In De Mysteriis VIII Iamblichus gives two orderings of first principles, one in purely Neoplatonic terms drawn from his own philosophical system, and the other in the form of several Egyptian gods, glossed with Neoplatonic language again taken from his own system. The first ordering or taxis includes the Simple One and the One Existent, two of the elements of Iamblichus' realm of the One. The second taxis includes the Egyptian (H)eikton, which has now been identified with the god of (...) magic, Heka, glossed as the One Existent. The Egyptian god Kmeph is also a member of this taxis, and is the Egyptian Kematef, a god of creation associated with the solar Amun-Re. Iamblichus refers to this god also as the Hegemon of the celestial gods, which should be equated to Helios, specifically the noeric Helios as described by Julian in his Hymn to Helios. Iamblichus describes Kmeph as an “intellect knowing himself”, and so the noeric Kmeph/Helios should also be seen as the Paternal Demiurgic Zeus, explicitly described also by Proclus as an intellect knowing himself. This notion of a self-thinking intellect may offer a solution to the problematic formulation by Proclus in his Timaeus commentary of Iamblichus' view of the Demiurgy encompassing all the noeric realm. The identification of Kmeph as the noeric Helios now also allows the first direct parallels to de Mysteriis to be found in extant Hermetica. In addition it can be inferred from the specific Neoplatonic terminology employed that the noetic Father of Demiurges, Kronos, appears, as well as the secondary Demiurgic triad of Zeus, Poseidon, and Pluto, in the forms of the Egyptian Amun, Ptah, and Osiris, thus raising the question that much of the theology documented only in Proclus might appear already to have been established by Iamblichus. (shrink)

The origin of the Neoplatonist doctrine of the henads has been imputed to Iamblichus, mostly on indirect evidence found in later Neoplatonists, chiefly Proclus. Is there any trace of this concept to be found in the extant works or fragments of Iamblichus himself? The best candidates among his surviving texts are the excerpts in Psellus of his volume on Theological Arithmetic from his Pythagorean series, and the first book of de Mysteriis , where Iamblichus answers Porphyry's questions on the nature (...) of the gods. Such evidence as can be found there would most likely deal with the divine henads, given the subject matter of the text. Certain repeated items of vocabulary appear as technical usages that form the basis for arguing that Iamblichus already has in mind if not the explicit concept henad at least its functional equivalent: the term monoeides occurring in both the Psellan excerpts and de Mysteriis, and in the latter, mostly in Book I, the stated attributes of a high, divine principle uniting the gods which are also designated by Proclus as typical of the divine henads, particularly in the propositions of the Elements of Theology defining the henads. Iamblichus in Book I also ascribes to the gods the same role in the process of ellampsis as Proclus does for the divine henads. A theory is also advanced concerning the possible development of the concept of the henad by Iamblichus, based in part on the polemical nature of de Mysteriis and his relationship to Porphyry. (shrink)

This article is currently available as a free download on ingentaconnect.