Iamblichus elevated Time from the level of the Soul to the level of the Intellect and elevated Eternity to a level above the Intellect. In doing so, he took several steps beyond Plotinus along the road of hypostatizing grades of reality. Plotinus distinguished between a higher and a lower time (III.7.13, 58ff). Iambichus posited a superior time that is participated and an inferior time that participates. Much to the distress of commentators such as S. Sambursky and E. R. Dodds, Proclus systematized the Iambichean distinctions by hypostatizing these levels within an elaborate ontological schema. Sambursky finds that the "need for a further multiplication of hypostases probably arose from the endeavors of Iamblichus and his school to correlate their ontology with the diversified syncretistic theology of their day and to include in their system the sacred entities and divinities of Oriental religions".¹ Dodds expresses similar concerns when he finds the hypostatizing of Time and Eternity as substantive principles an "unfortunate development" compared to what he considers Plotinus' more sophisticated account of time as the activity of Soul (III.7.11–12).² He attributes Proclus' lapse to (a) late hellenistic cult and magic, where a deified Αἰών has a prominent place in Gnostic and Hermetic speculation, and (b) the Chaldaean Oracles, which Proclus followed when he called time "an intelligible god" (Prod. In Tim. III 14, 3). O"Neill, as well, remarks on