Hebdomads: Boethius Meets

the Neopythagoreans
SARAH PESSIN

1,

T H E T H E S I S O F T H I S A R T I C L E IS T H R E E - F O L D , First, I suggest, uncontroversially,

t h a t B o e t h i u s was in m a n y w a y s i n f l u e n c e d b y N e o p y t h a g o r e a n i d e a s . S e c o n d ,
I r e c o m m e n d t h a t in l i g h t o f o u r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f his N e o p y t h a g o r e a n i n c l i n a -
t i o n s in at l e a s t s o m e o f his w r i t i n g s , we u n d e r s t a n d his e s o t e r i c r e f e r e n c e to
t h e " h e b d o m a d s " - - a t t h e o u t s e t o f his t r e a t i s e o f t e n c a l l e d b y t h a t n a m e - - a s a
r e f e r e n c e to s o m e t h i n g N e o p y t h a g o r e a n . T h i s I s u g g e s t in l i g h t o f t h e f a c t
t h a t , as I will discuss, t h e " h e b d o m a d " p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e w i t h i n t h e
Neopythagorean literature of Nicomachus of Gerasa, an author with whose
w r i t i n g s B o e t h i u s was i n t i m a t e l y f a m i l i a r . L a s t l y , I s u g g e s t - - f o l l o w i n g D i l l o n ' s
analysis of the Triad and the Hebdomad within Nicomachus' works--an inter-
pretation of the 'hebdomad' within the Neopythagorean corpus which, if cor-
rect, w o u l d m a k e a p p r o p r i a t e B o e t h i u s ' r e f e r e n c e to it at t h e o u t s e t o f a
treatise on the nature of God and creation.

2.

I n his i n t r o d u c t o r y r e m a r k s to t h e Q u o m o d o S u b s t a n t i a e , 2 a s h o r t b u t d i f f i c u l t
t h e o l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e o n t h e n a t u r e o f g o o d n e s s a n d its r e l a t i o n to b e i n g (esse),
B o e t h i u s gives his r e a d e r f a i r w a r n i n g :

9 . . t u n e sis obscuritatibus brevitatis adversus, quae cum sint a r c a n i f i d a custodia turn id habent
commodi, quod cum his solis qui digni sunt conloquuntur.

'Special thanks to Professors Peter King and Calvin Normore whose 1997 seminar on the
Quomodo Substantiae at The Ohio State University inspired this study.
2This treatise is also referred to as the De Hebdomadibus, for reasons we are about to concern
ourselves with.

[29]
3~ JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3 7 : 1 JANUARY 199 9

9 do n o t you take objection to obscurities consequent on brevity, which are the sure
treasure-house of secret doctrine and have the advantage that they speak only with
those who are worthy.3

W h i l e i t s e l f s o m e w h a t o b s c u r e , this s t a t e m e n t s e e m s to s u g g e s t t h a t a clear
explication of the treatise w o u l d involve the clarification of certain notions
w h i c h B o e t h i u s c h o o s e s n o t to clarify, a n d h e n c e , the u n i n i t i a t e d r e a d e r will be
m e t w i t h o b s c u r i t y . 4 C o n s i d e r this s u g g e s t e d r e a d i n g e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f w h a t
i m m e d i a t e l y follows: A f t e r l i s t i n g n i n e b r i e f a x i o m s , we are t o l d t h a t : " T h e s e
p r e l i m i n a r i e s are enough then for our purpose9 T h e i n t e l l i g e n t i n t e r p r e t e r o f the
d i s c u s s i o n will s u p p l y t h e a r g u m e n t s a p p r o p r i a t e to e a c h point 9 W h a t is m o s t
i m p o r t a n t to n o t e i n s u p p o r t o f the c l a i m t h a t B o e t h i u s is i n t e n t i o n a l l y o b s c u r -
i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e w o r k w h i c h follows, is t h a t h e n e v e r r e f e r s to these
o b s c u r e a x i o m s a g a i n - - n o t i n w a y o f e x p l a i n i n g t h e m , o r e v e n i n way o f
h e l p i n g t h e r e a d e r u s e t h e m to e l u c i d a t e t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r w h i c h follows,
(which is a p p a r e n t l y w h a t t h e y a r e c a p a b l e o f d o i n g ) 9 F u r t h e r m o r e , this lack o f
e x p l a n a t i o n a n d e x p a n s i o n o n his p a r t a p p e a r s - - a s e v i d e n c e d i n t h e above
q u o t e - - t o b e i n l i n e w i t h his i n t e n d e d p u r p o s e s i n this treatise. It s e e m s t h a t
t h e " i n t e l l i g e n t i n t e r p r e t e r " to w h o m h e r e f e r s is the r e a d e r w h o is k n o w l e d g e -
a b l e o f c e r t a i n i d e a s w h i c h B o e t h i u s p r e f e r s n o t to e l a b o r a t e u p o n i n this
treatise, a n d w h o s h o u l d at least i n t h e o r y t h e r e f o r e b e able to a r r i v e at a full
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e a r g u m e n t s w h i c h follow. 6
T h e veil o f o b s c u r i t y w h i c h we s e e m to m e e t i n t h e terse n a t u r e o f the
c o n t e n t o f t h e treatise itself, t h e n , also s e e m s a p p a r e n t i n B o e t h i u s ' esoteric
r e f e r e n c e to t h e " h e b d o m a d s " at t h e o u t s e t o f t h e treatise:

You ask me to state and explain somewhat more clearly that obscure question in my
Hebdomads concerning the m a n n e r in which substances are good in virtue of existence
without being substantial goods. You urge that this demonstration is necessary because
the method of this kind of treatise is not clear to a l l . . . But I think over my Hebdomads
with myself, and I keep my speculations in my own memory rather than share them
with any of those pert a n d frivolous persons who will not tolerate an a r g u m e n t unless it

3Stewart, Rand and Tester, Boethius: The Theological Tractates, Loeb edition (Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1973), 39.
4That Boethius is intentionally obscuring the subject matter is a reading supported by Paul
Spade in his unpublished "Course in a Box," in which he writes, (at Ch. 24) : "Boethius himself says
in the opening lines that he is deliberately adopting a style that hides his real m e a n i n g . . . That
strategy has proved very effective."
5Rand, Boethius, 43, my italics.
6It is interesting to note, though, that the reader (John the Deacon) for whom Boethius writes
this treatise--presumably one who Boethius regards as an "intelligent interpreter"--has appar-
ently been left perplexed by some previous obscure exchange with Boethius, and is asking that
Boethius this time "explain somewhat more clearly" the ideas in question. This inference is
evident from the opening paragraph of the QuomodoSubstantiae, (Rand, Boethius, 39).
 HEBDOMADS 31

is m a d e amusing.7 W h e r e f o r e do n o t y o u take o b j e c t i o n to obscurities s t e m m i n g f r o m

brevity...s

Boethius' reference to h i s " h e b d o m a d s " h e r e is p e r p l e x i n g .

L o o k i n g to t h e G r e e k w o r d f o r ' s e v e n , ' ('hepta'), it h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t
these 'hebdomads,' (lit., ' g r o u p s of seven,' or simply 'sevens'), might simply
r e f e r to a w e e k l y m e e t i n g group (i.e., a ' s e m i n a r ' ) , w h i c h B o e t h i u s attended,
and which provided him the impetus to c o m p o s e t h e t r e a t i s e in q u e s t i o n .
Others suggest that this 'group o f s e v e n s ' r e f e r s to t h e list o f a x i o m s w h i c h
follows (which some--although not all--take to b e s e v e n i n n u m b e r ) . 9 It has
also b e e n s o m e w h a t obscurely suggested--though t h i s c l e a r l y w o u l d n o t b e to
the liking of those who have put forth the above suggestions--that 'hebdo-
m a d s ' r e f e r s to ' c o n c e p t i o n s . ' ' ~
In this paper I offer an alternative account of the 'hebdomads' by exploring
a specific Neopythagorean conception o f ' s e v e n ' w h i c h is r e l e v a n t n o t o n l y to
the content of the doctrine in question, but which offers elucidation of
Boethius' reference to ' s e c r e t d o c t r i n e ' in t h e o p e n i n g p a g e o f his w o r k , p r e -
s e n t i n g i t s e l f as a r e a s o n a b l e candidate for the sort of thing which he might
p r e f e r n o t to e l a b o r a t e u p o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , by offering an alternative account
of the relevance of 'sevens,' the paper will--for those who do not agree that
the number o f a x i o m s i n t h e t r e a t i s e is s e v e n - - a n s w e r the question, 'Whence
'seven'?"' For those who maintain t h a t B o e t h i u s i n f a c t lays o u t s e v e n a x i o m s ,

7Looking here at the very first words of the treatise, we find again the sense of intentional
brevity: Boethius is met with a request to clarify certain statements he had made in his "Heb-
domads," but won't do so since he wants to avoid making available certain ideas to unworthy
readers.
SRand, Boethius, 39.
9Both of these suggestions--hebdomads as referring to 'seminar,' as well as hebdomads as
referring to '7 axioms' are offered by Paul Spade in his unpublished "Course in a Box," Chapter
24, (as well as in footnote ~ in his translation of the treatise in that same unpublished manuscript).
The decision to treat the axioms (usually seen to be nine in number) as being seven in number,
(and hence to account for the notion of 'hebdomads' in this way), is reflected also in Peter King's
translation of the text, (unpublished). Heeding Boethius' claim that he will present "terms" in
addition to "rules" (viz., the axioms), both Spade (in the above unpublished material) and King (in
private conversation) treat what is commonly taken to be "axiom 1" as a discussion of a term (viz.,
"common conception"), and not as an axiom at all. Furthermore, in the service of following
Boethius' thesis/antithesis structure in the rest of the axioms, they treat what are commonly taken
as axioms 7 and 8 as a single axiom. This leaves them with seven axioms instead of nine.
1~ interpretation is offered by each of the extant medieval commentaries on the Quomodo
Substantiae, viz., by Gilbert of Poitiers, Thierry of Chartes, Clarembald of Arras, Thomas Aquinas,
and an anonymous commentary sometimes attributed to Scotus Eriugena.
~'As part of the current paper's thesis, I will also address the plural notion inherent in
'hebdomads' (as a perplexity separate from the question regarding the relevance of 'Seven,' the
Hebdomad, itself).
32 J O U R N A L OF T H E H I S T O R Y OF P H I L O S O P H Y 37:1 J A N U A R Y 1999
my paper will f u r n i s h an extra degree of relevance to the notion of 'seven'
within the context of the txeatise.
Before turning, however, to 'hebdomads' as revealing a Neopythagorean
influence on Boethius, consider some alternative evidence for such an influ-
ence. Consider Boethius' work on mathematics (De Institutione Arithmetica)
w h i c h w e k n o w t o b e " v e r y c l o s e l y b a s e d "12 o n t h e "Introduction to Arithmetic," a
decidedly Neopythagorean work by Nicomachus of Gerasa (ca. 1 st o r ~ n d c.13),
which talks of numbers in a particularly Neopythagorean light. Boethius' work
on the principles of music--a mathematical study of the nature of numbers
and their ratios--also reveals the direct influence of Nicomachean number
t h e o r y . 14 I n f a c t , B o e t h i u s ' c o n c e r n w i t h all t h e m e m b e r s of the quadrivium--as
well as with the very notion of the quadrivium--is Pythagorean in nature.15
That Boethius was heavily indebted to Pythagorean t h e o r y is c l e a r ? 6 T u r n -

~ See J o h n Marenbon, Early Medieval Philosophy (48o--ii5o): An Introduction. Second Edition.

(London: Routledge, 1988), 28. Others describe the close relationship between Nicomachus' and
Boethius' mathematical treatises as the latter being a translation into the Latin of the former (see
Kenneth S. Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which
Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, x987), 41), or at
least a "avery free translation," (see Calvin Bower, Boethius' The Principles of Music, (Nashville, 1967),
23, note t). For a general tracking of the correlation between chapters of Boethius' Institutio and
Nicomachus' original, see Henry Chadwick, Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology and
Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1981), 71-78. For a detailed account of the differences be-
tween Boethius' and Nicomachus' text, see Martin Luther D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa: Introduction
to Arithmetic. With Studies in Greek Arithmetic by Frank Egleston Robbins and Louis Charles
Karpinski. (University of Michigan Studies; Humanistic Series, Volume XVI). (New York: The
Macmillan Co., Ltd., 1926), 133-137.
~3Dating the life of Nicomachus is done indirectly, and hence is not fully certain. We know
from references in his works, for example, that he lived during or after the reign of Tiberius, and
we have good reason to suppose that he lived before Ptolemy flourished. See J o h n Dillon, The
Middle Platonists (New York: Cornell, 1977) , 35% and D'Ooge, Nicomachus ofGerasa, Ch. V.
~41n addition to the influence of Nicomachus on Boethius' musical writings through the
former's mathematical work, Boethius makes reference throughout his musical treatise to specifi-
cally musical teachings of Nicomachus. As these musical references do not appear in Nicomachus'
Manual of Harmonics (his brief extant musical work), we can infer that Boethius must have had
access to a longer, more substantial treatise on music by Nicomachus (which is no longer extant).
See Calvin Bower, Principles of Music, 338 ff. For additional discussion of the Pythagorean underpin-
nings to Boethius' Treatise on Music, see Chadwick, Boethius, 78-1 Ol, and Calvin Bower's "Boethius
and Nicomachus, an essay concerning the sources of De Institutione Musica," Vivarium 16 (1978):
1-45.
15See Chadwick, Boethius, Ch. '). On the relation of the Pythagorean quadrivium to Plato, see
Philip Merlan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism, (The Hague, 1975), Ch. 4.
~6We might add Marenbon's (op. cit.) claim that Boethius' definition of wisdom (as 'under-
standing the truth about things which are') comes straight from Nicomachus (and, furthermore,
shares with Nicomachus a non-trivial chunk of epistemology and metaphysics, understanding, as
it does, 'things which are' as only those things not subject to change).
And finally, turning to Boethius' Quomodo Substantiae, note O'Meara's description of the
Beothian treatise as a "Pythagorean" model for scientific discourse. See Dominic J. O'Meara,
Pythagoras Revived (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) , ~ lO- 211.
 HEBDOMADS 33

ing, then, specifically to the notion of 'seven,' we find in Pythagorean writings

ample reference to 'hebdomads.' What's more, we find reference to 'hebdo-
roads' specifically in the work of the aforementioned Nicomachus, with whose
writings we know Boethius was intimately familiar. In addition to the works of
Nicomachus already mentioned, we know that this Neopythagorean com-
posed an arithmological treatise on the theology of numbers in which he
identified specific numbers with, among other things, a variety of gods and
goddesses. I t is h e r e that a considerable discussion of the implications of the
'hebdomad' can be found. While this treatise--the Arithmetica Theologoumena,
(or, Theology 17 of Arithmetic)--is e x t a n t o n l y i n P h o t i u s ' s u m m a r y , IS as w e l l as i n
an anonymous compilation sometimes attributed t o I a m b l i c h u s , 1 9 it is p l a u s i -
bly something to which Boethius would have had access? ~ Furthermore, in
light of Boethius' clear interest in the other works of Nicomachus, it seems
reasonable to suggest that he would have carefully read this treatise as well.

17But see O'Meara, Pythagoras, 21-22 for why "theologoumena" refers not specifically to
'theology,' but rather refers "very generally to the ancient, mysterious, and wise utterances of the
Pythagorean tradition concerning mainly, but not exclusively the gods."
'Sphotius, Bibliotheca, codex 187. Photius, the n i n t h century Byzantine patriarch, here offers
what Chadwick calls an "unsympathetic summary," (see Chadwick, Boethius, 72). While Photius is
uncritical of Nicomachus' discussions of mathematical properties, he is quite critical of
Nicomachus' theological discussions of number, particularly, his association of numbers with a
variety of pagan deities. As O'Meara (Pythagoras, 2o) puts it, "Photius adopts the stance of righ-
teous indignation appropriate for such h e a t h e n nonsense."
~0This anonymous compilation is called Theologoumena Arithmeticae, and was first edited and
published by Friedrich Ast, (Leipzig, 1817). T h e compilation contains in it a variety of excerpts,
including whole sections of Nicomachus' text. For a discussion of why this anonymous compila-
tion is often attributed to Iamblichus, see, e.g., O'Meara, Pythagoras, 15, n. 24, and D'Ooge,
Nicomachus of Gerasa, 82 ft., (where additionally, arguments are offered for why we should think
that excerpts within this a n o n y m o u s - - o r Iamblichean--Theologoumena are actually frona Nico-
machus' Theologoumena).
For an edition of the Greek text of this compilation more recent than Ast's, see Victorius de
Falco (ed.), [Iamblichi] Theologoumena Arithmeticae, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Roma~7orum
Teubneriana, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1922). For the text in English, see Robin Waterfield, The Theologyof
Arithmetic: On theMystical, Mathematicaland CosmologicalSymbolismof theFirst Ten Numbers, Attributed to
Iamblichus (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988 ).
~~ really seems no reason to d o u b t that Boethius was familiar with the Theologoumenaof
Nicomachus. In support of this claim, consider, e.g., Chadwick's remark, made in the context of
discussing Nicomachus' Theologoumena and the n u m b e r theology therein: "It is noteworthy that
Boethius, who owned Nicomachus a large debt, never makes use of these more mystical specula-
tions," (Boethius, 72). While my current thesis is that, contra Chadwick, Boethius did indeed make
use of these 'more mystical speculations,' it is certainly clear from Chadwick's remark that he
presumes, as I do, that Boethius would have had access to the Theologoumena.
Furthermore, if Boethius did not have direct access to Nicomachus' treatise itself, there is
certainly good reason to suppose he would have been familiar with the work if it appeared in a
compilation of Iamblichus, (see especially D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, 82 ft. for the a r g u m e n t
that it did appear in a compilation by Iamblichus), for we know that Boethius was familiar with
Iamblichus' writings.
34 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3 7 : 1 JANUARY 1 9 9 9

G i v e n s u c h d i r e c t e x p o s u r e to t h e s y s t e m a t i c N i c o m a c h e a n ' n u m b e r t h e o l o g y , '
t r a c e s o f w h i c h a p p e a r e v e n i n N i c o m a c h u s ' Introduction to Arithmetic, it is u n -
likely t h a t B o e t h i u s w o u l d h a v e h a d a n y t h i n g b u t a n i m m e d i a t e N e o p y t h a -
g o r e a n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e t e r m ' h e b d o m a d . ' As will b e s h o w n , t h e r e is m o r e
to N i c o m a c h e a n n u m b e r t h e o l o g y t h a n p a g a n d e i f i c a t i o n o f n u m b e r s , a n d
h e n c e , t h e r e is m o r e a v a i l a b l e to B o e t h i u s i n this s o r t o f w o r k t h a n m i g h t
i n i t i a l l y m e e t t h e eye.
T h e specific n o t i o n o f ' h e b d o m a d ' i n N i c o m a c h u s w h i c h will e m e r g e as
m o s t clearly r e l e v a n t to B o e t h i u s ' s u b j e c t m a t t e r is the a s s o c i a t i o n i n the
Theologoumena o f ' s e v e n ' w i t h t h e a s p e c t o f G o d b y w h i c h H e c r e a t e s a n d
s u s t a i n s the w o r l d . I will i n w h a t follows e x p a n d u p o n this c o n c e p t i o n , b u t will
first b r i e f l y o u t l i n e t h e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n c o s m o l o g y w h i c h s u p p o r t s s u c h a
c l a i m b y l a y i n g o u t , as it does, t h e f o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e overall p r o j e c t o f
' n u m b e r t h e o l o g y . ' T h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t I will a r r i v e at views B o e t h i u s ' r e f e r -
e n c e to his " h e b d o m a d s " i n t h e o p e n i n g l i n e s o f the Quomodo Substantiae as
d r a w i n g u p o n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a n d o n t o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the " h e b d o m a d , "
u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e N i c o m a c h e a n s e n s e t h a t I h a v e a l r e a d y a l l u d e d to a n d will
discuss m o r e f u l l y below.
S e t t i n g o u t to e x p l o r e t h e g e n e r a l f o u n d a t i o n s o f N e o p y t h a g o r e a n c o s m o l -
ogy, we t u r n first to B o e t h i u s ' N i c o m a c h e a n - i n s p i r e d De lnstitutione Arithmetica,
w h e r e we i m m e d i a t e l y see t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f N i c o m a c h u s ' t h o u g h t . M i r r o r -
i n g t h e P y t h a g o r e a n i d e a t h a t G o d c r e a t e d the w o r l d t h r o u g h n u m b e r s (where
t h e c o m m o n P l a t o n i c a n d N e o p l a t o n i c F o r m s are t h e m s e l v e s s e e n as o n t o l o g i -
cally d e p e n d e n t o n N u m b e r 2 ' ) , B o e t h i u s - - l i f t i n g i d e a s s t r a i g h t o u t o f N i c o -
m a c h u s ' Introduction to Arithmetic22--tells us t h a t :

It [i.e., arithmetic] is prior to all not only because God the creator of the massive structure
of the world considered the first discipline as the exemplar of his own thought and
established all things in accord with it; or that through n u m b e r s of an assigned order all
things exhibiting the logic of their maker f o u n d concord; b u t arithmetic is said to be first
for this reason also, because whatever things are prior in nature, it is to these underlying
elements that the posterior elements can be r e f e r r e d . . . Since, as it is obvious, the force
of arithmetic is prior, we may take up the b e g i n n i n g of our exposition...23

~' Technically speaking, in the Nicomachean Neopythagoreanism in which we are currently

interested, numbers are seen as superior sorts of forms out which the rest of the forms are
constituted. Inasmuch, then, as all forms rely on the numbers, and all sensibles rely on the forms,
(and hence, by 'transitivity,' all sensibles also rely on the numbers), the numbers are the true,
ultimate essence of all things. Here, as throughout the remainder of my discussion of
Nicomachean philosophy, I am indebted to F. E. Robbins' exposition in D'Ooge, Nicomachus of
Gerasa, 88-123.
2~See D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, x81 ff.
~3Michael Masi, BoethianNumber Theory, A Translation of theDe Institutione Arithmetica, Studies in
Classical Antiquity, V. 6, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983), 74.
 HEBDOMADS 35

And, in the next section, we learn more about the distinctive nature of num-
bers and their fundamental role in the actual creation of all things by God:24

F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g , all t h i n g s w h a t e v e r w h i c h h a v e b e e n c r e a t e d m a y b e s e e n b y t h e
n a t u r e o f t h i n g s to b e f o r m e d by r e a s o n o f n u m b e r s . N u m b e r was t h e p r i n c i p a l e x e m -
p l a r i n t h e m i n d o f t h e c r e a t o r . F r o m it was d e r i v e d t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f t h e f o u r
e l e m e n t s , f r o m it w e r e d e r i v e d t h e c h a n g e s o f t h e seasons, f r o m it t h e m o v e m e n t o f t h e
stars a n d t h e t u r n i n g o f t h e h e a v e n s . S i n c e t h i n g s are t h u s a n d since t h e s t a t u s o f all
t h i n g s is f o u n d e d o n t h e b i n d i n g t o g e t h e r o f n u m b e r s , it is n e c e s s a r y t h a t n u m b e r in its
o w n s u b s t a n c e m a i n t a i n itself e v e n l y at all times, p e r m a n e n t l y , a n d t h a t it n o t b e
composed of diverse elements. What substance would one join with number when the
m o d e l o f it itself h o l d s all t h i n g s t o g e t h e r ? I t s e e m s to h a v e b e e n c o m p o s e d o f itself
alone. N o t h i n g c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d as c o m p o s e d o f s i m i l a r p a r t s o r c o m p o s e d o f t h i n g s
which are joined without reasonable proportion. Numbers are discrete of themselves
a n d d i f f e r f r o m e v e r y o t h e r s u b s t a n c e a n d n a t u r e . B u t it b e c o m e s e v i d e n t t h a t n u m b e r
is c o m p o s e d o f p a r t s , n o t s i m i l a r p a r t s , n o r o f t h o s e t h i n g s w h i c h a d h e r e to e a c h o t h e r
w i t h o u t r e a s o n a b l e p r o p o r t i o n . T h e r e are, t h e r e f o r e , first p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h j o i n n u m -
b e r s t o g e t h e r , w h i c h a r e in a c c o r d w i t h its s u b s t a n c e a n d w h i c h are always p e r m a n e n t .
N o t h i n g c a n b e m a d e f r o m t h a t w h i c h d o e s n o t exist, a n d t h i n g s f r o m w h i c h s o m e t h i n g
is m a d e m u s t b e d i s s i m i l a r b u t m u s t p o s s e s s t h e c a p a c i t y o f b e i n g c o m b i n e d . ~ 5

And finally, we learn that,

T h e s e t h e n a r e t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f w h i c h n u m b e r consists: e v e n a n d o d d . T h e s e e l e m e n t s
are d i s p a r a t e a n d c o n t r a r y by a c e r t a i n d i v i n e p o w e r , y e t t h e y c o m e f o r t h (profluunl) ~6
f r o m o n e s o u r c e a n d a r e j o i n e d i n t o o n e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d h a r m o n y . 27

Boethius' theological and ontological ideas in the above citations, if they are to be
understood in a meaningful and coherent manner, must be understood within
the context of Neopythagorean number t h e o r y . 28 T h e i d e a o f n u m b e r s as e x e m -
plars in the mind of God, composed of opposing principles 'issuing forth from

24On this theme of numbers as i n h e r e n t to God's act of creating the world, as well as the
association of God with number, cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Bk. 4, Chapters 3-6. Note
also Stephen Gersh in his Middle Platonism andNeoplatonism: TheLatin Tradition, Vol. II, (University
of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 655. Gersh, in tracing the Platonic influences on Boethius, cites the
De Arith. as revealing "the doctrine that n u m b e r is a transcendent principle contained in God's
mind and serving as the archetype of the visible creation."
25Masi, Boethian Number Theory, 75-76.
~6More than just 'come forth,' profluere has implications of a flowing or pouring forth. This
same notion of flow will be seen shortly in Nicomachus' employment of the notion of 'xuma' (flow)
in his third definition of number, (which Boethius also describes with a flow-verb, viz., profundere).
The relevance of the notion o f 'flow' for the current thesis will be taken up later. For the occur-
rence in the Latin of these two 'flow-verbs' in this context, see Migne, Patrologia, Patrum Latinorum
Traditio Catholica, Saeculum VI, Vol. 63, De Arithmetica, lO83 C13 and D 5.
27Masi, Boethian Number Theory, 76.
28On the extent of the Neopythagorean impact on Boethius' theology, note Gersh's claim,
(Middle Platonism, 667, n. 76): " . . . [Boethius] follows the [Neopythagorean] tradition's identifica-
tion of n u m b e r and form with the divinity itself."
36 J O U R N A L OF T H E H I S T O R Y OF P H I L O S O P H Y 3 7 : 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 9 9

one source' and being 'joined into one composition and harmony' b y 'a c e r t a i n
divine power' are clear reflections of the ideas underlying Nicomachus' own
number theology, including his three-fold definition of number,~9 (where, for
reasons that will become apparent, Nicomachus r e g a r d s T h r e e as t h e f i r s t n u m -
ber, with One and Two not constituting numbers b u t p r i n c i p l e s o f n u m b e r ) :so
x. L i m i t e d M u l t i t u d e (pleithos h o r i s m e n o n ) - - w h i l e f o l l o w i n g A r i s t o t l e ' s t r e a t -
ment of number as a s p e c i e s o f t h e g e n u s 'multitude' with the differentia
'limitation,' (Metaphysics, Bk. I V , C h . 13) , t h i s a c c o u n t also reflects Nico-
machus' Neopythagorean understanding of number as a n i n - f o r m i n g by the
Monad of the Unlimited Dyad.31
2. A C o m b i n a t i o n of Monads (monadon s u s t e i m a ) - - t h i s r e f l e c t s t h e d o c t r i n e
t h a t all n u m b e r s are composed of a mix of the two fundamental and opposing
principles of number, Sameness (or O d d ) a n d O t h e r (or E v e n ) .
3. A F l o w o f N u m b e r m a d e u p o f U n i t s (posoteitos xuma ek monadon sunkei-
menon)-- number is s e e n as a s t r e a m w h i c h f l o w s f r o m t h e M o n a d first as a n
infinite multitude i n t h e D y a d , a n d o n l y l a t e r as d i s c r e t e , ' l i m i t e d ' n u m b e r s ,
starting with the Triad.
Focusing primarily on the notion of number d e f i n e d i n its r e l a t i o n to t h e
Monad and Dyad, the second definition above most clearly encapsulates
Nicomachus' view that:

9 . . all n u m b e r is c o m p o s e d o f u n i t y and the dyad, e v e n and odd, a n d these in truth

display equality and inequality, sameness and o t h e r n e s s , the b o u n d e d a n d the b o u n d -
less, the d e f i n e d a n d the undefined.3*

29Nicomachus' treatment of number becomes somewhat complicated when we note his un-
clear distinction between 'scientific numbers'--purportedly the focus of the Introduction to Arith-
metic-and 'divine numbers'--purportedly the focus of the Theologoumena. While the scientific
numbers are numbers as they apply to sensibles in the corporeal realm, divine numbers are
something quite different, and are not associated with 'countables' in the sensible realm. The exact
details of this distinction are admittedly unclear, (see D'Ooge, Nicomachus ofGerasa, 9 8 ff.) What is
clear, though, is that even the Introduction to Arithmetic, though mainly dealing with the study of
scientific numbers, has in it information relevant to understanding the more 'divine' conception of
number in which numbers are identified with God.
30For Nicomachus' treatment, see D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, 19~ ft.
31It is interesting here to note that Boethius leaves out this definition of number in his
translation of Nicomachus. For a list of this and all other omissions in Boethius' text (as compared
with the Nicomachus original), see D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, 134.
Nonetheless, Masi, commenting precisely on the line in the text where Boethius defines
number, has claimed, (Boethian Number Theory, 76, n. 17), that "Boethius, following Nicomachus,
gives a three-fold definition of number," including the first definition, "Limited Multitude." While
this is certainly wrong, (i.e., Boethius clearly only gives two definitions of number at this point in
the text, corresponding to Nicomachus' three), I would agree that Boethius is knowledgeable of
and influenced by each of Nicomachus' three definitions as well as the Neopythagorean context
which makes sense of these definitions.
32D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, 259.
 HEBDOMADS 37

N i c o m a c h u s ' doctrine o f the M o n a d a n d D y a d clearly u n d e r l i e Boethius'

claim above t h a t even a n d o d d are the principles o f n u m b e r , a n d that they are
e l e m e n t s which "are d i s p a r a t e a n d c o n t r a r y by a certain divine power, yet they
c o m e f o r t h f r o m o n e source a n d are j o i n e d into o n e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d har-
m o n y , " (Masi, 76).
F u r t h e r m o r e , all things testify to the cosmological principle o f ' h a r m o n y '
for N i c o m a c h u s , i n a s m u c h as all things are ontologically dependent33 on n u m -
b e r a n d i n a s m u c h as n u m b e r itself is c o m p o s e d o f - - - a n d hence, is the site for
unification o f ~ t h e o p p o s i n g principles m e n t i o n e d in this last q u o t e f r o m
N i c o m a c h u s . T h i s ontological d e p e n d e n c e o f substances on n u m b e r is a no-
tion clearly reflected in Boethius' claim above that, " F r o m the beginning, all
things w h a t e v e r which have b e e n c r e a t e d m a y be seen by the n a t u r e of things
to be f o r m e d by r e a s o n o f n u m b e r s . . . . " (Masi, 75).
T o f u r t h e r g r o u n d these ideas o f c o m p e t i n g principles, h a r m o n y a n d the
'flow' o f multiplicity f r o m the O n e - - a n d h e n c e to b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d B o e t h i u s '
claims in the q u o t e s a b o v e - - l e t us m o r e fnlly consider the cosmological con-
text o f these doctrines.
In the tradition o f a r i t h m o l o g i c a l n u m b e r t h e o r y (seen in P y t h a g o r e a n a n d
N e o p y t h a g o r e a n p h i l o s o p h y , as well as in m o r e g e n e r a l N e o p l a t o n i c writings),
we find an especially strong focus on the first t h r e e n u m b e r s in the Decad.34 In
O n e a n d Two, we find the M o n a d a n d the D y a d (or I n d e f i n i t e Dyad). T h e s e
two ideas, reflective o f the P y t h a g o r e a n ideas o f 'Limiting' a n d 'Unlimited,' are
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by N i c o m a c h u s as the principles o f ' S a m e n e s s ' a n d ' O t h e r n e s s . '
In fact, as we have a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , for N i c o m a c h u s , O n e a n d T w o are n o t
n u m b e r s at all, b u t r a t h e r are the p r i n c i p l e s o f n u m b e r - - v i z . , O d d n e s s (corre-
s p o n d i n g to 'Sameness') a n d E v e n n e s s ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g to ' O t h e r n e s s ' ) - - w h i c h
u n d e r l i e all n u m b e r s .
T u r n i n g t h e n to T h r e e , we have the T r i a d - - w h i c h is, a c c o r d i n g to
N i c o m a c h u s , the first n u m b e r . N u m b e r (as we have seen above) is d e f i n e d in
one way as L i m i t e d Multitude, a n d as such, the T r i a d is the first to satisfy the
definition. For, while M o n a d is L i m i t a n d U n i t y (and h e n c e , n o t m u l t i t u d e at
all), a n d Dyad is U n l i m i t e d , or infinite, M u l t i t u d e (and h e n c e n o t limited at
all), only in the T r i a d do we find the H a r m o n y o f these two principles, result-
ing in a discrete n u m b e r (or, L i m i t e d Multitude). T h e T r i a d , then, r e p r e s e n t s

33See note 21 for a description of the n a t u r e o f this 'ontological dependency.'

34The Decad (or Decade) itself was considered w o r t h y of note as the n u m b e r s 1 - - a o were
t h o u g h t to contain all o f the constitutive principles o f the universe. Consider: "Philolaus was
therefore right in calling it a Decad, because it receives (dexomai) the Infinite. A n d O r p h e u s was
right in calling it the Branch, because it is the b r a n c h f r o m which issue all the n u m b e r s , as so m a n y
branches," (Laurentius Lydius, De Mens., 16; Cedrenus, 1. 169b). See Guthrie, Pythagorean Source-
book, 175.
38 J O U R N A L OF T H E H I S T O R Y OF P H I L O S O P H Y 3 7 : 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 9 9

the Harmony o f o p p o s i t e s w h i c h is p a r t o f t h e e s s e n c e o f all s e n s i b l e e x i s t e n t s .

For, inasmuch as a n y t h i n g e x i s t s as p a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d , it is a m i x t u r e o f
Form and Matter--i.e., a Harmony o f o p p o s i t e s . I n t h i s s e n s e , t h e n , F o r m is
s e e n as t h e M o n a d i c p r i n c i p l e o f S a m e n e s s (or L i m i t ) , w h i l e M a t t e r is a s s o c i -
ated with the Dyadic principle of Otherness (or u n - L i m i t ) . 3 5
Understood i n t h i s w a y , n o t o n l y t h e T r i a d , b u t all t h i n g s i n t h e w o r l d - -
inasmuch as t h e y a r e c o m p o s e d of form and matter--have number ( t h a t is,
the dual principles of Sameness and Otherness) as t h e i r n a t u r e . I t is t h e i n -
forming (by t h e M o n a d i c p r i n c i p l e o f S a m e n e s s ) o f t h e m a t t e r ( a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
the dyadic principle of Otherness) that for Nicomachus r e s u l t s in a 'tode ti' in
the sensible world.
We may further understand the characterization of the Monad and Dyad
as t h e p r i n c i p l e o f F o r m a n d p r i n c i p l e o f M a t t e r r e s p e c t i v e l y , b y f o c u s i n g o n
the idea of number as ' f l o w i n g ' f r o m t h e M o n a d . The move from Monad to
D y a d is d e s c r i b e d as a f l o w f r o m u n i t y to m u l t i p l i c i t y . H o w e v e r , as w e h a v e
already noted, the multiplicity which is t h e opposite of Unity is t o t a l l y
unlimited--an infinite multitude. To get to d i s c r e t e numbers, then, the
Monad--understood as t h e p r i n c i p l e o f F o r m - - i s s e e n to i m p o s e L i m i t o n t h e

35This association of the Material with Limitlessness might seem odd to the reader with
Aristotelian sensibilities for whom the materiality of a sensible object would appear to be precisely
what gives something its extensional limits. Nicomachus' understanding, though, stems from the
Platonic notions of the Pythagoreans in which Matter is--if not identified with--certainly associ-
ated with Otherness and Unlimit, (themselves associated with the Dyad), and where Form is seen
as introducing into compounds Sameness, (associated with Limit and the Monad). It might help to
think of Form's relation to Sameness, Limit and Monad by borrowing from Neoplatonic causal
theory: the Form, F, which something, A, exemplifies is viewed as its cause, and as such, the Form
is seen as transferring something of itself to A; it is in this way that the Form, F, lends an element
of Sameness (viz., Sameness with F) to A. Furthermore, inasmuch as all Forms are themselves
causally dependent on the principle of Unity from which all things spring, the element of Same-
ness they transmit carries with it an element of Unity. We may use this Neoplatonic account to
become more sensitive in our current project to the relation between Form, Sameness and the
Monad--the Monad being the principle of Unity for the Neopythagorean doctrine in question,
(although bearing a complicated relationship historically to the Neoplatonic principle of Unity).
The notion of 'Limit,' then, may be understood in this regard, as characterizing the Form's
transferring unity to A.
The Neoplatonic analysis of causes, though, is less useful for stressing the association of
Matter with Otherness, or the Dyad, and Unlimit, (since, Matter too is causally related to the
principle of Unity, and so, should b e - - o n the above reasoning--equally related to the Monad,
and hence just as easily characterizable--even for Platonic sensibilities--as Limit). To better
sensitize ourselves to seeing the Material as Unlimit, then, consider the Platonic role of Matter as
lowest on the ontological chain, or alternately, the illustration of it as an element foreign to the
ontological chain, (as, e.g., in the Timaeus discussion of the Receptacle; Timaeus 48e-5 lb). Thought
of in either of these senses, Matter represents Unlimit in that, within any compound of Form and
Matter, it is the element in the object which tends away from the ontological source which--as we
have seen above--is the source of all Unity and Limit. Materiality thus represents an element of
Unlimit.
 H~BDOMADS 39
infinite flow o f Otherness. N i c o m a c h u s , in o n e especially colorful instance,
describes this as r e m i n i s c e n t o f the way r e n n e t curdles flowing milk.36 This,
then, results in the T r i a d - - t h e first case o f L i m i t e d Multitude (i.e., n u m b e r ) .
As such, the D y a d is the p r i n c i p l e o f a m o r p h o u s , u n o r d e r e d M a t t e r which
n e e d s to b e c o m e i n - f o r m e d .
H e r e , then, we have the web o f cosmological ideas which m a d e O n e , T w o
a n d T h r e e so w o r t h y o f attention a n d n o t e f o r a t h i n k e r like N i c o m a c h u s , a n d
it is within the c o n t e x t o f all these ideas that Boethius' a f o r e m e n t i o n e d claims
in the i n t r o d u c t i o n to his own m a t h e m a t i c a l treatise take their shape.
We m i g h t n o t e also the P y t h a g o r e a n focus on the n u m b e r s F o u r a n d T e n ;
specifically, the way in which the first f o u r n u m b e r s are seen as relating in a
key way the O n e with the T e n . I n looking at the first f o u r n u m b e r s , we have
the a d v e n t o f 3-dimensionality a n d the actual c r e a t e d w o r l d as we e x p e r i e n c e it
sensibly. For, while O n e is a point, T w o a line, a n d T h r e e the a d v e n t o f
'surface,' (i.e., think o f a p l a n e triangle), it is only o n c e we m o v e to F o u r t h a t
we have a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l figure (i.e., t h i n k o f a p l a n e triangle with an
additional p o i n t 'on top' o f the surface which 'pulls' the p l a n e figure o u t o f
two-dimensionality a n d into three-dimensionality). It is this latter set o f ideas
associated with the i m p o r t a n c e o f the first f o u r n u m b e r s which served as the
basis for the P y t h a g o r e a n s ' r e v e r e n c e o f their sacred T e t r a k t y s . T h e T e t r a k t y s
is seen as revealing the essence o f the universe a n d its c o s m o l o g y in its f o r m ,
which is a triangle m a d e u p o f ten points (in f o u r levels) :

T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this figure then, can be u n d e r s t o o d in its at once r e p r e s e n t -

ing all o f the n u m e r i c a l truths a b o u t O n e , T w o a n d T h r e e o u t l i n e d above, with
the f o u r t h level r e p r e s e n t i n g the m o v e into the sensible w o r l d o f t h r e e -
dimensionality. F u r t h e r m o r e , it p r e s e n t s us with the tantalizing t r u t h that the
O n e (in its e m a n a t i o n t h r o u g h the f o u r levels discussed above a n d r e p r e s e n t e d

36 Theologoumena Arithmeticae, 8 (Ast), (translation in D ' O o g e , Nicomachus ofGerasa, 1 17) : "Each

t h i n g in t h e world is o n e in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e n a t u r a l a n d s y s t e m a t i z i n g m o n a d in it, a n d again,
e v e r y t h i n g is s e p a r a b l e so far as it p a r t a k e s o f t h e dyad, c o n n e c t e d with necessity a n d m a t t e r ;
w h e r e f o r e first their c o n g r e s s p r o d u c e d t h e first m u l t i t u d e , t h e e l e m e n t o f t h i n g s w h i c h w o u l d be
triangle w h e t h e r o f m a g n i t u d e s or n u m b e r s , bodily or bodiless. For as r e n n e t c u r d l e s flowing milk
by its p e c u l i a r creative a n d active faculty, so the u n i f y i n g force o f the m o n a d a d v a n c i n g u p o n t h e
dyad, source o f easy m o v e m e n t a n d b r e a k i n g down, infixed a b o u n d a n d a f o r m , that is, n u m b e r ,
u p o n the triad; for this is the b e g i n n i n g o f actual n u m b e r . . . "
4~ JOURNAL OF T H E H I S T O R Y OF P H I L O S O P H Y 3 7 : 1 J A N U A R Y 199 9
by the f o u r layers o f the Tetraktys) b e c o m e s (or, m o r e properly, given the
a t e m p o r a l i t y o f the above schemas, is) the Ten. T h e Decad is p e r f e c t - - i t is seen
as e m b r a c i n g all n u m b e r s and n u m e r i c a l forms, a n d is h e n c e seen as embracing
all things potentially, ( a n o t i o n which we will see again in o u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the
H e b d o m a d ) . I n fact, the Decad is identified with God.37 H e n c e , the focus on the
first ten n u m b e r s in P y t h a g o r e a n a n d N e o p l a t o n i c cosmology.
With o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the basic f o u n d a t i o n s o f N e o p y t h a g o r e a n n u m -
ber t h e o r y in place, we m a y begin to a p p r o a c h Seven, the " h e b d o m a d . "
In the identification o f the Decad with God, we see a shift into the more
straightforwardly mystical ideas in N e o p y t h a g o r e a n n u m b e r theory. A l o n g
these lines, we find the identification n o t only o f the Decad itself with God, but
o f each o f the m e m b e r s o f the Decad with God. While these identifications
often take the f o r m o f different n u m b e r s being identified with d i f f e r e n t p a g a n
gods and goddesses, there is nonetheless a p r o g r a m here a m e n a b l e even to the
m o n o t h e i s t . Focusing on this m o r e 'amenable' p o r t i o n o f the material, we find
identifications o f the different n u m b e r s with a whole r a n g e o f concepts, such
as T r u t h , O r d e r , Daring, Friendship, Fate a n d Necessity. T h e s e conceptions,
then, m a y be seen as picking out different aspects o f a single God, especially
w h e n we recall the f u r t h e r identification o f the Decad itself (of which these
o t h e r n u m b e r s are part) with the most g e n e r a l Greek n o t i o n o f god, (viz.,
Theos). In this regard, the n u m b e r theology m a y be seen as offering descrip-
tions o f the various aspects o f a single God, a n d as such w o u l d be rewarding
r e a d i n g material even for the monotheistic Boethius.
It is precisely this d i m e n s i o n o f the N i c o m a c h e a n p r o g r a m which reveals
the H e b d o m a d as an aspect o f God; viz., G o d as Creator a n d Sustainer. In
o r d e r to explicate this n o t i o n o f H e b d o m a d , I turn first to an explication o f
Dillon's contrast o f this h e b d o m a d i c aspect with the Triad.38
U n d e r s t o o d in the above way as the first m o m e n t o f h a r m o n y between
M o n a d a n d Dyad, the T r i a d m a y be seen as giving rise to the realm of Forms
(or Divine Logos) itself. For a l t h o u g h T h r e e , as the c o m b i n a t i o n o f the princi-
ple o f F o r m a n d the principle o f Matter, is the essence o f sensibles which are
c o m p r i s e d o f F o r m + Matter, it is also seen as the essence o f the Forms
themselves,S0 u n d e r s t o o d , o f course, in the Platonic sense o f separately subsist-
ing entities. T h e T r i a d h e n c e can be seen n o t only as h a r m o n i z i n g the forces of
M o n a d a n d Dyad in itself, b u t a l s o - - i n a s m u c h as it underlies the F o r m s - - a s
itself responsible for the structuring of everything which participates in
Forms. I n effect, the T r i a d is seen as actually h a r m o n i z i n g the substance o f all

~7E.g., see De Falco, TheologoumenaArithmeticae, 8o, line 5.

3sDillon, Middle Platonists, 356- 358.
39See note 21.
 HEBDOMADS 41

t h i n g s , i n a s m u c h as the F o r m s - - w h i c h it u n d e r l i e s - - b e s t o w h a r m o n y o n all
e x i s t e n t s w h e n t h e y i n - f o r m t h o s e e x i s t e n t s , (i.e., w h e r e ' i n - f o r m i n g ' is u n d e r -
stood, as we h a v e s e e n e a r l i e r , as the F o r m s a d d i n g S a m e n e s s to " b a l a n c e , " if
y o u will, t h e O t h e r n e s s i n h e r e n t i n a s u b s t a n c e ' s m a t e r i a l i t y ) .
G i v e n , t h e n , its a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e h a r m o n i z i n g role o f F o r m s , t h e T r i a d
is a c t u a l l y identified w i t h t h e r e a l m o f F o r m s , (i.e., t h e D i v i n e L o g o s itself). T h e
D i v i n e Logos, h o w e v e r , m a y b e s e e n f r o m two d i s t i n c t v a n t a g e p o i n t s : E i t h e r
t r a n s c e n d e n t a l l y as t h e "active a n d o u t g o i n g e l e m e n t o f t h e s u p r e m e G o d , "40
or, i m m a n e n t l y , as " s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d . " T h i s l z t t e r
' o r g a n i z i n g ' activity is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e T r i a d , a n d is d e s c r i b e d b y N i c o -
m a c h u s i n his Theologoumena:4'

As the form of the bringing-to-completion of the universe, a n d in very truth N u m b e r ,

the Triad provides equality and, as it were, a removal of "more a n d less" from all
things, giving the definition and shape to Matter by means of the powers of all qualities.

I t is, t h e n , t h e f o r m e r ' t r a n s c e n d e n t a l ' a s p e c t o f t h e D i v i n e L o g o s - - o r t h e

"active a n d o u t g o i n g e l e m e n t o f t h e s u p r e m e G o d " - - w h i c h N i c o m a c h u s i d e n -
tities w i t h the H e b d o m a d . S e v e n , N i c o m a c h u s e x p l a i n s , is so h i g h l y r e v e r e d
b e c a u s e it is the active e l e m e n t o f t h e c r e a t o r G o d - - i t is H i s p r i m a r y i n s t r u -
m e n t a n d ' l i m b ' (arthron).42 C o n s i d e r N i c o m a c h u s ' a c c o u n t :

9 . . the Providence of the Creator God (kosmopoios theos) w r o u g h t all things by basing on
the first-born One the source and root of the creation of the universe, which comes to
be an impression and representation of the highest g o o d . . , and the Creator God
necessarily considered that the h e b d o m a d was an i n s t r u m e n t and his most authorita-
tive limb and has gained the power of creativity. For by nature, and n o t by our own
devices, the h e b d o m a d is a m e a n between the m o n a d a n d the decad, and the means
between extremes are in a sense more authoritative than the extremes themselves,
because the terms on either side incline towards the mean.43

Essentially, t h e C r e a t o r G o d d e e m s t h e h e b d o m a d as b o t h a ' p r i m a r y i n s t r u -
m e n t ' a n d H i s m o s t p o w e r f u l ' l i m b ' w h e n it c o m e s to c r e a t i n g . N i c o m a c h u s '
a c c o u n t o f w h y h e b d o m a d is so d e e m e d is t h a t S e v e n , it t u r n s o u t , is t h e m e a n
b e t w e e n O n e a n d T e n . W a t e r f i e l d (89, n.1 5) e x p l a i n s this as S e v e n ' s b e i n g a
m e a n i n t h e d i s j u n c t p r o p o r t i o n a t e series, 1,4,7, l o . T h e details o f w h y S e v e n
t u r n s o u t to b e a m o r e r e l e v a n t m e a n t h a n F o u r aside, it is N i c o m a c h u s '
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t b e i n g a m e a n i n this w a y specifically shows S e v e n to b e i n t r i n s i -
cally p o w e r f u l , a n d it is f o r this r e a s o n t h a t G o d r e g a r d s it as H i s m o s t a u t h o r i -

4~Dillon, Middle Platonists, 357-

4: De Falco, Theol. Arith., 17, line 19 ft.
42Dillon, Middle Platonists, 357.
43De Falco, Theol. Arith., 57, line ~1--58, line :o; translation from Waterfield, Theology of
Arithmetic, 89 .
42 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3 7 : 1 JANUARY 1 9 9 9

tative i n s t r u m e n t f o r p u r p o s e s o f c r e a t i o n . T h e u p s h o t o f S e v e n - - o r H e b d o -
mad--being r e g a r d e d as so p o w e r f u l b y t h e C r e a t o r G o d , t h e n , is t h a t G o d
uses it i n c r a f t i n g the u n i v e r s e . So, e.g., e a c h o f t h e m o o n ' s f o u r cycles lasts for
a s e v e n - f o l d s e a s o n , the o c e a n tides e b b a n d flow i n h e b d o m a d i c cycles, b o t h
w o m e n ' s a n d m e n ' s r e p r o d u c t i v e cycles o p e r a t e o n h e b d o m a d i c p r i n c i p l e s ,
h u m a n b e i n g s d e v e l o p i n s e v e n y e a r stages, a n d so o n .
So far, t h o u g h , we h a v e n o c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w t h e H e b d o m a d is
a n a s p e c t o f G o d - - t h a t a s p e c t d e s c r i b e d b y D i l l o n as the 'active a n d o u t g o i n g
e l e m e n t o f the S u p r e m e G o d . ' W e h a v e also f o u n d i n N i c o m a c h u s ' a b o v e
a c c o u n t o f S e v e n as i n s t r u m e n t , n o e x p l a n a t i o n o f the s e n s e i n w h i c h the
n u m b e r S e v e n specifically f u n c t i o n s as a ' l i m b ' o f G o d . I n w h a t follows, t h e n , I
will i l l u s t r a t e h o w it is p r e c i s e l y b y d i s c e r n i n g a s e n s e i n w h i c h t h e H e b d o m a d
f u n c t i o n s as the ' l i m b ' o f G o d t h a t we will f i n d t h e 'active a n d o u t g o i n g ' aspect
o f G o d . I t is easiest to see t h e H e b d o m a d as G o d ' s l i m b - a s p e c t , t h e n , by
c o n t r a s t i n g this a s p e c t o f G o d w i t h t h e M o n a d i c a s p e c t o f G o d (i.e., G o d as
M o n a d ) . T h a t t h e r e is a n a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n t h e H e b d o m a d i c a n d M o n a d i c
aspects o f G o d b e c o m e s c l e a r w h e n we n o t e N i c o m a c h u s ' f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z a -
t i o n o f t h e H e b d o m a d as " . . . a n a c r o p o l i s , as it w e r e , a n d a ' s t r o n g fortifica-
t i o n ' w i t h i n t h e d e c a d , j u s t like a n i n d i v i s i b l e m o n a d " ( W a t e r f i e l d , 89).44
T h e H e b d o m a d is h e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e M o n a d . A n d , s u g g e s t i n g a clear
s e n s e i n w h i c h t h e two are a s s o c i a t e d , c o n s i d e r N i c o m a c h u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
M o n a d i c a s p e c t o f G o d : G o d as M o n a d " . . . is called 'artificer' (demiourgos) a n d
' m o d e l e r ' (plastria) . . . . " ( W a t e r f i e l d , 38).45 N o t e h o w this 'artificer' G o d corre-
s p o n d s well with t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f G o d as ' t h e C r e a t o r G o d ' (kosmopoios theos)
in o u r earlier citation i n t r o d u c i n g the H e b d o m a d . It s e e m s t h a t b o t h the
M o n a d i c a n d H e b d o m a d i c a s p e c t s r e v e a l G o d i n his c a p a c i t y as a C r e a t o r , or
artificer.46 H o w , t h o u g h , m a y we see these a s p e c t s as d i s t i n c t ? A n d f u r t h e r -
m o r e , h o w c a n we d o so i n a w a y w h i c h also i n c o r p o r a t e s D i l l o n ' s c o m p a r i s o n
o f t h e T r i a d i c a n d H e b d o m a d i c a s p e c t s o f t h e D i v i n e Logos? C o n s i d e r the
i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the n o t i o n o f ' s e e d s ' : I n the discus-
s i o n o f t h e M o n a d i c a s p e c t o f G o d , we l e a r n t h a t " N i c o m a c h u s says47 t h a t G o d

44De Falco, Theol. Arith., 58, lines 19-21.

45Ibid., 4, lines 9-xo.
46It should be noted that Nicomachus is not himself clear on whether the Monad is God, or
whether God is above the Monad, understanding Monad as a non-supreme Demiurge, or, as he
elsewhere characterizes it, as a 'first-born One.' Following Dillon, I will take Nicomachns as
treating the Monad (as well as other numbers in the Decad) as an aspect of God. Hence, God is the
Monad; He is not above the Monad. For discussion of this equation of the Monad with God in
Nicomachus, see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 355.
47Recall that the Theologoumena Arithmeticae which we are citing from is a compilation work
which contains in it information about Nicomachus' views taken from Nicomachus' own Theolo-
goumena Arithmeticae.
 HEBDOMADS 43

c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e M o n a d , s i n c e h e is e v e r y t h i n g seminally w h i c h exists, j u s t as
t h e M o n a d is in t h e case o f n u m b e r . . . . " ( W a t e r f i e l d , 37),4 s a n d f u r t h e r t h a t
G o d , i n H i s M o n a d i c a s p e c t, is s e e n as " . . . t h e s e e d o f a l l . . , s i n c e it [i.e., t h e
Monad] contains the principles of both matter and form, of craftsman and
w h a t is c r a f t e d . . . . " ( W a t e r f i e l d , 38).49
G o d is d e s c r i b e d r e s p e c t i v e l y as "spermatikos huparx-onta panta ta en tei
p h u s e i " - - b e i n g " s e m i n a l l y , " o r " s e e d l y , " all t h i n g s w h i c h e x i s t in n a t u r e , a n d as
t h e "sperma," (or, seed) o f all t h i n g s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , G o d c o n t a i n s w i t h i n H i m
as p o t e n t i a l all t h i n g s w h i c h will b e c o m e a c t u a l i z e d in c r e a t i o n . 5 ~ I t is in this
s e n s e t h a t G o d as M o n a d is i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h t h e D i v i n e L o g o s , w h i c h
is c o n s t r u e d in b o t h p a g a n a n d m o n o t h e i s t i c t h i n k e r s as t h e r e p o s i t o r y in G o d
f o r all t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d potential.5x T h e D i v i n e L o g o s , t h e n , h a s - - i n a d d i -
t i o n to t h e T r i a d i c a n d H e b d o m a d i c associations we have already d e l i n e a t e d
a b o v e - - a M o n a d i c a s s o c i a t i o n as well.
T a k i n g this 'sperma' a c c o u n t to its c o m p l e t e e n d , we m a y d i s t i n g u i s h t h e
Monadic, Hebdomadic a n d T r i a d i c a s p e c t s o f t h e C r e a t o r G o d by l o o k i n g at
t h e v a r i o u s l o g i c a l s t a g e s o f t h e D i v i n e L o g o s in l i n e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c r e -
ative m e t a p h o r :

1. T h e M o n a d i c a s p e c t o f t h e C r e a t o r G o d - - D i v i n e L o g o s as t h e b l u e p r i n t s
w h i c h a r e in G o d as w h i c h a r e t h e p o t e n t i a l s f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f all t h i n g s ;
all t h i n g s a r e i n H i m as seeds.
2. T h e H e b d o m a d i c aspect of the Creator God--Divine L o g o s as t h e b l u e -
p r i n t i n f o r m a t i o n s e n t f o r t h by G o d , as it w e r e ; G o d d i s s e m i n a t e s t h e seeds.
3. T h e Triadic aspect of the Creator God--Divine L o g o s as t h e o r d e r i n g
p r i n c i p l e o f all e x i s t e n t s as it a p p e a r s in t h e a c t u a l s u b s t a n c e o f c r e a t i o n ;

48De Falco, Theol. Arith., 3, line 1 ft.

49Ibid., 4, line 17 ft.
5oThis visual 'seed' image of the existents of the world in God described as 'in God as potential'
before they are created may seem odd given other thinkers' association of God with pure actuality.
This idea of potentiality in God, however, is a key feature of Nicomachus' thought. We see this
clearly, then, in his Introduction to Arithmetic, where he explains the idea of number as 'flow.' In this
Pythagorean tradition, that numbers 'flow' forth from the monad indicates that the monad con-
tains all the numbers in it potentially. Nicomachus uses the example of a point and the line which
'flows from it.' Even though a point is not part of a line (in that the point lacks any magnitude), it is
nonetheless the start of a line. In this sense, we may say that a point--although lacking any
multiplicity itself--'contains' a line potentially just as the monad contains all things potentially. See
D'Ooge, Nicomachus ofGerasa, x 16, (including notes 2 and 3).
5~We see support for this identification of the Monadic aspect of God with Divine Logos, e.g.,
in Nicomachus' claim that the Pythagoreans "called the monad 'intellect'... ," (De Falco, Theol.
Arith., pg. 6, line 4 ff.) In the context of this and related statements, the monad emerges as the
mind of God. Note that Robbins, (in D'Ooge, Nicomachus of Gerasa, 95), describes Nicomachus as
similar to PhiloJudaeus in this respect.
44 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3 7 : 1 JANUARY 1 9 9 9

G o d i n s e m i n a t e s M a t t e r w i t h F o r m . As w e h a v e s e e n in D i l l o n ' s t r e a t m e n t ,
this i l l u s t r a t e s t h e i m m a n e n t a s p e c t o f G o d as o r g a n i z e r o f m a t t e r .

T h e c r e a t o r , o r ' a r t i f i c e r , ' G o d as M o n a d c o n t a i n s in H i m s e l f all o f t h e

blueprint material for creation--both the principles of form and of matter.
H o w e v e r , this is n o t t h e ' a c t i v e ' a s p e c t o f H i s c r e a t i n g . T h i s a c t i v e ' o u t g o i n g '
a s p e c t o f t h e C r e a t o r , o r A r t i f i c e r , G o d is s e e n , r a t h e r , in his H e b d o m a d i c
a s p e c t ; t h a t is, t h e a s p e c t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c t u a l l y s e n d i n g t h e s e ' b l u e p r i n t s ' o u t
i n t o t h e w o r l d , as a f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n , as it w e r e . B u t this H e b d o m a d i c a s p e c t
o f t h e C r e a t o r G o d , t h o u g h active, is still a t r a n s c e n d e n t m o m e n t in c r e a t i o n ,
as it d o e s n o t y e t d e s c r i b e G o d as i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e a c t u a l e n d - p r o d u c t s o f this
w o r l d w h i c h r e s u l t f r o m t h e s e b l u e p r i n t s . B u t f a r f r o m v i e w i n g this last stage
o f c r e a t i o n as r u n n i n g o n its o w n , w e call u p o n G o d in H i s i m m a n e n t , T r i a d i c
a s p e c t , as a c t u a l l y c r e a t i n g t h e t h i n g s in t h e w o r l d , v i e w e d as a n i n s e m i n a -
tion-or f e r t i l i z a t i o n - - o f sorts. T h o u g h b o t h M a t t e r a n d F o r m a r e p r e s e n t as
s e e d s in t h e D i v i n e L o g o s , this last s ta ge o f c r e a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d as G o d ' s
i n s e m i n a t i n g t h e f o r m e r w i t h t h e latter.52
U s i n g this a p p r o a c h , we m a y m a k e b e t t e r s e n s e o f N i c o m a c h u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n
of the Hebdomad as a ' l i m b ' o f t h e C r e a t o r G o d : N o t o n l y d o e s G o d u s e t h e
number s e v e n as a n i n s t r u m e n t , (as o u r f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e H e b d o -
m a d ' s p r e d o m i n a n t r o l e as a r e c u r r i n g p a t t e r n in c r e a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e d ) , b u t t h e
n u m b e r s e v e n r e p r e s e n t s w i t h i n this s y s t e m o f t h o u g h t a ' l i m b ' o f G o d - - v i z . ,

5~It is interesting to note in this context the description of the transmission of form into
matter by God alternately as the transmission of seeds, lightning bolts and bees. The idea of forms
as lightning and thunderbolts can be found in the Chaldaean Oracles, fragments 34 and 35, where
God in this context is usually understood as the Paternal Intellect. So:
From here springs forth the genesis of varied matter;
From here the sweeping lightning obscures its flower of fire
As it leaps into the Hollows of the Cosmoi; for from here all things
Begin to stretch forth towards that place beneath the wondrous rays.
(Fragment 34)
From Him leap forth the implacable thunderbolts,
And the lightning-receiving womb of the splendid light
Of Father-born Hekate, and the girding flower of fire
And the strong pneuma [situated] beyond the fiery poles.
(Fragment 35)
(See Sarah Iles Johnston, Hekate Soteira: A Study of Hekate's Roles in the Chaldean Oracles and
Related Literature, American Philological Association; American Classical Studies, no. 21 [Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 199o], Ch. 4).
In each case--taken as lightning or thunderbolts, bees or seeds--the image is clear: the
reception of Divine form into matter is a dramatic (or even buzzing) moment in which the matter
is transformed. Seeds impart the idea of potentiality moving from God to become actualized in the
informing of this matter; lightning bolts remind us of the transformative power of this transac-
tion; bees bring to light the image of motion and activity taking place in the matter as it is
informed.
 rIEBDOMADS 45
that p a r t which projects towards actuality the seeds o f m e r e potential, as the
m a l e projects the seed forth in h u m a n r e p r o d u c t i o n . In this way, the H e b -
d o m a d r e p r e s e n t s G o d ' s t r a n s c e n d e n t creative aspect.
In addition to locating in G o d a specific role in the t h r e e - f o l d process o f
creation described above, the H e b d o m a d also m a y be seen as indicating a
f o u r t h stage: viz., the role of G o d as Sustainer. For, in picking o u t the aspect o f
G o d which p o u r s f o r t h b l u e p r i n t i n f o r m a t i o n to the world, we are m e t with a
decidedly crucial m o m e n t in the creation process. For, t h o u g h locating a still
t r a n s c e n d e n t m o m e n t o f G o d ' s role in creation, this o u t p o u r i n g activity locates
the p o i n t o f contact with G o d ' s i m m a n e n c e . U n d e r s t o o d as a c o n s t a n t flow o f
i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the t r a n s c e n d e n t God, this o u t p o u r i n g is a necessary onto-
logical s u p p o r t f o r c r e a t e d existents. While the T r i a d i c e l e m e n t picks o u t G o d ' s
i m m a n e n t role in m o l d i n g the e n d - p r o d u c t s o f creation, the H e b d o m a d i c flow
acts as the c o n s t a n t ontological source for the final e n d - p r o d u c t s o f creation.
We m a y at this p o i n t e x p l o r e the relevance o f the N i c o m a c h e a n ' h e b d o -
m a d ' to the subject m a t t e r o f Boethius' Quomodo Substantiae. Briefly, in this
work, B o e t h i u s sets o u t to answer h o w it is that substances are g o o d , since they
d o n ' t a p p e a r to be g o o d e i t h e r substantially, o r - - a s he a r g u e s - - b y parti-
cipation. While 1 will n o t h e r e r e h e a r s e B o e t h i u s ' a r g u m e n t s f o r w h y things
c a n ' t be g o o d in either o f these ways, it suffices to p o i n t out that the p r o b l e m
which Boethius struggles to resolve in the treatise stems f r o m the initial as-
s u m p t i o n t h a t things must be g o o d in o n e o f these two ways; t h a t they t h e n
a p p e a r n o t to be g o o d in either o f these two ways (as B o e t h i u s illustrates), b u t
yet are m a i n t a i n e d by us to be g o o d n o n e t h e l e s s , is the p e r p l e x i t y which
Boethius sets o u t to resolve. I n o r d e r to facilitate this resolution, B o e t h i u s
provides the r e a d e r with the list o f axioms a l r e a d y alluded to, followed by a
t h o u g h t e x p e r i m e n t whose starting p r e m i s e asks the r e a d e r to " r e m o v e f r o m
the m i n d f o r a m o m e n t the p r e s e n c e o f the first good," (Rand, 45).
While it is b e y o n d the scope o f the c u r r e n t p a p e r to detail a n y o f these
e l e m e n t s of B o e t h i u s ' treatise, it a p p e a r s t h a t B o e t h i u s ' "solution" to the p e r -
plexity a b o u t the g o o d n e s s o f substances specifically draws u p o n a c o n c e p t i o n
o f G o d as a 'first G o o d ' w h o "flows" f o r t h as a c o n s t a n t source o f all B e i n g a n d
Goodness. Substances are called good, he concludes, because "esse eorum a boni
voluntate defluxit," that is, because their existence "flowed down" f r o m the will o f
the good53 (viz., f r o m the will o f God, the first good). We find similarly

53Rand, Boethius, 46. T h e E n g l i s h is m y own. R a n d translates, (47): "their existence h a s

d e r i v e d f r o m t h e will o f t h e good." W h i l e "derive" m i g h t well etymologically s t e m f r o m t h e very
n o t i o n o f "flowing d o w n , " (viz., d e = f r o m ; ~vus=stream), in the actual E n g l i s h u s e o f the verb
"derive," this explicit implication of "flowing" or " s t r e a m i n g " is lost. T h e r e f o r e , R a n d ' s decision to
n o t translate "defluxit" as "flows d o w n " does n o t reflect B o e t h i u s ' choice o f verb, which, as we will
see, t u r n s o u t to be quite philosophically r e l e v a n t in this context.
46 JOURNAL OF T H E H I S T O R Y OF P H I L O S O P H Y 37: i JANUARY i999
t h r o u g h o u t t h e t r e a t i s e a n u m b e r o f o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e v e r b "to flow"
Oquere) a n d its v a r i a n t "to flow d o w n , " (defluere), u s e d to d e s c r i b e t h e activity o f
G o d a n d his t r a n s m i s s i o n o f B e i n g a n d G o o d n e s s to all o t h e r e x i s t e n t s . F a r
f r o m a n a r b i t r a r y c h o i c e o f v e r b s , this o b v i o u s n o t i o n o f G o d as t h e s o u r c e
f r o m w h i c h all else flows f o r t h is e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t , as it r e v e a l s b o t h a
N e o p l a t o n i c a n d N e o p y t h a g o r e a n i n f l u e n c e in t h e w o r k .
L e a v i n g a s i d e t h e N e o p l a t o n i c u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h e Quomodo Substantiae
a n d t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e t h e y p l a y in a n e x p l i c a t i o n o f t h e treatise,54 n o t e t h e
a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n B o e t h i u s ' c l a i m t h a t e x i s t e n c e flows f r o m G o d a n d t h e N e o -
p y t h a g o r e a n i d e a s w e h a v e b e e n l o o k i n g at. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , w e see a c l e a r
l i n k to o n t o l o g i c a l a n d t h e o l o g i c a l c l a i m s in N i c o m a c h u s ' Introduction to Arithme-
tic, as w e l l as in his Theologoumena.
L o o k i n g to t h e Introduction to Arithmetic,55 t h e p o r t r a i t o f G o d in B o e t h i u s '
Quomodo Substantiae is r e m i n i s c e n t o f N i c o m a c h u s ' s e c o n d d e f i n i t i o n o f n u m -
b e r as a f l o w (xuma) f r o m t h e M o n a d , w h e r e t h i s l a t t e r c o n c e p t is i t s e l f associ-
a t e d b y N i c o m a c h u s in t h e Theologoumenawith t h e m i n d o f G o d , (or, t h e D i v i n e
Logos). Given Nicomachus' identification of Monad with the mind of God, and
g i v e n this c o n c e p t i o n o f n u m b e r as t h e s o u r c e f r o m w h i c h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f all
o t h e r t h i n g s flows, w e m a y c e r t a i n l y r e p o r t in N i c o m a c h u s a c l e a r c o r r e l a t e to
B o e t h i u s ' c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d in t h e Quomodo.
S i m i l a r l y , a c l e a r c o r r e l a t e to t h e Quomodo's d e p i c t i o n o f G o d c a n b e f o u n d in
t h e Theologoumena's n o t i o n o f t h e " h e b d o m a d . " F o r , t h e s e n s e in w h i c h
N i c o m a c h u s d e s c r i b e s t h e " h e b d o m a d " as t h e c r e a t i n g a s p e c t o f G o d - - a c o n -
c e p t w h i c h , as w e h a v e s e e n , views ' s e v e n ' as t h a t a s p e c t o f G o d w h i c h c r e a t e s
a n d s u s t a i n s all e x i s t e n t s b y s e n d i n g t h e s e e d s o f all t h i n g s f l o w i n g f o r t h f r o m
H i m s e l f - - p r e c i s e l y h i t s u p o n t h e p o r t r a i t o f G o d w h i c h e m e r g e s in t h e s o l u t i o n
to t h e q u e s t i o n w h i c h B o e t h i u s sets o u t to d i s c u s s in t h e Quomodo Substantiae.
I n l i g h t o f t h e a p p a r e n t fact, t h e n , t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n d i s c u s s e d in t h e Quo-
modo Substantiaeis t h e v e r y s a m e q u e s t i o n w h i c h B o e t h i u s a n d J o h n t h e D e a c o n

54I have treated the content of this treatise in detail in my "Boethius the Neoplatonist:
Goodness by "Transitivity of Participation" in the De Hebdomadibus,"0998, unpublished). In this
that paper I examine the Neoplatonic underpinnings of the axioms, and how they are made use of
in the thought experiment and its solution. I argue for a reading of Boethius' solution in which
substances in fact wind up being good by participation, but in such a way as to avoid the problems
which were initially raised against this suggestion at the outset of the treatise. In way of arguing
my thesis, I develop an account of Boethius' notion of God as Good in the QuomodoSubstantiaeby
drawing upon other important theological claims in his in the De Trinitateand Consolatio.
As the content of this forementioned paper concerns the Neoplatonism in Boethius, it is
certainly relevant to the present article which explores his Neopythagoreanism. However, explor-
ing the precise interaction between Neoplatonism and Neopythagoreanism in Boethius would
require yet another paper.
551.7.1; in D'Ooge translation, 19o.
 nEBDOMAOS 47
has at s o m e p r e v i o u s time discussed, I suggest, t h e r e f o r e , that B o e t h i u s ' allu-
sion to his " h e b d o m a d s " in the o p e n i n g lines o f the Quomodo Substantiae refers
to s o m e e x c h a n g e - - w h e t h e r a letter, a discussion or an i n f o r m a l t r e a t i s e - - o n
the theological a n d ontological implications o f G o d ' s h e b d o m a d i c aspect, u n -
d e r s t o o d in the N i c o m a c h e a n sense that we have s o u g h t to elaborate. T h e fact
t h a t " h e b d o m a d s " is r e f e r r e d to in the plural by B o e t h i u s d o e s n o t s e e m too
h a r d to fit into the c u r r e n t thesis. As we h a v e a l r e a d y seen above, it was
certainly a p o p u l a r N e o p y t h a g o r e a n t h e m e n o t only to e n u m e r a t e the implica-
tions o f the n u m b e r s x - a t as h a v i n g divine relevance, b u t to c o m p i l e lists o f
the n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a in the w o r l d which reflect the i m p o r t o f those n u m -
bers. So, e.g., the notion o f sevens, or ' h e b d o m a d s ' in the plural (e.g., seven day
m o o n cycles, seven year life-cycle periods, etc.) are closely akin in a N e t -
p y t h a g o r e a n context to the n o t i o n o f 'seven' itself--i.e., the H e b d o m a d - - a s
revealing s o m e divine fact, in this case, the fact that G o d is a C r e a t o r who, in
constantly s e n d i n g f o r t h as flow the ontological basis f o r creation, is the Sus-
tainer o f all existents.
T h a t B o e t h i u s ' r e f e r e n c e to " h e b d o m a d s " is a r e f e r e n c e to s o m e written or
verbal e x c h a n g e seems clearly i m p l i e d by the way it is discussed in the o p e n i n g
passage t r e a t e d earlier: "You ask m e to state a n d explain s o m e w h a t m o r e clearly
that o b s c u r e question in m y H e b d o m a d s . . . ' 5 6 It certainly a p p e a r s that
B o e t h i u s h a d previously c o m m u n i c a t e d to J o h n the question o f the c u r r e n t
treatise (viz., H o w is it that substances are g o o d in virtue o f their existence
w i t h o u t b e i n g substantial goods?). It a p p e a r s f u r t h e r m o r e that he refers to t h a t
v e r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n u n d e r the d e s c r i p t i o n o f " H e b d o m a d s . " T h a t " H e b -
d o m a d s " w o u l d in fact have b e e n an a p t way for B o e t h i u s to r e f e r to a discussion
o f this question, then, is a thesis which I h o p e to have convincingly illustrated.
Finally, if this u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Boethius' esoteric r e f e r e n c e to " H e b d o -
m a d s " is right, we m a y b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d his a p p a r e n t discretion at the outset
o f the Quomodo Substantiae. M o r e t h a n j u s t a v a g u e c o n c e r n t h a t the u n i n -
f o r m e d n o t be privy to his m e t a p h y s i c a l treatise, B o e t h i u s w o u l d have, it
seems, g o o d r e a s o n to u n d e r p l a y the c o n t r i b u t i o n s to his t h o u g h t by a p a g a n
n u m b e r theologian, k n o w n f o r his talk o f Zeus, R h e a a n d countless o t h e r
f o r b i d d e n deities, if only to p r e v e n t a n y u n f o r t u n a t e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s by his
readers. T h a t Boethius' reliance u p o n N i c o m a c h u s ' ideas was fully i n n o c u o u s
with r e s p e c t to his religious beliefs is certain, b u t that he m i g h t n o n e t h e l e s s
take p r e c a u t i o n s (viz., the obscurity o f brevity) to avoid b e i n g m i s u n d e r s t o o d
by s o m e r e a d e r s w o u l d s e e m sensible in such a scenario.
I n conclusion, then, we h a v e seen the clear sense in which B o e t h i u s e m p l o y s
(liberally, o n e m i g h t add) a n u m b e r o f specifically N e o p y t h a g o r e a n principles

56 R a n d , Boethius, 39.
48 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF P H I L O S O P H Y 37: ~ J A N U A R Y ~999

f r o m N i c o m a c h u s ' thought. T h e quotes cited earlier f r o m Boethius' De Institu-

tione Anthmetica o f f e r clear evidence o f Boethius' e m p l o y m e n t o f N e o p y t h a -
g o r e a n n u m b e r theory. H e discusses the divine aspects o f odd a n d even; he
r e g a r d s n u m b e r as t h a t with which G o d f o r m s the world; he e v e n sees n u m b e r
as a ' f l o w ' - - t h a t which ' i s s u e s ' - - o r ' p o u r s ' - - f o r t h (profluere/profundere) f r o m 'one
source.'57 Far f r o m m e t a p h y s i c a l l y neutral, these s t a t e m e n t s are r e p l e t e with
N e o p y t h a g o r e a n sensibilities. A n d while I have f o u n d n o direct evidence that
B o e t h i u s r e a d N i c o m a c h u s ' Theologoumena--in which H e b d o m a d s are directly
a d d r e s s e d - - o n e can n o t e that (1) it seems r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e that he h a d
access to the work, (see earlier discussion), a n d (2) a n y charitable r e a d i n g of
Boethius' claims a b o u t n u m b e r s w o u l d n e e d to a s s u m e that he h a d taken the
time to familiarize h i m s e l f with the c o m p l e x system o f N e o p y t h a g o r e a n ideas. It
s e e m s safe to posit, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t he would have b e e n familiar with the
N e o p y t h a g o r e a n implications o f the n u m b e r s in the D e c a d - - t h e H e b d o m a d
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g - - f r o m s o m e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n source, even if n o t directly
f r o m the Theologoumena.
Given, then, Boethius' own i n v o l v e m e n t with N e o p y t h a g o r e a n principles
in the sixth c e n t u r y CE, it s e e m s likely that the t e r m ' h e b d o m a d ' - - i n a work
which e x p l o r e s the n a t u r e o f G o d a n d Being, no l e s s - - a l l u d e s to the descrip-
tion o f G o d in His t r a n s c e n d e n t creative a n d sustaining role.
W h a t e v e r o u r v a r i o u s proposals for explicating these lines in the Boethian
c o r p u s m i g h t be, t h o u g h , they m u s t n o t fail to reflect the u n d e n i a b l e influence
o f P y t h a g o r e a n i s m on B o e t h i u s a n d on the n o t i o n o f H e b d o m a d s .

The Ohio State University

~7Masi, Boethian Number Theory, 76. Migne, Patrologia, Patrum Latinorum Traditio Catholica,
Saeculum VI, Vol. 63, De Arithmetica, lo83 C13 and D5.