], 1–16Google Scholar). When he excerpted Iamblichus’ epistles, Stobaeus created new texts. See also Malherbe, A.J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Atlanta, 1988), 12–14Google Scholar.

2 PLRE 1.437, Himerius 3; 1.846, Sopater 1; 1.846–7, Sopater 2. See Wilhelm, F., ‘Der Regentenspiegel des Sopatros’, RhM 72 (1917/1918), 374–402Google Scholar; O'Meara, D.J., Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2003), 112–15Google Scholar, and id., ‘A Neoplatonist ethics for high-level officials: Soptaros’ Letter to Himerios’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 91–100Google Scholar; and Swain, S., Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works (Cambridge, 2013), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the date of the letter.

3 For some studies of this letter and the debate on its date, see Barnes, T.D. and Spoel, J. Vander, ‘Julian and Themistius’, GRBS 22 (1981), 187–9Google Scholar, Bradbury, S., ‘The date of Julian's Letter to Themistius’, GRBS 28 (1987), 235–51Google Scholar, Bouffartigue, J., ‘La lettre de Julien à Thémistios: Histoire d'une fausse manoeuvre et d'un désaccord essentiel’, in Gálvez, Á. González and Malosse, P.-L. (edd.), Mélanges A.F. Norman (Suppl. 7) (Lyon, 2006), 113–38Google Scholar, Watt, J.W., ‘Julian's Letter to Themistius – and Themistius’ response?’, in Baker-Brian, N. and Tougher, S. (edd.), Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate (Swansea, 2012), 91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Swain (n. 2), 53–91. There are still some unresolved problems with 355/6 as the date of composition and publication. For example, where is Constantius in the text? He shines on account of his absence. Constantius is not mentioned or alluded to even once in an epistle which was clearly meant for public consumption, a striking omission if it was written in 355/6 when Julian composed a panegyric on him (Or. 1). Moreover, Themistius had recommended that Julian ‘emulate’ (προκεῖσθαι, 262D, trans. Wright) the famous lawgivers Solon, Lycurgus and Pittacus, a recommendation which seems out of place in 355/6, when Julian did not yet have the authority to act in legal cases; it is not until c.358/9 that we see Julian acting as a chief judge in Gaul (cf. Amm. Marc. 16.5.12–13, 17.3, 18.1). And Julian's inclusion as Caesar in laws in the Theodosian Code alongside Constantius as Augustus is consistent with imperial protocol established in the early fourth century; but it need not signify that Julian as Caesar actually held the ius edicendi (cf. Corcoran, S., The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, a.d. 284–324 [Oxford, 2000 2], 266–74Google Scholar). In fact, when we consider Constantius’ tight restrictions on Julian as Caesar, it is likely that Julian did not possess this authority. Therefore, I am not convinced by Swain ([n. 2], 55) that Themistius’ mentioning of the three lawgivers above is ‘a call to act’ for Julian as Caesar, but for Julian as sole Augustus.

4 Cf. Swain (n. 2), 6–7, 41 and 88–90, who cautiously argues for 356. But such an epistle/essay on proper rule which focusses on Julian alone would have been an awkward piece to publish while Constantius was still alive; thus, I tend to favour c.December 361/early 362. As a prominent senator of Constantinople, Themistius probably resided at the capital during the brief civil war between Julian and Constantius in 361 and likely was there, along with other senators, to greet Julian upon his entry into the city on 11 December 361 (Amm. Marc. 22.2.4). And it appears that Themistius remained in Constantinople during Julian's short residency there since we have no indications that Themistius was elsewhere at this time (see Lib. Epp. 84, 85 Bradbury [252, 793 Foerster] and 102, 116 Norman [818, 1430 Foerster]; see also n. 53).

5 Like his Epistle to Themistius, Julian's Epistle to Nilus (50 Wright, 82 Bidez) is, in many respects, a philosophical and political letter. Although the Epistle to Nilus seems to be focussed on censuring Nilus publicly and on engaging in renuntiatio amicitiae, that is, on notifying him of the removal of the emperor's friendship, this letter also displays Julian's balanced use of imperial power in punishing carefully with the written word and his philosophical paideia in deftly rebutting Nilus’ claims. On the Epistle to Nilus, see Malosse, P.-L., ‘Rhétorique, Philosophie et Prostitution: la lettre de Julien au sénateur Nilus (Ep. 82 Bidez)’, in Auger, D. and Wolff, É. (edd.), Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue (Paris, 2008), 57–70Google Scholar. For other fourth-century letters and letter collections, see now Sogno, C., Storin, B.K. and Watts, E.J. (edd.), Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (Oakland, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Swain (n. 2).

7 In addition to Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), see O'Meara, D. and Schamp, J., Miroirs de prince de l'Empire romain au IVe siècle (Paris, 2006)Google Scholar; Taormina, D.P. and Piccione, R.M., Giamblico, I frammenti dalle epistole, Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento (Naples, 2010)Google Scholar; and Dillon, J., ‘The letters of Iamblichus: popular philosophy in a Neoplatonic mode’, in Afonasin, E., Dillon, J. and Finamore, J.F. (edd.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism (Leiden, 2012), 51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 96.

9 Cf. Plot. Enn. 1.2; Porph. Sent. 32 and fragments.

10 See O'Meara (n. 2). For an alternative view, see van den Berg, R., ‘Live unnoticed! The invisible Neoplatonic politician’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 101–15Google Scholar.

11 See Afonasin et al. (n. 7).

12 For the two quotations, see Swain (n. 2), 7 and 17 respectively.

13 Swain (n. 2), 5.

14 For a study of their epistolarity, see Inwood, B., ‘The importance of form in Seneca's philosophical letters’, in Morello, R. and Morrison, A.D. (edd.), Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Oxford, 2007), 133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 O'Meara, D.J., ‘Aspects of political philosophy in Iamblichus’, in Blumenthal, H.J. and Clark, E.G. (edd.), The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods (London, 1993), 65–73, at 67Google Scholar. Cf. Bidez, J., ‘Le philosophe Jamblique et son école’, REG 32 (1919), 29–40, at 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sees the epistles as banal, but also sees similarities with Porphyry's protreptic Epistle to Marcella. On Greek letter-essays and their style, see Stirewalt, M.L. Jr., ‘The form and function of the Greek letter-essay’, in Donfried, K.P. (ed.), The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, 1977), 175–206, esp. 199–206Google Scholar, and id., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (Atlanta, 1993), 18–20Google Scholar.

16 Penella, R.J. (ed.), The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana. A Critical Text with Prolegomena, Translation and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplements 56) (Leiden, 1979), 28–9Google Scholar.

17 It is unfortunate that Ammianus’ extant text is silent on Iamblichus; this may reflect a low opinion of him, or perhaps even that Iamblichus’ name became impolitic in some way. Ammianus thought highly of Apollonius and Plotinus, but less of Maximus of Ephesus. On religion in Ammianus, see Rike, R.L., ‘Apex Omnium’: Religion in the ‘Res Gestae’ of Ammianus (Berkeley, 1987), esp. 80–5Google Scholar, for his description of Apollonius; and Harrison, T., ‘Templum mundi totius: Ammianus and a religious ideal of Rome’, in Drijvers, J.W. and Hunt, D. (edd.), The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus (London, 1999), 178–90Google Scholar and Davies, J.P., Rome's Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on their Gods (Cambridge, 2004), 226–85Google Scholar.

18 Cf. Iambl. VP 254. See Dillon, J. and Hershbell, J. (ed.), Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Atlanta, 1991), 9–10Google Scholar, for Iamblichus’ apparent use of Apollonius of Tyana for some sections of his De Vita Pythagorica.

19 See O'Meara and Schamp (n. 7), 15–16; Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 71.

20 Stirewalt (n. 15 [1993]), 22.

21 See Larsen, B.D., ‘La place de Jamblique dans la philosophie antique tardive’, in Dörrie, H. (ed.), De Jamblique a Proclus (Entretiens sur l'Antiquité Classique 21) (Vandoeuvres, 1975), 1–34Google Scholar; Athanassiadi, P., ‘Dreams, theurgy and freelance divination: the testimony of Iamblichus’, JRS 83 (1993), 115–30, esp. 118–24Google Scholar and ead., ‘The oecumenism of Iamblichus: latent knowledge and its awakening’, JRS 85 (1995), 244–50, esp. 244–5Google Scholar; and Taormina, D.P., Jamblique critique de Plotin et de Porphyry, Quatre études (Paris, 1999), esp. 101–25Google Scholar.

22 See Dillon (n. 1), 868; Digeser, E.D., A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca, 2012), 98–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for ‘Porphyry vs Iamblichus’.

23 For text, translation and commentary, see Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-P. (ed.), Porphyre: Lettre à Anébon L’Égyptien (Paris, 2012)Google Scholar; Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-P. (ed.), Jamblique: Réponse à Porphyre (De Mysteriis) (Paris, 2013)Google Scholar.

24 Cf. Iambl. In Timaeum, fr. 81 (Dillon, J. [ed.], Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta [Leiden, 1973]CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 74, 96. For Iamblichus’ De anima, see Finamore, J.F. and Dillon, J. (ed.), Iamblichus, De Anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Philosophia Antiqua 92) (Atlanta, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Cf. Wachsmuth, C. and Hense, O. (ed.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1884–1923), 1.vii–xiiGoogle Scholar. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent Photius edited and contributed. For a recent study of Stobaeus’ chapter headings or ‘intertitles’, see Searby, D.M., ‘The intertitles in Stobaeus: condensing a culture’, in Reydams–Schils, G. (ed.), Thinking Through Excerpts: Studies on Stobaeus (Turnhout, 2011), 23–70, esp. 57–70Google Scholar. See also Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 66–70.

26 See Searby (n. 25), 35–6, who observes that many of Stobaeus’ book titles parallel those of Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch's Moralia, and that nearly all of Stobaeus’ chapter headings reflect the contents of his chapters. If Stobaeus relied on Diogenes and Plutarch for titles, then he may have done the same with Iamblichus. Searby ([this note], 37) also notes that Stobaeus seems to have crafted some chapter headings based on specific excerpts in chapters, such as those of Plato and Hermes Trismegistus.

27 Taormina and Piccione (n. 7), 80.

28 Eunap. VS 6.2.1 (Giangrande, J. [ed.], Eunapii, Vitae Sophistarum [Rome, 1956]Google Scholar) = 6.7 (Goulet, R. [ed.], Eunape de Sardes, Vies de philosophes et de sophists 2 [Paris, 2014]Google Scholar).

29 PLRE 1.451–2, Iamblichus 2.

30 O'Meara and Schamp (n. 7), 13–14.

31 See Pistelli, E. (ed.), Iamblichi Protrepticus ad fidem codicis Florentini (Leipzig, 1967)Google Scholar.

32 Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992), 51Google Scholar.

33 Eutropius’ short Roman history in Latin was translated into Greek in the late fourth century by Paeanius, who was a Greek litterateur and friend of Libanius, and was well received in both Eastern and Western literary circles. In fact, it is attractive to view Eutropius’ Breuiarium, in part, as a useful quick reference-work on Roman history, from the founding of the city to the reign of Jovian, not only for the Emperor Valens, to whom it is dedicated, but also for others among the elite lacking in paideia on Roman history. The Historiae Abbreuiatae or De Caesaribus of Aurelius Victor, the Breuiarium of Festus, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Origo Constantini Imperatoris, among others, can be viewed similarly. On performing paideia in the fourth century, see Van Hoof, L. and Van Nuffelen, P. (edd.), Literature and Society in the Fourth Century a.d.: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self (Leiden, 2015)Google Scholar.

34 See Schor, A.M., Theodoret's People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley, 2011)Google Scholar.

35 PLRE 1.14–15, Aedesius 2; Fowden, G., ‘The Platonist philosopher and his circle in Late Antiquity’, Philosophia 7 (1977), 359–83, esp. 373–9Google Scholar, and ‘The pagan holy man in late antique society’, JHS 102 (1982), 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Penella, R.J., Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century a.d.: Studies in Eunapius of Sardis (Leeds, 1990), 49–78Google Scholar.

36 Cf. Barnes, T.D., ‘A correspondent of Iamblichus’, GRBS 19 (1978), 99–106, at 104–6Google Scholar.

37 Of course, this depends on whether they all began their studies under Iamblichus around the same time, c.305. If so, this would imply a period of study that begins around age twenty-five, the age of majority, and ranges from five to ten years in duration (much like our modern-day graduate study). The latter had been the experience of Plotinus under Ammonius Saccas (Porph. Plot. 3, for about eleven years) and Amelius under Plotinus (Porph. Plot. 3, for about twenty-four years), though Amelius is certainly an exceptional case. Porphyry's duration of study under Plotinus is much closer to the experience of his master (Porph. Plot. 3–4, for about six years). On Iamblichus and his school in Syria, see Bidez (n. 15) and Dillon (n. 1), 869–75.

38 On epistolary types, see pseudo-Demetrius Tup. Epist. praef. and 1–21, esp. 2 and 11; Malherbe (n. 1), 30–41, esp. 33, 37.

39 Swain (n. 2), 5.

40 Cf. Quint. Inst. 6.1.25–7, 9.2.29–31. On prosopopoeia, see Riffaterre, M., ‘Prosopopeia’, Yale French Studies 69 (1985), 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 ἐπίφθονος εἶναι δοκεῖ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς, καὶ τὸ ὑπέρογκον μισητὸν αὐτοῖς καθίσταται· ἀλλ’ ὅταν χρηστότητι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ κραθῇ τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ αὐστηρὸν τῆς ἐπικρατείας, ἐμμελὲς καὶ πρᾶον καὶ προσηνὲς καὶ εὐπρόσιτον καθίσταται. καὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα τὸ εἶδος ἡγεμονίας φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων (‘The absolute superiority associated with rule appears offensive to the multitude, and the pomp and circumstance of it is hateful to them; but when the solemnity and austerity of rule is blended with nobility of character and sympathy for one's fellow human beings, then it makes itself felt as harmonious and mild and pleasant and approachable; and it is this type of leadership that is most of all loved by the ruled’; trans. Dillon and Polleichtner). Cf. Julian. Ep. ad Themist. 262A.

42 Cf. Plot. Enn. 1.4.3.30–1, which is dedicated to happiness (Περὶ εὐδαιμονίας, 1.4). τί γὰρ τῇ τελείᾳ ζωῇ ἂν προσγένοιτο εἰς τὸ ἀρίστῃ εἶναι;

43 Cf. Vanderspoel, J., Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995), 31–49Google Scholar. Note that we know too little of Themistius’ philosophical training, particularly its duration, to say with any certainty when exactly his subsequent teaching career began, under what circumstances and how much his eventual tapping as a panegyrist by Constantius owed to Eugenius’ reputation as a philosopher and Themistius’ own reputation as a philosopher and professor at Nicomedia or elsewhere. Much depends on the dating of Themistius’ Orations 1 and 24, and their contexts.

44 Them. Or. 23, 295B; Vanderspoel (n. 43), 26–7.

45 See Inwood (n. 14), for Seneca's use of Epicurus’ letters as one of the models for his own.

46 See Larsen, B.D., Jamblique de Chalcis, Exégète et philosophe, 2 vols. (Aarhus, 1972), 1.220–320, 2.9–72Google Scholar.

47 See the translations of Themistius’ paraphrases of the Physics and De anima by R.B. Todd. On Themistius’ familiarity with Neoplatonism, see Schroeder, F.M. and Todd, R.B., Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect (Toronto, 1990), 33–4 and n. 115Google Scholar; Vanderspoel (n. 43), 25–7; and O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 206: ‘Whatever Themistius’ position, it can be assumed that he was aware, not only of the work of Plotinus and of Porphyry, but also of the thought of Iamblichus and of the Iamblichean schools visited by Julian the Emperor.’ The popularity of Iamblichus in the East would have made his works required reading.

48 See Julian. Ep. ad Themist. 257D, 259C, where Julian notes that he learned about Plato's Laws from Themistius, which may imply formal instruction or perhaps indirect instruction by means of exposure to Themistius’ writings. Cf. Bouffartigue (n. 3), 118–19. A part of one of Themistius’ letters to Julian can be recovered from what Julian tells us in his Epistle to Themistius.

49 Them. Ep. ad Iul. 5, 18–19; Swain (n. 2), 137, 145; cf. Julian. Ep. ad Them. 261C–D. As with the Epistle of Aristotle to Alexander, the Epistle to Julian survives only in Arabic, which unfortunately does not allow close comparisons with Iamblichus’ and Sopater's Greek; however, Swain ([n. 2], 42–3) notes that the late-ninth and early-tenth century translator and preserver of Themistius’ Epistle to Julian, al–Dimashqī, apparently knew Greek very well, and so has left us a rendering that is probably close to the original in most respects.

50 Cf. Hom. Od. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12.

51 Them. Ep. ad Iul. 27; Swain (n. 2), 149. See also Swain (n. 2), 31–2, for another view of Themistius’ ‘sympathetic parent’. Cf. Them. Or. 1, 17A, for Themistius’ deployment of Homer's ‘gentle father’ with respect to Constantius. This reference in Oration 1 precedes the Epistle to Julian, and it may even precede Sopater's Epistle to Himerius.

52 Lib. Or. 46, 3; Brown (n. 32), 40.

53 The last-known law which Julian issued in Constantinople dates to 12 May 362 (Cod. Theod. 13.3.4); but the emperor may have lingered here towards the end of the month before departing for Antioch, which he ultimately reached in late July 362 (stops along the way at Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Pessinus, Ancyra and Tarsus are attested; cf. Amm. Marc. 22.9.2–14, Sozom. Hist. eccl. 5.15.6; see Cod. Theod. 1.16.8, for a law dated to 28 July 362, which is the earliest extant from Julian's stay at Antioch). Also, the well-studied law Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 was issued (data) on 17 June 362 in an unknown city and received (accepta) at Spoleto on 29 July 362; it may very well be that Ancyra was the city in which Julian issued his law on professors (see Foss, C., ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’, DOP 31 [1977], 29–87, at 39 n. 40Google Scholar).

54 Julian. Or. 4, 146A, 150D, 157CD, Or. 6, 188B, Or. 7, 217BC, 222B, 235AB, Ep. ad Prisc. (2 Wright, 12 Bidez), Ep. ad Lib. (58 Wright, 98 Bidez) 401B. Cf. Bouffartigue, J., L'Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (Collection des Études Augustiniennes 133) (Paris, 1992), 76–8, 276–7 and 331–59Google Scholar.

55 Note that Julian similarly describes Homer (ὁ θεῖος Ὅμηρος, Ep. ad Orib. [4 Wright, 14 Bidez] 384B), whose works he uses throughout his own writings.

56 Wright, W.C. (ed.), The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass., 1913), 151 n. 2Google Scholar. The translation is that of Wright, which I have slightly modified.

57 Julian. Epp. ad Iamb. (74–9 Wright, 181, 183–7 Bidez and Cumont). Cf. Barnes (n. 36). For the possible identity of the author as Julius Julianus, see Vanderspoel, J., ‘Correspondence and correspondents of Julius Julianus’, Byzantion 69 (1999), 396–478Google Scholar; and Dillon, J., ‘Philosophy as a profession in Late Antiquity’, in Smith, A. (ed.), Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown (Swansea, 2005), 1–17, at 7 and n. 25Google Scholar. See also PLRE 1.469, Iulianus 5 and 1.478–9, Iulius Iulianus 35. On Julian's epistolary corpus, see Elm, S., ‘The letter collection of the Emperor Julian’, in Sogno, C., Storin, B.K. and Watts, E.J. (edd.), Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (Oakland, 2017), 54–68, esp. 60–2Google Scholar for comments on the letters to Iamblichus.

58 Anon. Proleg. (Westerink, L.G., Trouillard, J., Segonds, A.P. [ed.], Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon [Paris, 1990]) 2.31Google Scholar, 25.20–4, 26.10 and 56–7.

59 The Anonymous Prolegomena ranks Iamblichus alongside Plato, who is also styled ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων (22.60) and ὁ θειότατος Πλάτων (28.17–18).

60 PLRE 1.708, Plutarchus 5; Watts, E.J., City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley, 2006), 80, 89–110, 126–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Damasc. In Phaedonem (Westerink, L.G. [ed.], The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo: Volume 2, Damascius [Amsterdam, 1977]Google Scholar), 1.548.5: ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν Ἐπιστολαῖς γράφει; Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 96: ‘This expression clearly indicates that there was a collection of Iamblichus's letters.’ But Damascius’ language is so vague that we cannot be certain about which letters he is referring to, whether to the fragmentary letters in Stobaeus or others. When we recall that Iamblichus’ extant letters discuss all four cardinal virtues, it may be that Damascius is referring, in part, to these letters earlier in his commentary when he renders ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ἀρετῶν (1.143.5). Whatever the exact parameters of this latter work were, the letters may have found a place within or alongside it in the Neoplatonic curriculum. See also Athanassiadi, P. (ed.), Damascius: The ‘Philosophical History’, Text with Translation and Notes (Oxford, 1999), esp. 45Google Scholar: ‘In his exegesis of Plato, the new head of the Academy was thorough and methodical, establishing Iamblichus’ authority …’. On Damascius, see Watts (n. 60), 121–8, 136–42.

62 On Iamblichus’ curriculum, see Anon. Proleg. 26.16–44; Westerink et al. (n. 58), LXVII–LXXIV; O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 61–8.

63 Cf. O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 8–10 and n. 20, who notes that the term πολιτικὴ ἀρετή is found in the Phaedo (82a12–b1).

64 PLRE 2.71–2, Ammonius 6; 2.547–8, Hermeias 3; Watts (n. 60), 207–11.

65 PLRE 1.75, Antoninus 7; Watts (n. 60), 188–90.

66 Olympiod. In Gorgiam (Westerink, L.G. [ed.], Olympiodori in Platonis Gorgiam commentaria [Leipzig, 1970]), 46.9 (p. 242Google Scholar). Olympiodorus here relates a letter of Iamblichus as ‘in a certain letter of his’ (ἔν τινι αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολῇ), signifying that he was aware of Iamblichus’ other epistles, and perhaps even all of them (twenty?). On Olympiodorus, see Watts (n. 60), 234–7.

67 See Lib. Epp. 21, 22 Bradbury (801, 1466 Foerster), for letters to Iamblichus of Apamea when he resided in Athens. On Iamblichus of Apamea, see Goulet, R., ‘Mais qui était donc le gendre de la soeur de Priscus? Enquête sur les philosophes d'Athènes au IVe siècle après J.-Chr.’, Studia graeco–arabica 2 (2012), 33–77, at 50–65, esp. 50–9Google Scholar.

68 Cameron, A., ‘Iamblichus at Athens’, Athenaeum 45 (1967), 143–53, at 150–3Google Scholar.

69 PLRE 1.730, Priscus 5. See also Goulet (n. 67), 37–50, 75–7, esp. 47–50 and 75–7 for Priscus’ Neoplatonic school in Athens and his philosophical orientation.

70 See n. 62. Cf. Iambl. Ep. 3, To Arete; Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 62–3. On the ‘political virtues’ of Plotinus, see O'Meara (n. 2 [2003]), 40–9. See also Dillon (n. 1), 902–4; Finamore, J.F., ‘Iamblichus on the grades of virtue’, in Afonasin, E., Dillon, J. and Finamore, J.F. (edd.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism (Leiden, 2012), 113–32, esp. 120–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 I would like to thank the two anonymous readers and the Editor at CQ for their helpful suggestions, as well as all those who participated in the multi-campus seminar (via Skype and closed circuit TV) ‘Education in Late Antiquity’ that was based at University of California, Riverside in 2014, when research for the present article began.

72 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), 61.

73 Dillon and Polleichtner (n. 1), xviii–xix, 73.

74 On Epistle 8 and its theme, see Molina, J., ‘Jámblico, Epístola a Macedonio acerca del destino’, Nova Tellus 23 (2005), 163–218Google Scholar.