Iamblichus as a Commentator

Abstract

Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a s??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large books appeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring, of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus' commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 and B. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Exégète et Philosophe, of which some 240 pages are devoted to his role as exégète: a collection of exegetical fragments appeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of both Plato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to deal with Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it is remarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as a commentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect of Iamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria. Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activities as a commentator on philosophical works—and so I shall say notiring about die twenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*—and also to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositions compare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced