{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02957954785548278, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002957954785548278, 'mean_word_length': 4.851668726823238, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Oecumenism of Iamblichus: Latent Knowledge and its Awakening

'The Syrian is full of God, the Phoenician a polymath' was the stock judgement on the respective merits of the 'divine' lamblichus (I.) and the 'erudite' Porphyry among their philosophical progeny (David, In Porph. Isag. 4; Damascius, In Phaed. I.172; Psellus in the Preliminary Scholion to the De AMysternis). However, even if this allegedly Delphic aphorism has not encountered any serious opposition among either anciernt or modern scholars, it is salutary to remember that each generation of critics loaded the words Ev6ovo and aoXuvtacOg with a different semantic value. Indeed, the ever-changing meaning behind the words seems to form the natural point of departure for any consideration of I., an author whose theories have largely to be extricated from references made by his followers. Yet to what extent, one may legitimately ask, did these followers understand him? I. was a revisionist thinker and a holy man and this difficult combination of genius and sanctity was the main reason for the reverent incomprehension shown towards I. by almost all those who came into contact with him. Indeed, a careful reading of those passages in their works which discuss the views of the 'divine' I. increasingly reveals a massive misunderstanding of the man's aims and achievement, and a foolish fascination both with the external tokens of his holiness and with the most ceremonial aspects of his theology (cf. below). If the epigoni cannot be taken as unqualified guides in this quest for I., it is essential to turn to what survives of his own writings, and try to trace the paramount influences on this original mind, while scanning the way in which they were absorbed. One would hope then to track down I. between the parameters of the influences on him and of the perpetually moving image held by his followers. Unfortunately such an approach was not adopted by the organizers of the conference from which the volume under review derives, with the result that this first collective work solely devoted to I. lacks root, focus, and perspective. Leaving aside their individual merits, the fourteen papers, which deal with technical philosophical problems, appear disjointed because they lack a framework and a rigorously defined point of reference. There is no link between the papers: indeed the discussion between scholars which forms the only constructive function in the industry of conferences and which could have endowed this volume with some humanity, structure, and shape is absent, and this heightens the impression left by these disparate voices of a dialogue des sourds. Searching I.'s writings and the testimonies of those who knew him for clues regarding his development is not a straightforward process. For one thing, I. did not enjoy the questionable privilege of having his life written by a pupil, or indeed by anyone. What we know about him and it is frustratingly little comes from Eunapius, who was I.'s spiritual great-grandson. Eunapius preserved in his Lives of Philosophers a few anecdotes which ring true,. hagiographical trivialities, and one or two details of school mythology. Among the latter is to be found the information that, after studying with Anatolius of Laodicea, I. 'attached himself to Porphyry' (V.I.2). This, together with the off-hand reference of I. himself to 'having heard' a certain theory from Porphyry, lumped together for the occasion with 'other' anonymous Platonists (Stobaeus,Anth. I.49.37; cf. In Tim. fr. 64.24 (Dillon)), has been taken as evidence that I. was Porphyry's pupil, and from these 'data' have been drawn all kinds of significant conclusions regarding a life about which in fact we know virtually nothing. This is why it is important to consider these two passages in their proper historical context. As regards Eunapius, we must never lose sight of the fact that he was a fervent pagan but no philosopher, writing with naive adoration the history of Neoplatonism at a time when this tradition had not yet taken flight but rather seemed in mortal danger under the impact both of internal inactivity and dissent and of outward pressure. For reasons of dynastic theology Eunapius wanted to believe, and have us believe, in a neat pedagogic relationship between Porphyry and I., which would automatically establish a linear spiritual descent between his own master and Plotinus, while securing at the same time a central position in this metaphysical chain for his hero, the emperor Julian. Eunapius' superbly simple scheme of the Platonic diadoche, Plotinus-Porphyry-Iamblichus-Aedesius-Julian-ChrysanthiusEunapius, has as was probably intended given rise to a whole mythology of intellectual and