Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition 9783666540202, 9783525540206, 9783647540207

Citation preview

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Beiträge zur Europäischen Religionsgeschichte (BERG)

Edited by Christoph Auffarth, Marvin Döbler, Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler Volume 1

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler

Theurgy in Late Antiquity The Invention of a Ritual Tradition

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Umschlagabbildung: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Cod. graec. 304, fol. 35r Amention of theurgic burial in Proclus’ Theologia platonica IV,9

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-54020-6 ISBN 978-3-647-54020-7 (E-Book)  2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch Print und digitale Medien GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Contents Foreword and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

1. Introduction: The Problem of Theurgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2. Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles . 2.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Sacrifice? . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Initiation and Ascent . . . . . . 2.4 Epiphanies and Visions . . . . 2.5 Results: Rituals in the Oracles . 2.6 Great Absents . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

21 21 26 29 34 38 39

3. First Debates about Theurgy : Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus 3.1 Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Philosophy from Oracles . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Letter to Anebo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 De regressu animae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Theurgy in Iamblichus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 De mysteriis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Pythagorising writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Other works and the anecdotes of Eunapius . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. 45 . 45 . 56 . 57 . 74 . 83 . 95 . 95 . 111 . 130

4. Theurgy in the Later Fourth and Early Fifth Century . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Emperor Julian: Theurgy, Philosophy and the Priestly Life . 4.2 Salutius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Eunapius of Sardes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Synesius of Cyrene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Hierocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136 136 149 152 162 175

5. The Later Fifth Century : Theurgy and Demiurgy in Proclus . . . . . 5.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Theurgic rituals and themes in philosophical contexts . . . . . 5.3.1 Divine Visions: The Commentary on the Republic . . . . 5.3.2 Theurgy and Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Theurgic Ascent and Immortalisation in the Commentary on the Republic and the Platonic Theology . . . . . . . . .

186 188 190 199 199 204

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

207

6

Contents

5.3.4 Philosophy and Theurgy : The Commentary on the Parmenides and the Platonic Theology . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 Theurgy and Divine Names: Proclus on the Cratylus . . . 5.3.6 Theurgy and Demiurgy : Proclus on the Timaeus . . . . . 5.3.7 Intellectual and Verbal Songs of the Soul: the Eclogae and Proclus’ Hymns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Theurgy in Proclus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215 237 243 251 255

6. Other Late Neoplatonists on Theurgy and Rituals . . . . . . . . . . 258 7. Conclusion: Theurgy – Writing about Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Bibliography . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . . . Lexica and databases Works Cited . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

287 287 291 291

Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Foreword and Acknowledgements This volume is a revised version of my Habilitation thesis which was submitted and defended in 2011 at the University of Bremen. The book was begun during a two-year scholarship at the Greek and Latin Department and the Center for the Study of Religion at the Ohio State University, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), from 2008 – 2009. The manuscript was completed during my current work at the Courant Research Centre EDRIS at the University of Göttingen, also funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the German Initiative for Excellence. The DFG has generously funded the printing of this book. It is my great pleasure to express my gratitude to all who have accompanied this project from idea to book. At Ohio State I had the privilege to work with Sarah Iles Johnston. I thank her for our many conversations on theurgy and late antique religion, for generously sharing many of her articles with me before they appeared in print, as well as for her patient reading of the manuscript and her helpful suggestions. Thanks are also due to the other two readers, Christoph Auffarth (Bremen) and Heinz-Günther Nesselrath (Göttingen) for their careful reading of the final draft and their valuable suggestions, as well as for our stimulating exchange on late antique religion, philosophy and the history of religions. Besides Sarah Iles Johnston, the conversations with Fritz Graf, Anthony Kaldellis and Michael Swartz allowed me to participate in a vibrant scholarly dialogue on magic, rituals and religion in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and Judaism at the Ohio State University. Without Christopher Brown’s friendship, his warm welcome and helpfulness, and the wonderful discussions on anything ranging from ancient culture to liturgical reform and ritual change, life in Columbus would simply not have been the same. I also profited greatly from discussions with Helmut Seng (Frankfurt), whose indefatigable organisation of conferences on key topics linked with the Chaldean Oracles has furthermore provided an invaluable forum for research on theurgy and related subjects during the last years. Göttingen, November 2012

Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

1. Introduction: The Problem of Theurgy Theurgy is commonly taken to denote a complex of rites which are based on the so-called Chaldean Oracles, a collection of oracles in hexameters, which were probably composed during the late second century AD. These rituals are mostly known through Neoplatonic sources, who engage in a passionate debate about their relevance to the salvation of the soul and thus to the philosopher’s ultimate goal. The Chaldean Oracles and the rituals connected with them are transmitted (at least on a textual level) in Byzantine times and are later discovered by the Renaissance Florentine Platonists. The study of theurgy has been dominated by the question of irrationality versus rationality. Theurgy has been viewed as the intrusion of extra-rational elements coming from a separate religion into the rational pursuit of late antique philosophy, thus affecting its rational character.1 Such a perspective is ultimately indebted to the grand tales of late antique decay.2 It postulates a purely intellectual Plotinus, whose philosophy is combined by a wavering and psychologically complicated Porphyry with the Chaldean Oracles and theurgy, which then gain increasing importance in the thought of later Neoplatonists like Iamblichus or Proclus. This position was challenged in the last decade of the 20th century, when a resurgence of interest in theurgy led many scholars to focus on the ideas underlying theurgic ritual in the Chaldean Oracles and especially in Iamblichus, producing in-depth discussions of the role of theurgy in Iamblichus’ philosophical system and attempting to vindicate his position on this issue as governed by a rationality of its own.3 Due to these studies we are now in a much better position to understand why and how philosophers such as Iamblichus or Proclus pleaded for the importance of such rituals, so that S. Knipe is right to conclude his survey of scholarly approaches to theurgy from 1963 to 2011 by perceiving these studies as a “fatal blow” dealt to the interpretation of theurgy as “an escapist fall into the subrational realm of the ‘occult’”.4 Whether opting for the irrational or the rational character of theurgy, 1 Cf. the telling title of Saffrey’s article “La thurgie comme pntration d’lments extra-rationnels dans la philosophie grecque tardive” (Saffrey (1990b)). This discussion has focused much on the early figures of Neoplatonism, Plotinus being viewed as the exponent of ratio, Porphyry as taking an intermediary stance and finally Iamblichus as surrendering to irrationality and religion (Saffrey (1990 a–c), Smith (1974)). 2 See e. g. Geffcken (1920), Dodds (1951), 236 – 255. 3 See Nasemann (1991), Shaw (1993), (1995) or (2000), Stäcker (1995), Taormina (1999), 133 – 158, Smith (2000) reading Iamblichus as a philosopher of religion, Johnston (2004a). 4 Knipe (2011), 170.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

10

Introduction

scholars tend to regard it as an entity originally separate from Neoplatonism and later adopted into its systems,5 and as such as something already determined in its basic structure and features, lending itself to philosophical reinterpretations. This idea, itself based on the picture of theurgy which the writings of late Neoplatonists such as Proclus give us, leads to a synchronic use of the material, that is, to the reconstruction of “theurgy” by combining sources from various historical periods, from the Chaldean Oracles to late antique sources and sometimes even up to Byzantine authors.6 This synchronic approach has yielded valuable collections of material – most notably the monumental work of Lewy7. It has also achieved important insights into the workings and contexts of late antique rituals and their interconnections. This is especially visible in the work of Johnston, who in her numerous contributions draws on various late antique sources to piece together from the fragmentary evidence a coherent picture of theurgy ;8 other contributions to this endeavour are those of Majercik9, Luck10 or Shaw11. However, a harmonising approach downplays and neglects the historical dynamics at work behind theurgy itself, and recent studies have cast doubts on the viability of this perspective. Thus, Athanassiadi proposed to exclude Psellus as a source for the reconstruction of the Chaldean system and only concentrate on Proclus and Damascius.12 But even in these authors theurgy may have acquired new meanings compared with earlier material, so that a rigorous chronological analysis of the sources each in their own right, without later projections, is necessary. At least in part, van Liefferinge offered an 5 This is apparent e. g. in Dodds (1951), Lewy (1978), the works of Saffrey mentioned above, van Liefferinge (1999), Nasemann (1991), Johnston (1997), Athanassiadi (1999), (2006) or (2010). These scholars mostly localise theurgy in an Oriental, ‘Chaldean’ setting, Saffrey (e. g. (1990a), 78 f) and Athanassiadi pointing to Syria. Another, albeit marginal, approach that also views theurgy as a practice inherited by the Neoplatonists casts it as the direct heir of actual Pythagorean and Parmenidean practices: this is the position of Kingsley (1995) and (2001), followed by Bergemann (2006), 296 – 410 and 2010. I need not go into a detailed critique of Kingsley’s position (for that see the review of his 1995 book by O’Brien (1998)): postulating such chains of continuity and using the sparse historical material as a basis for a complete reconstruction of Pythagorean religiosity goes beyond scholarship into (highly readable) fiction and theosophy. But his approach has one positive side: it makes us more sensitive to the Greek background in which the discourse on theurgy developed – as something new, based on a new text – in the Roman Empire. 6 The classical example for this is Lewy (1978), see also Luck (1989) or Majercik (1989), who bases her discussion of theurgic ritual on Lewy (24 – 46). 7 Lewy (1978), originally published 1956. 8 E.g. Johnston (1990), (1992), (1997), (2004a–b), (2008a); her programmatic approach of “imposing a unity” on the disparate sources is succintly stated in Johnston (2011), 127; see also (2008a), 450 f, where she follows Fowden to extend the category of “theurgy” not only to Platonists and the Chaldean Oracles but also to the Hermetic milieu. 9 Majercik (1989). 10 Luck (1989). 11 Shaw (1995). 12 Athanassiadi (1999a), 158 – 159.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

The Problem of Theurgy

11

attempt at such a reconstruction, pointing out the varying semantic content of the term “theurgy” in different authors, from the Chaldean theurgists over Iamblichus up to Proclus.13 But even the idea of an independent Chaldean religious group, an idea that has found its classical scholarly expression in the work of Lewy and still dominates research on theurgy, appears misleading.14 “Chaldean” or “theurgy” rather appear to be labels used freely to denote different textual and ritual traditions, related by the respective authors to the Chaldean Oracles. At the extreme of the scholarly spectrum opposite to Lewy, Majercik or Johnston we find the remarks of Janowitz, who in her review of Shaw (1995) concludes that there is no such thing as a “theurgic ritual” and that the scholarly efforts to reconstruct it are misguided. In another work, she discusses theurgy on very general lines, viewing it as the ritual equivalent for theology : a label for acceptable rituals as opposed to the negative label of magic.15 However, her radical dismissal of theurgy does not do justice to the sources and does not take into account that in later, post-Iamblichean authors like Proclus, theurgy is understood as a distinctive ritual tradition. This book aims to disentangle the different threads that run together under the label of “theurgy”, focusing on its actual ritual dimension and trying to analyse its historical development in pagan sources from the Chaldean Oracles to the sixth century AD. That is, this varying complex of practices and the discourse about them shall be analysed on their own, not as a side issue of Neoplatonic philosophy. Much-debated topics such as the exact metaphysical system of the Chaldean Oracles or the relationship of ‘irrational’ theurgy to ‘rational’ philosophy shall be secondary and only considered insofar as they are relevant to the understanding of the rituals. The basic questions will be: What rituals appear in the respective sources as theurgic? Where do they come from; what parallels can be found for them? How are these rituals interpreted and what goals are ascribed to them? The endeavour is to bring a rigorously historical and diachronic perspective to the study of theurgic ritual which so far has been mostly approached synchronically. On the other hand, this perspective will not simply dismiss ‘theurgy’ but has the advantage of taking the sources seriously and not throwing the baby out with the bath, sketching how ‘theurgy’ developed and eventually came to be perceived as a recognisable ritual tradition with a specific profile. Such a comprehensive study of the dynamics of theurgy as a ritual tradition is acutely needed. In spite of her enticing title La thurgie des Oracles

13 Van Liefferinge (1999). 14 Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler (2008), 34 and 53, and 2010a. The issue resembles the case of the Hermetica: were they just literary products or rooted and embedded in a cultic and instructional context? But whereas this question has been variously debated for the Hermetica (see the summary of Löhr (1997), 285 – 297 or Fowden (1993)) no similar discussion has so far arisen for the Chaldean Oracles. 15 Janowitz (1997), 664; (2002), 1 – 18, esp. 17 f.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

12

Introduction

Chaldaiques  Proclus, van Liefferinge16 focuses mostly on semantic and philosophical issues, trying to present the Neoplatonic ideals of ‘real’ theurgy and its spiritual value as opposed to magic – for a historian of religions a highly problematic undertaking on account of its inevitably normative character. The actual practices and their embeddedness in the late antique Mediterranean religious context are neglected. This is a consequence of her approach: she reads theurgy in relationship to De mysteriis as the key text, and assumes that theurgy is there equated by Iamblichus with the whole of pagan cult which is thus spiritualised and endowed with a deeper meaning. But this view is too seducingly simple, given the varied spectrum of different rituals discussed by the Neoplatonists, in which theurgy remains something distinct, related to an esoteric knowledge and to private rituals effecting contact between the individual and the divine. Another recent book on theurgy with a promising title but bound to disappoint is Albanese/Mander, La teurgia nel mondo antico,17 which consists mainly of a commented Italian translation of the Oracles and a briefly commented paraphrase of De mysteriis, with two additional contributions that highlight comparable Babylonian and Egyptian practices. A systematic discussion of theurgy is missing, and the commentary is very sparsely documented, relying largely on outdated scholarship, mostly Lewy’s work. The research questions sketched above open the way to consider theurgy as an example of an ‘artificial’ ritual tradition, composed from already existing elements to create something new. Theurgy offers the great opportunity to look at such a tradition from its beginning up to its end and to see how the mechanisms of inventing and reinventing such a ritual tradition work. Here I take up the concept of the “invention of tradition”, which made its triumphant entry into scholarship in the title of Hobsbawm/Ranger (1983), especially with Hobsbawm’s introduction ‘Inventing Traditions’ (even if Hobsbawm did not invent the phrase, as e. g. Sarot underlines18). Their focus lay not so much on religion but rather on political traditions concerning the representation of authority or the creation of national identities, but nevertheless their perspective proved fruitful for religious studies, being taken up e. g. by Bell for the study of ritual.19 Hobsbawm has the merit to have refreshed the emphasis on how traditions with their halo of invariance and link to a distant past are actually designed, produced, and changed, a reminder of a perspective that is basic to the study of history and culture. As Sarot notes, the concept of the “invention of tradition” is a valuable heuristic tool precisely because of its

16 17 18 19

Van Liefferinge (1999). Albanese/Mander (2011). Sarot (2001), 21. She incorporated it especially in her endeavour to highlight the power relations and forms of control governing ritual practice (see Bell (1992), 118 – 124).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

The Problem of Theurgy

13

fruitful ambiguity which enables it to work as an “eye-opener”.20 I use it here as such. To study theurgy as a ritual tradition subject to constant reinvention, I propose to limit my material to the late antique, mostly Neoplatonic sources, a historically delimited corpus stemming from a milieu that is coherent in both its philosophical and in its religious background, which in the period under scrutiny undergoes tremendous transformations. Neoplatonism is at first an innovative part of a publicly accepted religious scene with its public rituals which it can adopt or criticise; progressive marginalisation and gradual repression of pagan traditions turns the philosophical schools into religiously isolated close-knit networks of intellectuals trying to cope with these transformations and to uphold and intellectually support paganism as they understand and to a large extent create it. This move from public to private has repercussions on the nature of rituals practiced in late antique paganism, and we shall see how for the Neoplatonists theurgy comes in handy to enable this transformation. The history of theurgy certainly does not end together with the Neoplatonic schools but lives on into Byzantine and Renaissance times. The reception of the theurgical vocabulary by Ps.-Dionysius and its adaption for Christian theology and ritual is a crucial and well-studied point of development,21 as it makes both the term and the discourse connected with it palatable to Christians, so that the term surfaces in theological contexts where it is least expected, such as the Hesychast controversy.22 Beside the Christianisation of the term, another, more direct, mode of transmission can be seen at work in Byzantine scholars actively engaging with the traditions of antiquity and trying to make sense of Chaldean metaphysics and theurgy, such as Psellus or Pletho.23 But fascinating as these paths of transmission are, they would open the scope too wide to handle the study of the making of a ritual tradition. How, by whom and why is such a ritual tradition assembled? What are the advantages over existing alternatives, and how is theurgy positioned with regard to other similar phenomena? What strategies are used in order to legitimize the new brand of esoteric rituals and to deal with the problem of its actual newness? How is its esoteric aura constructed, and which are its functions? Finally : how is such an ‘artificial’ tradition transmitted and to what extent can it be kept alive by its practitioners? In order to achieve our aim by answering these questions, some preliminary methodological considerations 20 Sarot (2001), 38 – 40. 21 See already Rorem (1984) and (1993), Louth (1986), Shaw (1999), Struck (2001), Dillon/Klitenic Wear (2007), 85 – 115, Stock (2008), 152 – 232. For an alternative approach arguing along Straussian lines that Ps.-Dionysius might be imagined as a “crypto-pagan” endeavouring to hide Neoplatonic truths in Christian garb so as to pass them on to posterity, see Lankila (2011); as he himself admits, most of his argumentation is hypothetical. 22 Tanaseanu-Döbler (2010b). 23 See des Places (1988), Athanassiadi (2002), Tambrun-Krasker (1995), Tardieu (1980) or (1987), Woodhouse (1986), 48 – 61.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

14

Introduction

are necessary, concerning (1) the terminology of theurgy and (2) the notion of ritual. (1) Based on the tacit assumption that there is something like a “Chaldean” group with its distinctive religiosity, with the Chaldean Oracles as their revelatory literature and with specific rites based upon it, “theurgy” is often used in scholarly discourse to denote both the reference to the Chaldean Oracles and to certain esoteric rites connected with them. Thus, allusions to the Chaldean Oracles or quotations from them are often taken to signal ‘theurgy’. But as will become apparent in the course of our study, the text and the rituals need nevertheless not go together ;24 certain authors such as Porphyry may draw upon the Oracles without necessarily assigning to theurgic rituals any greater importance. Discussing the development of theurgy requires us to differentiate between the reception of the Chaldean Oracles and their philosophical system on the one hand, and actual ritual practice on the other. Both are taken up in a variety of ways by the Neoplatonists, who produce different theories about theurgy as a varying complex of rituals on the one hand, as well as a polyphonic discourse of interpretation of the Chaldean Oracles on the other hand. These aspects need to be separated as far as possible in the present enquiry. We will on the one hand ask what rituals were understood as theurgic at a given time, i. e. in a given source; this approach questions the idea of theurgy as substantially comprising the same rituals in Iamblichus as in the writings of Proclus or Damascius. On the other hand, we will consider whether the Chaldean Oracles as a text are present in the discussions of such rituals labelled as theurgy, and to what extent they influence their interpretation. Beside the distinction between text and philosophy, the delimitation of our subject matter is complicated by the fact that the actors in the Neoplatonic discourse on rituals use a variety of synonyms or closely related terms to denote the rituals they mean, such as Reqatij^, tekestij^, Reqouqc_a, lustacyc_a or heiasl|r. Unlike heouqc_a which seems to have been coined by the Chaldean Oracles, all other words are established terms of Greek ritual language by the second century AD. How do we determine what they exactly refer to in a given context, that is, when can we be sure that our sources are discussing theurgy and not some other ritual, such as Egyptian practices or the Eleusinian mysteries? Some scholars tend to employ ‘theurgy’ for 24 Cf. also Majercik (1989), 21 f, who however argues for caution on completely different grounds, as she views the younger Julian on the basis of the communis opinio of earlier scholarship as the first who used the specific term “theurgy”, while his father supposedly did not – on this line of reasoning all the traditions coming from the elder Julian, the “Chaldean” would have been perceived as “Chaldean”, but not necessarily as “theurgic”. For the problems of authorship of the Oracles see P. Hadot (1978), 703 – 706. However, for the present analysis, the Juliani, surrounded as they are by a web of legends, are at best secondary ; what concerns us are the sources on theurgy and the relationship between the foundational text and the ritual discourse which it generates.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

The Problem of Theurgy

15

Neoplatonic references to ritual, regardless of the exact terms used in the text. This leads them e. g. to translate Reqatij^, tekestij^ or the other ritual-related terms enumerated above as ‘theurgy’ or ‘theurgic’, obscuring the actual vocabulary in the text.25 A related problem is that ‘theurgy’ is used as a term on the meta-level of scholarly language, without however noting and reflecting on the difference between object and meta-level. Thus, Fowden uses the term “theurgy” very vaguely, extending it also to Hermetic writings, based on the close parallels between the Neoplatonic and the Hermetic anthropology and soteriology ;26 for him theurgy is a “potent combination of cult, magic and philosophy”.27 Following explicitly in his footsteps, Johnston also proposes an inclusive understanding of theurgy, reading e. g. Porphyry’s work on cultic statues or his Philosophy from Oracles as sources for theurgic ritual,28 or employing the Mithras Liturgy as a parallel text which is so close to the Chaldean Oracles that it can be used to fill out the gaps in the ascent practices hinted at in the Oracles – which basically makes the Liturgy a theurgic text.29 This inclusive approach highlights the religious and more precisely ritual koine of the late antique Mediterranean and certainly sharpens our understanding of late antique private rituals. Yet, it obscures the fact that the sources literally speak a slightly different language: the Hermetica and the two works of Porphyry mentioned do not use the term ‘theurgy’ or its cognates, nor is there any trace of the specific vocabulary clustering around the term ‘theurgy’ in Neoplatonic texts, nor, finally, any mention of the Chaldean Oracles as a reference text. It is certainly possible and helpful to use a meta-language term to group together comparable phenomena at the object level; indeed, most key terms in the history of religions stem from a specific religious tradition. Keeping the distinction between object level and meta-level clear, ‘theurgy’ can then be abstracted from its specific context of origin to be used as a scholarly tool as defined by the researcher. This happens most notably in the study of Jewish mysticism and magic,30 but also in studies of medieval magic,31 studies of esotericism32 or even modern artists, when studies inquire into the ‘theurgy’ of Skrijabin.33 Whereas in these examples the distance between the 25 E.g. Athanassiadi (1999), 79, 88 or 327, Clarke/Dillon/Hershbell (2004), 47, 265, 275, 277, 278 or 324. 26 Fowden (1993), 126 – 153. 27 Ibid. 126. 28 (2008a); reference to Fowden 450 f. 29 Johnston (1997); see 183, n. 54. 30 To give two recent examples, cf. Flatto (2010), 210 – 227 or the succint definition of Fishbane (2010), 125: “Theurgy – the power of human action and intention to affect the divine realm – is one of the main defining components of medieval Kabbalah […].” 31 See e. g. Vronse (2007), 25 or 28, who employs the term to describe the Ars notoria, a medieval magical text which promises the instant mastery of all sciences; he explicitly draws the line to Neoplatonic theurgy. 32 E.g. Faivre (1994), 34. 33 E.g. Lobanova (2004).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

16

Introduction

original historical context of the term and the phenomena which it is applied to is so significant as to indicate clearly that the term is used on the meta-level of theory and scholarly description, a similar meta-level use of the term for the study of late antique theurgy has its pitfalls. It may result in the blurring of these two levels and thus in the assumption that what the scholar describes as theurgy is actually out there as such, already grouped together as such by the sources. And this may lead to lumping things together which the late antique writers on theurgy see as distinct, though in some cases related. As we are interested in reconstructing the growth and development of theurgy as the Neoplatonists saw it, we must distinguish sharply between the two levels and focus on the object level. At this level, we must note the semantic connection of ‘theurgy’ with a specific vocabulary and with specific synonyms or related terms designating rituals; the term ‘theurgy’ is thus at the centre of a web of terms that emerge as related in the source texts. For each author, we will have to outline clearly what these synonyms and terms are and how exactly their relationship is determined. Beside this semantic aspect, intertextuality plays an important role. Theurgy after all begins its life as a coinage of the Chaldean Oracles and is there paired with certain specific terms and notions: the symbols or tokens (s}lboka or sumh^lata) that are divinely provided in the cosmos and can be ritually manipulated to effect the ascent of the soul, the mention of fire as the divine substance spreading through cosmic channels (aweto_), a specific role of the pneumatic vehicle of the soul which needs to be purified and become warm, dry and light for the heavenly ascent, the ascent to the highest principle cast as the Father – all features which we will outline in detail when discussing the Chaldean Oracles. We will thus include into our study texts where rituals are either explicitly labelled as ‘theurgy’, and/or where the relationship to the Chaldean Oracles is present either through the vocabulary used, or through direct references to their authors, the “theurgists”, or, thirdly, through direct quotations. That means that e. g. tekestij^ will not automatically be taken to signal theurgy, but only when it is paired with either the term ‘theurgy’ and/or with vocabulary that is elsewhere used for theurgy and shows a link to the Chaldean Oracles. Furthermore, the translations will keep the various terms used for ritual apart, so as to convey the semantic complexity of the texts. (2) Regarding ritual, the last years have witnessed an outburst of scholarly studies from various disciplines on the topic. A survey of the various heterogeneous approaches would be out of place and irrelevant for my subject; I refer the interested reader to the theoretical compendium and annotated bibliography of Kreinath/Snoek/Stausberg34 and to the monumental proceedings of the 2008 Heidelberg conference on ritual dynamics35 and will only

34 Kreinath/Snoek/Stausberg (2007). 35 Michaels et al. (2010 – 2011).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

The Problem of Theurgy

17

point out my understanding of ritual and a few aspects that are of interest for the present study. It is universally agreed that there can be no single generally valid definition or theory of ritual; instead, ritual is seen as a complex phenomenon that can be studied only from a multitude of different angles. New attempts at definition have drawn on post-classical logic, viewing ritual as a “fuzzy set”, and particularly a “polythetic class”, where various characteristics are shared by the members of the class without any of them possessing all characteristics. That is, modern definitions of ritual tend to single out certain salient characteristics of their object, without claiming that every ritual must possess all and fully acknowledging that the list might be continued. This approach stands in the tradition of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, especially his theory of family resemblances.36 For the present study, ritual shall include only religious cases, that is, rituals that work on the assumption that there is a level of reality transcending the common everyday experience, however that level may be called. However challenging and productive the comparison of religious and non-religious rituals may be for uncovering mechanisms of individual psychology or collective behaviour and social cohesion,37 theurgy aims at integrating the practitioner into the Neoplatonic hierarchy of divine beings, which includes heroes and daimones, gods and abstract highest hypostases such as the World Soul, the Intellect, or the One. So we will view ritual as a set of practices, of embodied actions, that are set apart and distinguished from common behaviour, and are directed at bringing about a connection of the practitioner with the realm of the divine and thus at opening an avenue of communication with it. The practices are distinguished from other forms of religious practice, e. g. fasting or almsgiving, by their performance in a special setting, distinguished from everyday life.38 The means to create this separateness and to frame the ritual activity as such vary : it can be achieved either through a 36 See Snoek (2006), 4 – 6 and 10 – 14, cf. also Crossley (2004), 32 and 38. 37 Cf. e. g. the funny but insightful comparison of academic and Christian rituals by Theißen (2007), or Rao (2006), 158, who acknowledges that “however, more often than not, the term ‘ritual’ is associated with the religious domain” or Grimes (2006), who blends theatrical and ritual performances together. See also Boudewijnse (2006), 129 – 138 for psychological approaches to ritual. While a wider understanding of ritual, going beyond religious practices, is bound to unearth structural similarities between different rituals that would otherwise go unnoticed, one cannot and should not divorce ritual from its respective context: one can study ritual only in its sociological, psychological, religious or theatrical context; there is no such thing out there as ‘pure ritual’. Therefore, the stance of Kreinath (2005), who argues that “[t]he study of ritual is a field of its own and not simply a continuation of the study of religion”, is misleading: ‘ritual studies’ cannot be a discipline of its own, but only a focal point of an interdisciplinary endeavour. 38 This separatedness and difference is emphasised by all ritual theorists, see e. g. J. Z. Smith (1987), 103 – 110, Snoek (2006), 13, Bell (1992) and (1997), 81, Turner (2006), 235. However, this should not be taken to mean that rituals are isolated from other social processes (cf. Rao (2006), 159).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

18

Introduction

special location, or through temporarily creating a sacred space destined for the performance of the corresponding actions, through designating certain times, e. g. feast days; other possibilites would be specific religious roles not pertinent to everyday life but only activated in ritual, such as the role of medium, the use of special robes, of incense, the use of purificatory actions to integrate the participants into the sphere of ritual and mark the transition from the sphere of everyday behaviour, or simply the withdrawal into solitude and the adoption of a special body posture for meditation or prayer.39 The performance of ritual actions can be framed as the repetition and scrupulous re-enactment of an authoritative tradition, set off as formal and strictly rulegoverned behaviour against more informal behaviour,40 employing basic dichotomies such as male-female or light-darkness41 to enforce the special setting. In this approach, the actual practices involved in rituals can vary from meditation or prayer to public sacrifice; they can be either public and collective or private. As C. Bell has noted, following J. Z. Smith, potentially any human action can be marked off as belonging to this extra-ordinary context and thus be “ritualised”.42 The key aspect of rituals is the central role which the bodily aspect of the human person plays in it. This should not be seen in a Cartesian manner as body versus mind, or action versus thought, but rather as a complex experience integrating both sensory and cognitive processes. Following this path, ritual can be seen as a means to open up a new mode of experiencing the world, impacting not only on the actions and the body but also on the beliefs and worldview of the participant: the holistic experience can reinforce, transform or more deeply ground these beliefs in the person’s self. This may be especially important in groups holding complex systems of abstract beliefs, which can be enacted and experienced in ritual performance in a different way, endowing them with a sense and aura of reality and interaction.43 Along these 39 Cf. Bell (1997), 167. 40 Cf. Bell (1997), 138 – 169, singling out formalism, invariance, traditionalism, performance, rulegovernance, and sacral symbolism as the mechanisms of ritualisation and the characteristics of ritual-like activities. However, this refers mostly to the perception of the practitioners and the way they present their behaviour. Rituals do change and are constantly re-invented to suit the needs of the practitioners; we shall see how innovation plays an important role in the growth of theurgic ritual in Late Antiquity. Humphrey/Laidlaw (2006), 275 see the stipulated non-intentionality as the main characteristic of ritualisation: actions are rendered “non-intentional, stipulated, and elemental or archetypal” ((2006), 278). For a more balanced view on such and related theories of the meaninglessness of ritual see Michaels (2006) or Thomas (2006), 342: “‘Meaninglessness’ as the absence of pragmatics is still an ascribed meaning, attributed by the researcher as participant-observer”. 41 Bell (1992). 42 Bell (1992), (1997), 91; cf. also Harth (2006), 27. He suggests a gradual approach assuming a “graded spectrum that ranges from strong to weak in ritual character” (32). 43 For the importance of the body for ritual experience see e. g. Jennings (1982), 115, Bell (1992),

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

The Problem of Theurgy

19

lines, it has been argued that it is possible to see ritual as productive of knowledge or, as recently Schildbrack has put it, as a mode of metaphysical enquiry, as a noetic tool towards an apprehension of the “most general contexts of human existence”44 : “A ritual is a metaphysical inquiry, then, to the extent that it aims at increased knowledge of being in the world authentically, that is, being in the world in the way authorized by the very nature of things”.45 Or, with Williams and Boyd (1993), “The different aspects of the ritual speak to different senses and affect different portions of the psyche, so that their unification brings about a unification in the perceiver […] the participant comes to know, in ways not reducible to propositional expression, that he is cooperatively engaged with the creatures of the good creation. He experiences a felt unity, compelling to both heart and mind.”46 Certainly, this cannot be generalised: not all practitioners will experience or use the ritual as a noetic tool, but this perspective renders us sensitive to the possibility of practitioners who do so. The peculiar framing of ritual as a distinctive sphere of action does not mean that it takes place outside of society. The function of rituals to provide and enhance group cohesion stands at the centre of many sociological approaches to ritual, classically expressed by Durkheim. Even if the Neoplatonic philosophers formed networks of highly individualistic intellectuals, this integrative function must also be kept in mind for our analysis of theurgy. Rituals do not only enhance belief but also turn “membership into belonging”, functioning as one focal point of identity construction.47

44 45

46 47

94 – 117, (1997), 160 or (2006), or Theißen (2007), 32 – 34, who (from a Christian perspective) speaks of a “‘somatische Semantik’ oder eine ‘semantische Somatik’” (33 f). The role of ritual in enhancing and deepening belief along with creating a sense of belonging is emphasised by Marshall (2002) from a Durkheimian perspective. See also Schilbrack (2004), 131: “[…] rituals as a process through which a religion makes their most abstract teachings concrete, giving facticity to their ideology. […] The goal is to have ritual participants perceive metaphysical truths ‘in the flesh’”, or Crossley (2004), 44 f. Another accent is brought into this line of thought by Raposa (2004), who analyses the role of ritual in channelling attention and thus increase awareness; in this sense, ritual can be seen as a “type of inquiry, a kind of thinking embodied in conduct, behavior that can be conceived as a deliberate process of semiosis” (123). Schilbrack (2004), 137. Schilbrack (2004), 139. In this ‘noetic’ approach to ritual, two positions can be distinguished: Jennings (1982) argues for a dynamic relationship, where the growth of knowledge through ritual also requires and triggers the change of ritual (113 – 116), whereas Williams/Boyd draw on Zoroastrian examples to show that the ritual itself, which comes to be viewed as an “artistic ‘masterpiece’” does not change, although it serves as a source of practical wisdom for the participant (1993 and 2006, 294 – 296). They advocate a more balanced view including different modes of gaining “wisdom” through ritual and draw on aesthetic theory and metaphor theory to describe in what ways rituals viewed as “masterpieces” surrounded with an aura of necessity and irreplaceability can both convey meaning and also create a fecund space in which the participants produce meaning which they attach to ritual (1993, 84 – 100 and 118 – 130). Williams/Boyd (1993), 57. See Marshall (2002) for a recent development of Durkheimian theory ; quoted phrase on p. 361.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

20

Introduction

The focus on the integration of belief, knowledge and action in ritual and on a distinctive experience of that which is believed through bodily enactment, symbolic concretisation and ‘fleshing out’, an experience which may create a sense of safety and belonging, opens up a promising avenue of enquiry for analysing rituals designed by philosophers for philosophers and thus for understanding the development and the importance of a discourse about theurgy and its role in the face of the transformations of the pagan religious panorama. We will now proceed to trace the various voices which constitute this discourse.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

2. Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles 2.1 Preliminaries The earliest secure attestation of the term “theurgy” probably occurs in the Chaldean Oracles. Later writers place their composition in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in the second half of the second century ; their authors, the two Juliani, are surrounded by legend.1 Another alleged mention of theurgists (heouqco_) in the Excerpta de musica written by the Neopythagorean Nicomachus of Gerasa, which would attest the term by the 160s, rests only on a conjecture within a corrupt text passage.2 If the conjecture be correct, then it would show theurgists at work making all sorts of strange sounds, hissing and clicking their tongues in a manner highly reminiscent of the magical papyri or Christian exorcisms.3 Interestingly, the term appears as one word among many to designate cultic personnel or ritual specialists in the Onomastikon of Julius Pollux,4 which was written between 166 and 176.5 Considering the aim of the Onomastikon to be a source and tool for the wqe_a t/r vym/r, Julius Pollux must have regarded this term as a proper Greek term fit for rhetorical use; that makes it unlikely that he should have come across it in a magical context, as magic, dubbed mostly cogte_a, appears in the lexicon always in the context of pejorative terms. If he found the term in the Oracles, that might be interpreted as a further indication of the essentially Greek character of the Oracles, which has been noted by Johnston or Hadot.6

1 On the two Juliani see Saffrey (1990a), 64 – 69 and 78 f, and most notably Athanassiadi ((1999), 149 – 156; (2006), 38 – 70; (2010)). But see also the cautious remark of P. Hadot (1978), 705, that it might be safer to follow des Places and “garder aux Oracles l’anonymat”. 2 Nicomachus of Gerasa, Excerpta 6, 277, 7 Jan. 3 See e. g. the vowels and consonants scattered in the prayer found in the Mithras Liturgy, PGM IV 488 – 495 or ibid. 561 f: 5peita s}qisom lajq¹m suqicl|m, 5peita p|ppusom. For Christian practice see e. g. Julian, ep. 79 Bidez (suq_tteim pq¹r to»r da_lomar). However, Proclus mentions in his scholia to the Cratylus that theurgists do make inarticulate noises: LXXI 31 Pasquali: toiaOta d’ 1st·m t± jako}lema s}lboka t_m he_m7 lomoeid/ l³m 1m to?r rxgkot]qoir emta diaj|sloir, pokueid/ d’ 1m to?r jatadeest]qoir7 $ ja· B heouqc_a liloul]mg di’ 1jvym^seym l]m, !diaqhq~tym d], aqt± pqov]qetai; see van den Berg (2008), 165. 4 Julius Pollux, Onomastikon I 14, 4 Bethe. 5 For the date of the Onomastikon see Bethe (1900), V. It survives only in a 9th century epitome, with additions from later Byzantine authors (Bethe (1900), VI–XVII). 6 See Johnston (1997), 170, Hadot (1978), 706 f. A text like the Oracles, presenting itself as ‘Oriental’ in a fundamentally Greek manner with some unusual touches of vocabulary would have fitted Pollux’ “moderate Atticism, which is open to Hellenistic and even Iranic or Latin words” and his “purpose of reflecting the chronological and geographical variety of the Hellenophone provinces

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

22

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

The Oracles themselves expound a worldview marked by a basically Middle Platonic cosmology and anthropology ; they have been included by Dillon in the “underworld of Platonism”7. Carefully preserving the appearances of Greek oracles down to the hexametric form which dominates the collection, the extant fragments are concerned with cosmogony, with the descent of the souls into matter and their return back to their divine home.8 The divine substance is described as fire, which descends from the highest principles through various channels (aweto_) down to the material world.9 The highest realm is dominated by a triad formed by the Father or Paternal Abyss, who is the first Monad, and his Power and Nous, who emanate from him.10 The Middle Platonic pattern of the hyperessential intelligible principle which brings forth the intellect as the major demiurgic entity11 is enriched with elements from other traditions: the conception of the divine substance as fire reminds us of Heraclitus or Stoic cosmology, and can also be found in other religious traditions of the time, e. g. Gnosticism12. A peculiar aspect of the Oracles’ metaphysics is the important role assigned to Hecate, who seems to function as a mediator between different entities or realms, most conspicuous in her role as the World Soul, the mediator between the intelligible realms and the material cosmos;13 she also seems to be the principal divine speaker of the Oracles.

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

in the Roman Empire” (Zecchini (2007), 26), which fit well into and replicate Commodus’ stance in cultural politics (ibid. 25). Dillon (1996), 392 – 396. Majercik joins him in describing the Oracles along with the Gnostic and Hermetic texts as having a “rather murky quality” (1989, 4). This metaphor of the underworld is highly misleading, considering the affinity of the Oracles with the traditional hexametric form of oracles and their display of Hellenism. Also, their reception by people like Pollux shows that they could be regarded as respectable literary products in their time. Brisson (2000a), 332 – 338 shows the close dependence of the Oracles’ cosmology on the Timaeus presenting them as a theological interpretation of the Platonic dialogue with a soteriological thrust. He also notes other Platonic works whose influence can be detected in the Oracles (333). He reiterates his reading of the Oracles also in Brisson (2003). Here only a brief summary of the Chaldean Oracles’ worldview can be given; for a more detailed analysis see Majercik (1989), 5 – 21. Seng (2009a) and (2009b) has brilliantly shed light on some details of the Chaldean hierarchy of beings. For the triadic structure of the highest entities see e. g. Majercik (2001). A good concise overview of the Chaldean system can be found in Turner (2008), 40 – 47. See frg. 3 – 5; 11 – 12; 18 – 21; 26 – 28 des Places. As Majercik (2001), e. g. 296, points out, the exact nature of the Chaldean triad cannot be reconstructed, because we only have it inextricably interwoven with the various Neoplatonic interpretations. For variations of this metaphysical pattern see e. g. Numenius, frg. 11 – 13 und 15 – 17 des Places or Alcinous, Didascalicus X 2 – 3 and XII–XIV. Cf. also Origenes, De princ. I 2 or Clemens, Strom. IV 156 f for Christian adaptations of this scheme. See e. g. the description of the system of Simon Magus by Hippolytus, Refutatio VI 9, 3 – 10, 4. Frg. 6: Hecate as moeq¹r rl^m (spiritual membrane) between the first fire and the other fire; frg. 32: the life-generating womb of Hecate, receiving the fire of life from above (at the level of the synocheis, the entities in charge of keeping the cosmos together ; frg. 35: the womb of fatherborn Hecate; frg. 50: the centre of Hecate is floating between the two Fathers; frg. 51 – 52: Hecate

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Preliminaries

23

The continuous exchange between the milieu of the Oracles and other contemporary strands of thought is shown by the appearance of a similar triadic structure of the highest principles in Sethian Gnostic texts. Their dating varies in accordance to the relationship each scholar establishes between them and Neoplatonic texts, ranging from the late second century to the second half of the third century AD.14 It seems, however, more plausible to assume that such texts like the Apocalypse of Zostrianos were written around the end of the 2nd century AD or at any rate in the first half of the third century AD15 Then one can consider either the possibility of an influence of the Oracles on the Sethian authors,16 or a shared background of triadic speculations, as both the Oracles and the Sethian Gnostic texts are close to Numenius17 and also to Neopythagorean arithmetic speculations. Thus, an account of Pythagorean number theology falsely ascribed to Iamblichus18 points to the role assigned to the triad by Nicomachus of Gerasa as a structuring principle of the universe, quoting the Homeric formula tqiwh± c±q p\mta d]dastai, which in texts from the second and third century can be applied not to sacrifice, as in Homer, but to cosmic tripartition.19 This triad is closely connected or identified with Hecate, thus coming very close to the role of Hecate as ensouler and structurer of the cosmos in the Chaldean Oracles. This triad projects forth the hexad, which is a further principle of cosmic order, associated with the distances between the planets and the harmony of their whirring sound (No_fgsir).20

14

15

16 17 18 19 20

as the source of the first soul, who vivifies the worlds, and also the source of virtue, 54: she carries nature on her back. For the role of Hecate in the Oracles and its roots in Greek religion see Johnston (1990). Hecate as a connecting force, influencing different parts of the cosmos, is already present in Hesiod’s Theogony 411 – 452, where she is allotted influence in the chthonic as well as the heavenly realms and is presented as a mighty goddess with great influence. This idea appears again in the late antique Orphic hymn to Hecate, where she is hailed as oqqam_am, whom_am te ja· eQmak_am (v.2) and as pamt¹r j|slou jkgidoOwom !m\ssam (v. 7). The Orphic hymns cannot be dated with precision, having been written somewhere between the 2nd and the 5th century AD (Morand (2001), 304); that is, the same period when theurgy develops. Earlier, Plutarch also presented her as both chthonic and heavenly at the same time and thus explains her association with the moon (De defectu orac. 13, 416). See Majercik (1992), 476, n. 6. She herself pleads for a very late date, after the death of Plotinus in 268 (488). An example for an early dating would be the work of Turner (1992), 439 – 455; a middle position is occupied by Brisson (1996). See Turner (1992), 439 – 455 and Brisson’s discussion and criticism of Majercik (1992) (1996, 179). Brisson points out that the Platonic influences in the Apocalypse of Zostrianos are not Porphyrian but Middle Platonic, traceable to Numenius, who was in turn influenced by Middle Platonic speculation embodied in texts like the Second Letter of Plato. That is the tendency of Turner (1992), 439. Turner (1992), 454 – 455. Dillon (2000), 835. The Homeric quotation appears e. g. in Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio V 8,3 and V 20,8 Marcovich in his account of Naassene and Sethian doctrine. Ps.-Iambl. Theolog. arithm. 49: 2jatgbek]tim d³ aqtμm ja· tqiod?tim ja· diwqom_am pq¹r to}toir 1j\koum7 2jatgbek]tim l³m !p¹ toO tμm tqi\da, Dm :j\tgm owsam paqeik^valem, bok^sasam ja· oXom 1pisumtehe?sam !pocemm/sai aqt^m7 tqiod?tim d³ t\wa l³m paq± tμm t/r heoO v}sim, eQj¹r d],

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

24

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

Here we find some elements attributed to earlier Pythagorean lore, which appear also in the Chaldean Oracles: the triad, Hecate as a cosmic principle, the whirring sound of the planets.21 Sethian Gnosticism also shows itself conversant with Neopythagorean ideas: Turner (2008) points to Moderatus of Gades as a parallel.22 A comparison with the Sethian texts and with Numenius helps to situate the Oracles better in their context. Numenius’ extant fragments show an interest in religious matters, especially in mystery cults like Eleusis or possibly also the Mithras mysteries23, but nevertheless, his metaphysical fragments are formulated in a highly abstract Platonic terminology without any mythological underpinnings.24 His highest entities remain Platonic. The Sethian texts, building on the same metaphysical structure, employ different names, going from abstractions to concrete proper names as they go down the ontological scale: the first principle is called the Invisible Spirit or the Unknowable One, then comes the Triple Power or Eternal Life, strongly reminiscent of the Chaldean power emanating from the Paternal Abyss and mediating between him and the Intellect. The role of the Intellect in the Chaldean system is occupied by the aion of Barbelo, comprising different aspects: Kalyptos, Protophanes, the Triple Male and Autogenes.25 Intellect is now substituted by a goddess bearing a distinctively barbarian name, who reigns over subordinate personal entities bearing abstracta as names.26 In contrast, the Chaldean Oracles also personify the highly abstract metaphysical structure of Middle Platonism and introduce peculiar entities like the sumowe?r or teket\qwai27, who seem to remain abstract classes of divine beings, without proper names, or the ûpan and d·r 1p]jeima.28 The same penchant for divinised abstractions is at work in the personifications of various aspects of Time (Chronos) and Eternity (Aion), which are mentioned especially by Proclus as

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

fti ja· B 2n±r t± tq_a t_m diast\seym jim^lata pq~tg 5kawe, diw|hem pepeqasl]ma !lvot]qair jah’ 6jastom peqist\sesi. This view of the hexad is taken from Anatolius of Laodikeia, who refers to earlier authors. Dillon (1996), 358 ascribes it to Nicomachus of Gerasa. The importance of the hexad which sums up the distances between the planets and thus contributes to the harmony of their sounds is found in Theolog. arithm. 48. For the triad see his summary of the views of Nicomachus of Gerasa ap. Ps.-Iambl. Theolog. arithm. 17 – 18. For the No?for of the planets see e. g. frg. 146. Turner (2008), 50 with n. 41, 55. See frg. 53 – 58 des Places. The Mithras cult is prominent in Porphyry’s De antro nympharum, which draws heavily on Numenius; see Turcan (1975), 62 – 89. That must certainly remain a hypothetical conclusion, based on the extant fragments. For a reconstruction of the Sethian system see e. g. Turner (2008), 49 – 55. Cf. Turner (2001), 635 on the difference between Sethian and Platonic ascents of the soul: “it seems to me that the basic difference between the two lies in a preference either for myth and dramatic personification, or for conceptual analysis and distinction as a vehicle for explaining the same human problematic”. See frg. 32 and 86 des Places. On these mysterious entities see Seng (2009b) (I thank him very much for sharing his text with me before publication).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Preliminaries

25

deities of the Chaldean pantheon,29 and in the classes of astral entities.30 But instead of barbarian names, the only known mythical figures appearing in them are those of the Greek pantheon: Hecate, perhaps Rhea,31 and probably Athena.32 Eros may have played a part as well, although it is difficult to deduce from the extant fragments whether he was presented as a divine person in his own right or rather as a name for a cosmic power.33 This shows that unlike the Gnostic texts, the Oracles develop their worldview in close connection with the Greek religious tradition and thus aim at a Hellenised educated public (given also the mostly hexametric form and the preference of Ionic word variations).34 For their triadic speculation and conception of Hecate as a cosmic force one should thus rather look to Neopythagorean parallels like Numenius or Nicomachus of Gerasa, whose conception of Hecate we noted above. The fragmentary state of the text makes it hard to decide whether it was composed as one whole oracular poem or a collection of oracular utterances; the reference to it in later Neoplatonic works by the term t± k|cia in plural makes the latter seem more plausible,35 as do the extant Oracles collections and commentaries of Psellus36 and Pletho37, which present the Oracles as a collection of distinct oracles of varying length. Proclus’ references to them as utterances of the gods point out that the oracles were ascribed to different

29 See Lanzi (2006), 37 – 43 and infra, 5.3.1. 30 Recently analysed by Seng (2009a). Just as vague and abstract are the “Fathers overseeing magical operations”, oR 1p· lacei_m pat]qer mentioned by Damascius, De princ. III 31 Westerink/Combs. However, Damascius is the only late antique source who mentions this group of deities, and he is very late – we cannot know if they were part of the Chaldean Oracles in the second century. 31 Frg. 56 des Places. But cf. the alternative view by Majercik (2001), 292 – 294, who sums up the debate about the role of Rhea in the Chaldean pantheon and views the mention of Rhea as a late substitution for the original Hecate in the course of late Neoplatonic attempts to harmonise Chaldean and Orphic theology (294). 32 Frg. 72 according to the context in Proclus, Theol. plat. V 35, 130 Saffrey/Westerink (des Places (1971), 85 reads it as a reference to Hecate, without giving a reason). For a more general structural comparison between the Gnostic, Hermetic and Chaldean systems see also Majercik 1989, 4. 33 See Lanzi (2006), 44, who comes to very reserved conclusions, showing that the fragments do not allow for a clear pronouncement on the issue for Eros. Also, her analysis of the Chaldean mentions of Hades shows him to be not so much a god but rather a cosmic space with all its dangerous powers (2006, 44 – 47). 34 See also Johnston (1992), 316, or (1997), 170, where she speaks accordingly of the “aggressive Hellenism” of the Oracles. 35 Lewy (1978), 36 f. Des Places (1971), 10 also views it as a collection of oracles. 36 See the edition in des Places (1971), 162 – 186 and now the more recent edition of O’Meara (1989). 37 See the edition of Tambrun-Krasker (1995), collection 1 – 4 (numbered oracles) and the commentary of Pletho 4 – 19. Pletho’s text is a revised, restructured and abridged version of Psellus’ collection (Tambrun-Krasker (1995), xi and 37 f, 44 f, 47).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

26

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

divine speakers.38 The idea of a possible ‘work in progress’, experiencing subsequent additions, subtractions and variations in the course of time, must be taken into consideration even if such processes can only be fully observed during the late Byzantine phase of the transmission.39 Beside the question of structure, both Lewy and Athanassiadi have rightly stressed that the selection of the fragments heavily depends on the highly differing philosophical interests of their Neoplatonic readers.40 The structure given by the canonical edition of des Places, whose text has been adopted also by the edition and commentary of Majercik, may be misleading, in that it cements the arbitrary order in which Kroll arranged the fragments and thus establishes a relationship between the fragments which may not have been there originally.41 The only possibility is to analyse each fragment on its own, considering its context. With regard to the ritual aspect, it is also hard to decide whether some fragments describe a purely spiritual ascent or whether they are embedded, too, in ritual practice.42 In the following pages we will consider the fragments that seem to denote ritual practice and try to reconstruct from them what “theurgy” meant.

2.2 Sacrifice? We shall start with the fragments that clearly attest some form of ritual practice. A clear injunction refers to the sacrifice of the stone lmo}fiqir/lm_fouqir43 when one perceives that an earthly daimon is approaching. The stone 38 E.g. Theol. plat. V 32, 119 or 35, 130 Saffrey/Westerink. 39 See P. Hadot (1978), 706: “Et finalement, ne faut-il pas penser avec J. Geffcken que les Oracles Chaldaiques, comme les crits hermtiques, les Oracles Sybillins et les textes magiques, ont t un livre de rvlation toujours en devenir, auquel de nouveaux textes sont venus sans cesse s’ajouter?” That would come close to the description of ancient lapidaries by Halleux/Schamp as “textes vivants” (1985, xvi). Variations in the exact content of the oracular collection can be observed comparing Psellus’ collection to the fragments extant in Proclus and Damascius on the one hand and Pletho’ s text with that of Psellus on the other hand. Tambrun-Krasker has demonstrated how Pletho shaped the collection based on his own theological outlook and interests (1995, 44 f). A similar process could be assumed for Psellus, who had access to Proclus’ commentary on the Oracles. On the issue see also Seng (2009a), 14 with n. 13 and 14. 40 Lewy (1978), 34; Athanassiadi (1999), 157 – 177. 41 See Athanassiadi (1999), 157 – 158. 42 Lewy (1978), 177 – 257 assumed two types of Chaldean ascent, one mediated by rituals and one purely spiritual. His reconstruction is however based on later sources and basically hypothetical. Johnston (1997) stresses the ritual aspect of the theurgic ascent and analyses the Mithras Liturgy (PGM IV 475 – 830) as a close parallel to the ascent of the Oracles which can be used to fill in the blanks of the latter ; her focus is on the ritual ascent. See also Majercik (1989), 44 f, who points out the parallels to Gnostic ascent ideas. 43 Frg. 149 des Places: Jm_ja da_loma d’ 1qw|lemom pq|sceiom !hq^seir, hOe k_hom lm_fouqim 1paud_m […].

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Sacrifice?

27

has remained a mystery to this day ; the last attempt to unravel it was Tardieu (2010), who pleaded for an identification with an “agate indienne”, pointing to the historical (Babylonian) Chaldeans’ cultic use of such stones reported by Plinius in his Natural History and proposing to understand the name as derived from the ancient Greek name of Kerala in South India (Lo}fiqir/ Lo}fgqir).44 Lewy explains the ritual in the light of Psellus’ report that the Chaldean theurgists used consecrated stones and plants for the purification of the lower part of the soul,45 but proposes also the interpretation as part of an attraction of the terrestrial daimon, or as an apotropaic offering destined to placate or drive away the daimon, both possibilities being analogous to ancient magical practices.46 An interesting idea, though without further elaboration, is given by Tonelli: lm_fouqir may be just an esoteric name for a specific stone.47 From the hypotheses advanced, the idea that the stone represents an apotropaic offering is the most plausible, in the light of the highly negative depiction of daimones connected with the lower realms of the cosmos, with v}sir and matter, vkg, given elsewhere in the fragments.48 The addressee of the oracles is warned not to look at the daimones before undergoing initiation in his body, as they attempt to charm the souls and thus goad them away from initiation (teketa_).49 It is reasonable to assume that the practitioner must protect himself by sacrificing a stone and by an invocation. The object of the invocation and recipient of the sacrifice remains open; it could be either the terrestrial daimon, or some other sort of being. Interesting is the use of h}eim for the sacrifice of a stone. Although stones play an important role in the Greek magical papyri as amulets or instruments charged with magic power, the idea of h}eim a stone is very rare.50 The verb means ‘burning for the gods’, including

44 45 46 47 48

49

50

Cf. Lewy (1978), 289: “the single sacrificial Oracle preserved out of the many that have doubtless existed”. Tardieu (2010), 101 – 104. Lewy (1978), 289 f. Lewy (1978), 289 f with n. 116 and 117. Tonelli (1990), 312: “lm_fouqir  nome esoterico di qualche pietra.” See frg. 88, 90 or 135 des Places. Tardieu (2010) connects the ritual with the divine visions described in frg. 146 – 148: frg. 149 would present a preliminary purificatory rite of fumigation (97 – 104) whereas the visions in frg. 146 – 148 which describe the changes in the whole universe on establishing contact with the divine and receiving its epiphany would be actually merely observable in the changes and movement visible in a specific stone, either an Indian agate or a carbuncle (107). This would strain the text excessively, which clearly speaks of notable effects at a cosmic level, not a miniature contemplation. Frg. 135 des Places: Oq c±q wqμ je_mour se bk]peim pq·m s_la tekesh0r7 emter c±q wh|mioi wakepo· j}mer eQs·m !maide?r ja· xuw±r h]kcomter !e· teket_m !p\cousim. Stones as amulets or magic instruments: PGM I 66 – 69 and 143 – 148; IV 1616 – 1715 (here the verb used for the consecration of the stone is (1pi)teke?shai, IV 1721 – 1745 (also teke?m), IV 2161, IV 2631 – 2640 (phylactery), IV 2880, IV 3140, V 240 (teke?m), V 449; XII 203 – 210 and 271 – 277 (teke?m); XIII 1003; LXII 40 – 44 (stone attached to a bowl used for a magic ritual), ingredient of magic ink II 18, IV 2392, of magic pills III 189; cf. V 395 – 397: 1pih}eim of incense, earth and

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

28

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

sacrificial offerings of any kind as well as the “rituelle[n] Erzeugung von Wohlgerüchen durch Verbrennen von duftenden Hölzern, Blättern, Rinden, Harzen oder geschroteten Körnern” or “mit Wohlgeruch verbundenes Räuchern”.51 In order to avoid the strange ‘sacrifice’ of a stone, we might turn to the meaning ‘fumigation’, as Tardieu (2010) has proposed. He focuses on the purificatory role of fumigations, referring especially to sulphur, and points to a passage in Pliny (NH XXXVII 142), where the suffitus – the fumigation – of the Indian agates is said to avert tempests and lightning. As it is not quite clear how an agate should burn, Tardieu’s subterfuge is to assume that the stone proper was coated with resin or incense.52 The idea of purification would suit the text, given the negative role of the terrestrial daimones in the Chaldean Oracles. But fumigation relies on the very fact that the material in case is burnt releasing vapours and smells, so that the proposed solution is not satisfactory ; the idea of an offering fits easier into the frame. One isolated comparandum for this strange sacrifice can be found in the hexametric Orphic lapidary, the Lithica, which was probably composed around the same time as the Oracles and recommends the sacrifice of an unidentified stone called mebq_tgr or meuq_tgr.53 The closeness of the Oracles and the Lithica has already been noted by the latter’s editors Halleux/Schamp, who conclude that both derive their inspiration from common sources.54 This unusual sacrifice is the only one attested in the extant fragments of the Oracles.

51 52 53

54

ammoniac salt, the same verb VII 491 of sulphur (he?om); XXXVI, 295: sulphur pills burnt (but not as sacrifice, more in the sense of sympathetic magic). Hermary/Leguilloux (2004) (ThesCRA I 2.a. Sacrifices, gr.) 61, Simon/Sarian (2004) (ThesCRA I 2.c. Fumigations), 255. See also the entry h}y and hus_a in the LSJ 812 f. Tardieu (2010), 97 and 104. Orph. Lith. 748 – 754. The stone is associated with Dionysus and its sacrifice is said to render “the descendants of Ouranos” propitious: =mhem 1c½m 1d\gm ja· Bajwij± mebq_tao d_qa k_hou, Bqol_\ jewaqisl]ma7 t|m peq 5womter, %mhqypoi, h}oite7ja· !q\ym !@ousim Oqqam_dai. Culm` d³ N\wim pod· peujedamo?o eU j]m tir hk_xar eveyr di± s\qjar !j\mh, d,yh0 svet]qar, adum^vator 5ssetai aqt`. meuq_tgr. =qdei d’ !k|w\ p|sim Rleq|emta. The roles of stones in the Lithika are more complex than in the spells of the PGM: beside the common use as amulets and medicinal ingredients, they are also assigned a special function in sacrifice or prayer, drawing the goodwill of the gods towards the officiant when held by him (e. g. Lith. 175 f, 191 f, 195 f, 230 f, 232 f, 244 – 246 passim). Halleux/Schamp (1985), 56.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Initiation and Ascent

29

2.3 Initiation and Ascent Another type of ritual alluded to has already been touched upon above, namely the mention of teketa_, denoting here private rites necessary for the salvation of the soul. Another fragment addresses a l}stgr enjoining him to keep his silence.55 Apart from the more general sense of ‘special religious ceremony’, teket^ can be taken to denote some form of mysteric initiation.56 The hylic daimones tend to distract the initiands from these rites. Against the background of the anthropology of the Oracles, which holds that the souls have been sent down from high to serve the material universe freely57 and must ascend again to their empyrean home,58 but are threatened to be ensnared by nature (v}sir)59 and her daimones and to forget their true essence and homeland, the main goal of the rituals which the daimones oppose can be assumed to have been soteriological. This assumption is strengthened by another fragment, which enjoins upon the reader to “search for the channel of the soul, whence in a certain order it came down as a hireling of the body, and how you can lift it upwards again to [its] order by uniting the ritual deed (5qcom) to the holy word (k|cor).”60 =qca, unspecified ritual actions, are mentioned in different fragments. They bring about not only the salvation of the soul, as seen above, but also a certain salvation or preservation of the body.61 They are closely connected with the fire62 which in the Chaldean Oracles represents the divine substance that flows from the supreme entity, the paternal abyss,63 and permeates the whole cosmos reaching down into the material world through a variety of channels.64 A line preserved by Proclus in the context of a discussion of theurgic prayer states that “the mortal who has drawn near to the fire will receive light from God”; in the same passage he alludes to a k|ciom stating that the “thought warmed by fire” occupies the first

55 Frg. 132 des Places: […] sic’5we, l}sta. 56 For the wider spectrum of meaning of teket^ see e.g. Burkert (1987), 9 f or Schuddeboom (2009), 119 – 124. 57 Frg. 99 or 110 des Places. 58 Frg. 113 – 116 des Places. 59 For the evil and dangerous character of v}sir see frg. 88, 101 – 102. 60 Frg. 110 des Places: D_feo xuw/r awet|m, fhem 5m timi t\nei s~lati hgte}sas’ 1p· t\nim awhir !mast^seir, Req` k|c\ 5qcom 2m~sar. 61 Frg. 128 des Places: […] 1jte_mar p}qiom moOm 5qcom 1p’ eqseb_gr Neust¹m ja· s_la sa~seir. (“By stretching a fiery mind to the work of piety, you will preserve even the fleeting body.”) For the preservation of the body see also frg. 129: S~fete ja· t¹ pijq÷r vkgr peq_bkgla bq|teiom. Cf. Seng (2006), 849 – 852. 62 See frg 128 quoted above, frg. 66, frg. 133 des Places. 63 For the first principles of the Chaldean theology see frg. 3 – 5; 10; 18 des Places. 64 See frg. 2, 61, 65, 66, 75, 110 des Places.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

30

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

place in the ritual worship (hqgsje_a).65 The soul is to be “set ablaze with fire” and “rendered light by a warm pneuma”.66 In one fragment, these “works of fire” are assigned to the careful guidance of a priest, which is the only mention of cult specialists in the extant Oracles. The mention of sprinkling with sea water (or perhaps salt) in these verses leads to assume some sort of purification ritual.67 Proclus, who is our source for the fragment, connects it with a teket^ of Apollo;68 maybe we can conjecture a ceremony involving the sun, which is central to the Chaldean cosmology and soteriology. For the ascent of the soul, certain tokens, sumh^lata or s}lboka, are crucial. These tokens are said to have been sown throughout the cosmos by the paternal Intellect, the demiurgical entity of the Chaldean pantheon.69 Only if the souls can emerge from oblivion and remember them can they embark upon the ascent.70 The two terms are used synonymously.71 Just what the 65 Frg. 121 and 139 des Places, Proclus, In Tim. II 211 Diehl. In the same passage Proclus uses yet a third oracle about the gods’ ready punishment for the mortals that delay (In Tim. II 212 Diehl); he uses it as an admonishment to pray and promptly perform the ritual worship (hqgsje_a). Nevertheless it is not clear whether this ritual context was part of the original setting of the oracles or is only due to Proclus. 66 Frg. 122 and 123 des Places. 67 Frg. 133 des Places: Aqt¹r d’ 1m pq~toir Reqe»r puq¹r 5qca jubeqm_m j}lati Naim]shy paceq` baqugw]or ûklgr. (“Himself among the first shall the priest, when he guides the works of fire, sprinkle with the icecold wave of the deep-sounding sea.”) Purification by sea water is an old element of Greek religion; it is attested for the Eleusinian mysteries and is also viewed in late antiquity as part of the Pythagorean tradition (cf. Iambl. VPyth 86 (153)). Paceq|m can also be understood as “coagulated”, which might be an indication that not water, but sea-salt was used in the ritual, as Johnston (1990), 81, n. 14 considers. Both sea water and salt were traditionally used in purifications (see Paoletti 2004 (ThesCRA II 3.a. Purification, gr. III D 2 and IVA–B) 12 f and 19 f). 68 Proclus, In Crat. CLXXVI, 100 f Pasquali. 69 Frg. 108 des Places. The fragment appears in the context of Proclus’ commentary on the Cratylus and is taken to denote the name-giving activity of the demiurgical intellect (In Crat. LII, 20 Pasquali): nti B toO dgliouqcijoO moO !voloiytijμ 1m]qceia ditt^ 1stim, B l³m jah’ Dm t¹m fkom rv_stgsi j|slom pq¹r t¹ mogt¹m paq\deicla bk]pym, B d³ jah’ Dm 1pivgl_fei pq]pomta am|lata 2j\stoir, peq· ¨m 1p· bqaw» l³m ja· b T_laior 1mede_nato, tqam]steqom d³ oR heouqco· did\sjousim, ja· aR paq± t_m he_m aqt_m v/lai !kk’ emola selm¹m ja· !joil^t\ stqov\kicci j|sloir 1mhq`sjom jqaipmμm di± patq¹r 1mip^m7[=frg. 87 des Places] ja· %kko k|ciom toOto s}lboka c±q patqij¹r m|or 5speiqem jat± j|slom, oXr t± mogt± moe? ja· !vq\st\ j\kkei 2moOtai [= frg. 108 des Places]. In Proclus’ interpretation the symbols are the names of things, given by the divine creator in accordance to the true nature of the things named. Nevertheless, this is only due to the focus of the work; as we shall see below, he operates elsewhere with a very large concept of symbol which can include everything from myth to the amulets hung upon a statue to animate it. The original context of the Oracles could have included also more than names in this category. 70 Frg. 109 des Places: )kk’ oqj eQsd]wetai je_mgr t¹ h]keim patqij¹r moOr, l]wqir #m 1n]kh, k^hgr ja· N/la kak^s, lm^lgm 1mhel]mg patqijoO sumh^lator "cmoO. Cf. also frg. 2 des Places, where the s}mhgla of the triad is needed for the ascent.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Initiation and Ascent

31

sumh^lata are, is not specified in the extant fragments. The mention of initiation, teketa_, prompts a comparison with traditional mystery cults: there sumh^lata are formulae functioning as passwords for the initiates.72 Such mysteric passwords called s}lboka are attested already on an Orphic-Bacchic lamella from Pherae dating from the fourth century BC.73 They are part of the koine regarding ascent ideas in Imperial times and can be found in magical as well as Gnostic texts as means of legitimately passing the heavenly gates. There they often assume the form of unintelligible chains of letters or of foreign words.74 Such passwords are probably alluded to in the Oracle fragment which forbids the change of barbarian names.75 That the s}mhgla has something to do with utterances seems to be stated in frg. 109: “But the paternal intellect does not accept its (i. e. the soul’s) desire until it come out of oblivion and speak a word, having placed in its mind the memory of the holy paternal token”. The soul must know the s}mhgla and hold it present in its mind when it approaches the fiery channels.76 Can the sumh^lata be anything else than words or sounds? In his De magia, Apuleius states that initiates in mystery cults are given certain secret objects as a token of their initiation;77 one might 71 Cohen’s attempt to distinguish the two terms by assigning the s}mhgla to the transcendent token and the s}lbokom to the actual manifestation in the material world (2008) does not apply to the Chaldean Oracles: he assumes that the s}mhgla of the Triad and the Father in frg. 2 and 109 must be “transcendent”, so that he can distinguish it from the s}lboka in frg. 108, which are sown throughout the cosmos and thus are immanent. But we do not know anything about the symbol of the triad, and consequently cannot say if the distinction applies. Even later Neoplatonic writers use the two terms loosely, without clearly distinguishing them, as he avers (2008, 550). Given that both terms are used interchangeably in the mystery terminology of the times (see below), I do not see any sufficient basis to make a sharp distinction between them. 72 See Clem. Alex. Protr. II 21, 2 (Eleusinian mysteries). Clement uses also the term s}lbokom to denote such a password in Protr. II 15, 3. This, too, shows that the two terms are interchangeable. 73 Tablet L13, 266 Bernab/Jimnez San Cristobal = no. 27 in the recent edition of Graf/Johnston (2007): s}lboka7 )mqijepaid|huqsom. )mdqijepaid|huqsom. Bqil~. Bqil~. eUsihi Req¹m keil_ma. %poimor c±q b l}stgr. The last line containing a word written upside down can be reconstructed differently : Graf/Johnston read it as CAPEDOM, “apparently a nonsense word, written upside down” (38 f), while Bernab/Jimnez San Cristobal consider rp]dum a probable possibility. 74 Majercik (1989), 39 and 44 f takes the sumh^lata to have both material manifestations as stones, herbs etc. and immaterial manifestation as voces mysticae and compares them with Gnostic ‘seals’. See also Pearson (1992), 261 – 262, who compares Gnostic mentions of ritual ascent in the Steles of Seth with theurgic ascensions, although he basically relies on Iamblichus and mentions the Oracles only in passing, taking for granted the reconstruction of the theurgic elevation ritual given by Lewy. Turner (2001), 608 – 613 points to the role of specific prayers with nomina barbara and sequences of letters in the Sethian ascent. 75 Frg. 150: am|lata b\qbaqa l^pot’ !kk\n,r. For a discussion of the fragment in its historical context see Zago (2010). A new discussion of the Chaldean ‘barbarian names’ is offered by Seng (2013) (forthcoming). 76 Frg. 2 des Places. 77 De magia 55 – 56 (signa et monumenta / quaedam sacrorum crepundia / sacrorum signa et memoracula). See also Clement of Alexandria, who uses s}lbokom to denote not only a mysteric password but also material tokens or ritual actions. Protr. II 16, 2: a snake passed under the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

32

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

speculate if the sumh^lata also can be objects with a cultic function. But in the Oracles, the sumh^lata and s}lboka transcend the mere ritual use, or to put it more exactly, they can be used ritually because they are built by the demiurge into the cosmos. Therefore one might think that not only strange words, but also different parts of the material cosmos could be considered sumh^lata or s}lboka. It is tempting to view them in the light of the PGM, where the magician presents himself as knowing the symbols – sgle?a, paq\sgla or s}lboka – of each god, that is, a varied chain of animate and inanimate objects emanating from the god or connected with him.78 The exact role of ritual in the ascent of the soul is not specified. Lewy asserted a distinction between the Chaldean elevation ritual on the one hand and magical rituals on the other, and he attempted to reconstruct the elevation ritual from a variety of mostly later sources.79 Given the heavily poetic language, it is sometimes impossible to decide whether certain fragments concern a concrete ritual, a spiritual ascent analogous to philosophical meditation or an eschatological ascent of the soul. A good example for this ambivalence is frg. 2 des Places: Clad in the full armour of sounding80 light, having armed the intellect and the soul with a three-edged strength, you should cast into your mind the whole token of the triad and not visit the fiery channels in a scattered manner, but fully collected.81

Identifying the fiery channels with the sunrays, in the light of the magical papyri, Lewy interprets the act of donning the armour of light as a preliminary purification ritual enabling the practitioner to make a “magical assault” on the

78

79 80

81

initiand’s garments in the mysteries of Sabazios connected with the formula b di± j|kpou he|r; II 18, 1 (!stq\cakor, sva?qa, stq|bikor, l/ka, N|lbor, 5soptqom, p|jor as symbols of the Dionysiac initiation); the mysteric password “god through the bosom” appears as s}lbokom on the Gurb papyrus, OF 31 Kern, which also features a s}mhela and the enumeration of Dionysiac initiation tokens that partially concords with Clement. For the rite partially preserved on the papyrus see Graf in Graf/Johnston 2007, 150 – 155, who also points out that the distinction between symbola and synthemata is “somewhat tenuous” (154). See also Protr. II 22, 5 (aq_camom, k}wmor, n_vor, jte·r cumaije?or as symbols of Themis). E.g. PGM III 495 – 611 (s}stasir to Helios). Even closer to the Chaldean Oracles comes PGM IV 2242 – 2356, directed at Selene-Hecate, where the magician states his power over the goddess as a mystagogue of her cult (2255) through his knowledge of her s}lboka (2289 – 2340); the s}lboka of Hecate seem here to be contrasted with the more powerful ones of the magician himself as Hermes (2304 – 2311; 2321 – 2323)). Lewy (1978), 177 – 226. Moutsopoulos (1990) draws attention ot the role of sound and music for the cosmology and the soteriology of the Oracles. His discussion is however too essayistic and general, subsuming any form of sound or invocation under the rubric ‘music’ to be of actual use for our present enquiry. :ss\lemom p\mteuwom !jlμm vyt¹r jekad|mtor, !kj0 tqick~wimi m|om xuw^m h’ bpk_samta, p÷m tqi\dor s}mhgla bake?m vqem· lgd’ 1pivoit÷m 1lpuq_oir spoq\dgm aweto?r, !kk± stibaqgd|m.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Initiation and Ascent

33

sunrays.82 Combining this fragment with other fragments which describe the ascent of the soul by means of and towards the light and its final union with the divine, he pieces them together as a description of one single ritual of ascent.83 Nevertheless, all fragments could also be interpreted as stages of an inner process without any exterior physical action and could well be read as a poetical description of the Platonic encounter of the soul with the divine (which is also described using metaphors of light and fire).84 How far exactly the theurgical initiation leads in the Chaldean Oracles must remain an open question; the highest principle, the intelligible described in frg. 1, which can be considered the summit of the ladder, is accessible only through philosophical meditation, not through ritual: contact with it can be achieved only by a preliminary j]mysir of one’s intellect and the awakening of its highest part, its “flower”; no actual actions or special setting are recommended for it, although it is also not impossible that specific actions might be considered as beneficial for reaching this state of consciousness.85 82 Lewy (1978), 193 – 196. 83 Lewy (1978), 196 – 200. 84 Platon, Resp. VI or ep. VII. That the rush towards the light need not be interpreted as a ritual action is shown by the use Proclus makes of frg. 111, which is one of the texts Lewy built his reconstruction of the ritual upon: eutqowom d³ t¹ moeq¹m ja· 1m t0 letab\sei t¹ !melp|distom 5wom ja· t¹ jujkij¹m 1m t` letaba_meim ja· t¹ !jla?om 1m ta?r mo^sesi, t¹ t]keiom, t¹ peq· t¹ he?om 1meqcoOm, t¹ !cahoeid]r, t¹ peq· t¹ mogt¹m ¢r j]mtqom veq|lemom7 j]mtq\ 1pisp]qwym saut¹m vyt¹r jek\domtor vgs_ tir he_m. Here the fragment is applied to the moeq|m, the intermediate class of divine beings between the perceptible and intelligible realms, not to the ascent of the soul towards the sun which Lewy conjectured ((1978), 195). The ambiguity and spiritualisation of the ascent has parallels in certain Sethian Gnostic treatises which “transcendentalize” the original material ritual (see Turner (2001), 603). 85 Lewy (1978), 165 – 175 also describes the ascent towards the noetic in this fragment as a spiritual, Platonic ascent, only to state at the end that this ascent could only be effected through ritual means (175). His dichotomy between gnoseological accounts and intellectual concepts on the one hand, and spiritual experience on the other hand, is misleading: the spiritual or mystical experiences he talks about can be connected to ritual acts or stand on their own. His dichotomy does not leave any space for spiritual experiences apart from a cultic context. Discussing Lewy’s position, Hadot (1978), 718 underlines that the fragments also display “une autre methode de connaissance du divin, qui est trs analogue  l’ experience unitive plotinienne”; he proposes to consider that the ritual means of ascent were directed at the lower gods, while the spiritual method were aimed at union with the highest principle (718 – 719). Majercik (1989), 34 – 44 discusses the different positions and reconstructs the theurgical ascent drawing heavily on Lewy and with him on late sources like Proclus and Psellus to fill the gaps of the Oracles, only to say in the end that the Oracles seem to have prefigured Proclus’ position (44). She envisages a distinction between higher and lower theurgy as developped by Hadot or Smith, arguing that, as for Proclus, the noetic experience of frg. 1 also involved a higher, immaterial but still ritual, type of theurgy, in which the “flower of the intellect” functioned as a s}mhgla (43 – 44). Her discussion is based on a petitio principii; ultimately, she does not account for the absence of precisely the elements she envisages as characteristics of such higher theurgy besides the %mhor moO – “‘perfect’ prayer, synthemata, noetic hymning, sacred silences, theurgic ‘faith’”. The %mhor moO of frg. 1 itself functions precisely not as a “theurgic device” (which is not even exactly the case in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

34

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

2.4 Epiphanies and Visions Beside the theme of ascent, the Oracles also afford glimpses into practices destined to bring about divine visions, most likely of the Oracles’ protagonist Hecate, but probably also of other goddesses such as Athena. The instructions about what will happen during the performance of rites and the proper behaviour of the performer (frg. 146 – 149) remind us of the magical papyri, e. g. of the so-called Mithras Liturgy, where rituals are also closely described to provide a viable handbook and guidelines by which to assess the concrete situation.86 The gods are in themselves without form; their apparitions (v\slata) are endowed with a body for the sake of the humans who perform the ritual.87 The divine fire can appear in different forms, as a horse, a child in different postures, or a lion;88 traditional visions of a fully armed goddess – most likely Athena – are also recorded (frg. 72).89 The most extensive treatment of visions occurs in the fragments 146 – 148. Frg. 146 outlines the different possible visual effects of an invocation: visions of fire in the likeness of a child leaping towards the air, formless fire whence a voice comes forth, abundant light that winds itself around the earth with a whirring sound, a horse, a child riding on a horse, fiery, covered all over with gold or naked or drawing a bow while mounted on a horse.90 Frg. 147 records that after the

86

87 88 89 90

Proclus’ oeuvre, as we shall see below), but just as the highest faculty of intuitive, passive “contemplative perception”. So Hadot’s distinction between ritual and spiritual ascent methods seems to do most justice to the evidence. It is also found in Johnston (1990), 82 – 85, who rightly stresses that intellectual and ritual practices were no opposites (as a modern perspective might lead to think), but “mutually supportive, parts of a complex system embracing all aspects of human existence”. See also Brisson (2003), 129: “It seems the soteriology of the Chaldaean Oracles oscillated between the pure practice of philosophy and the concrete praxis of theurgy”. As another example which also provides different alternative practices to achieve the same goal, all described in detail, see PGM II (detailed rituals and alternatives to conjure Apollo). Regarding the Mithras Liturgy, Betz has rightly underlined that “the ritual of the Mithras Liturgy is supposed to be performed realistically, as its persistent emphasis on magical procedures shows. Therefore, differently from the Corpus Hermeticum, the performance of the ritual magic in the Mithras Liturgy goes hand in hand with the imaginary journey to heaven” (2003, 37). This goes against the tendence found e. g. in Tommasi Moreschini (2006), 838 to disconnect the text from ritual practice. Frg. 142 des Places. Proclus also sets the fragment in the context of theurgic visions (In rem publ. II 242 Kroll). Frg. 146 – 147 des Places. Frg. 72 des Places. The context in Proclus, Theol. plat. V 35, 130 Saffrey/Westerink identifies the goddess with Athena. Frg. 146 des Places: […] taOt’ 1pivym^sar C paid· jat|x, pOq Vjekom sjiqtgd¹m 1p’ A]qor oWdla tita?mom7 C ja· pOq !t}pytom, fhem vymμm pqoh]ousam7 C v_r pko}siom !lv· c}gm Noifa?om 2kiwh]m7 !kk± ja· Vppom Qde?m vyt¹r pk]om !stq\ptomta C ja· pa?da hoo?r m~toir 1powo}lemom Vppou,

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Epiphanies and Visions

35

frequent repetition of an invocation everything should appear in the form of a lion, while the normal form of the universe disappears and “everything is seen through thunderbolts”.91 Finally, frg. 148 enjoins that having seem the formless fire skirting over the depths of the cosmos, the performer hearken to the voice of fire.92 Lewy has analysed these visions in great detail, providing a great number of parallels in Greek magic. He treated the fragments as parts of a single oracle which he attributed to Hecate.93 His approach left its mark upon the treatment of the fragments in the editions and commentaries of des Places and Majercik; it was further modified by Johnston, who proposed to read the fragments in a different order, with 147 as the first part, 146 as the second and 148 as the third.94 Another possibility was advanced by Luck, who saw the three fragments as three separate utterances that were later assembled to form one coherent text.95 The speaker of the oracles is mostly assumed to be Hecate;96 this, however, cannot be determined by the context, as neither Proclus nor Psellus, the two sources of the fragments, give any indication of the speaker.97 Hecate appears as the most likely guess if we draw on later sources like Marinus, who describes Proclus’ conjuration of luminous apparitions of Hecate.98 Although frg. 147 and 148 are given as separate fragments by Psellus, a connection between the three fragments is plausible. The connection between frg. 146 and 148 is shown by the mention of formless speaking fire in both;99 they either concern similar rituals or different phases of the same ceremony. Moreover, Proclus makes it clear that he gives only part of an oracle leaving the

91

92

93 94 95 96

97

98

99

5lpuqom C wqus` pepujasl]mom C p\ki culm|m, C ja· tone}omta ja· 2stg_t’ 1p· m~toir. Frg. 147 des Places: Pokk\jir Cm k]n,r loi, !hq^seir p\mta k]omta. Oute c±q oqq\mior juqt¹r t|te va_metai ecjor, !st]qer oq k\lpousi, t¹ l^mgr v_r jej\kuptai, wh½m oqw 6stgjem7 bk]petai d] p\mta jeqaumo?r. Frg. 148 des Places: Jm_ja bk]x,r loqv/r %teq eq_eqom pOq kalp|lemom sjiqtgd¹m fkou jat± b]mhea j|slou, jkOhi puq¹r vym^m. Lewy (1978), 240 – 246. Johnston (1990), 112 and (1992), 304 – 306. Luck (1989), 196 – 197. That is the assumption of Lewy (1978), 242 – 243 with n. 59, whose analysis is taken up by des Places (1971), 102 and Majercik (1989), 195 – 197. Arguments in favour of this position were adduced by Johnston (1990), 112. Proclus discusses frg. 146 in a very general way to refer to the apparitions of gods (In rem publ. I 111 – 112 Kroll); Psellus gives 147 and 148 separately (Phil. minora 38, 134 and 135 O’Meara) and comments briefly on some aspects, but not on the speaker or the appearing divinity. Marinus, VP 28. Other plausible reasons are adduced by Johnston (1990), 112. n. 3: Iamblichus describes the epiphany of the World Soul, who is connected with Hecate in the Chaldean system, as a formless fire and Michael Italicus applies a term from Psellus’ exegesis of frg. 147 to Hecate. Johnston (1990), 120.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

36

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

rest unquoted;100 it is tempting to think that 147 or 148, which are preserved by Psellus, who relied heavily on Proclus, represent the missing continuation. The mention of the formless fire in 146 and 148 furthermore suggests that, as Johnston has proposed, the two fragments should be read together, without the intercalation of frg. 147, which could be placed at the beginning. If these fragments discussed different phases of the same ritual, then we would have a progression from form-bound (frg. 147 – 146) to formless fire (148). The forms which the divine beings assume during the apparition have generally been viewed as different aspects of Hecate and her suite; however, Johnston has plausibly argued that there is a distinction between the forms of the fire, probably a manifestation of Hecate and another distinct saviour divinity appearing as a child mounted upon a horse.101 Apparitions of Hecate are common in magical contexts. For example, Hippolytus describes in his Elenchus a magical technique used to fake the vision of the fiery goddess riding through the air. The ritual takes place at night. After some preliminary instructions for the audience, the magician then invokes Hecate in solemn hexameters; interestingly, she appears as a cosmic goddess, invoked as underworldly, earthly and heavenly at once, just as in Hesiod’s Theogony or the Orphic hymn.102 Nevertheless, she is still the terrifying nocturnal Hecate, bringing fear to the mortals and rejoicing in blood. After this utterance, a concealed friend sets a bird on fire and lets it fly, so that the terrified audience think it is the goddess.103 Despite Hippolytus’ critical perspective, one can grasp here a ritual that is structurally very close to the Chaldean invocation of Hecate, but with salient theological differences. The setting and phases of the ritual are parallel: it takes place at night, and after a hymnic invocation di’ 1p_m, the goddess’ apparition as a fiery shape riding through the air is somehow contrived. The main difference lies in the character of Hecate: frightful and bloodthirsty in the ritual related by Hippolytus, celestial and beneficent in the Chaldean Oracles. A comparison of the two shows the role ideas play in the shaping of rituals: although the sequence of ritual actions is basically the same (utterance followed by vision), the underlying conception of Hecate and thus the expectations of the audience are diametrally opposed. Closer to the Chaldean Hecate is a conjured apparition of Hecate as the World Soul recorded by Porphyry in his

100 Proclus, In rem publ. I 111 Kroll. 101 Johnston (1992), 306 – 321. She shows that the depictions of various soteriological divinities as mounted upon a horse increased in frequency exactly during the second and third century AD and discusses the enigmatic theurgic cavalier in this context. 102 Theogony 411 – 452; Orphic Hymn to Hecate 2. 103 Hippolytus, Refutatio IV 35, 4 – 36, 2. Apparitions and conjurations of Hecate by magicians are also ridiculed in Lucian’s Philopseudeis 14 (conjuration); 22; 24 (apparition that can be made to vanish by turning a magical ring).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Epiphanies and Visions

37

Philosophy from Oracles; however, we learn nothing about the actual conjuration practice.104 Interestingly, other than in the magical papyri, where the sequence of ritual act and effect is rigidly determined,105 in frg. 146 one action – the utterance of certain words – can have different effects, leading to different visions. The exact number of repetitions necessary for a specific vision is also not given; frg. 147 states that if the performer repeats a certain formula frequently, he will see “everything as a lion”. This indeterminacy seems to be a characteristic of the Chaldean Oracles which sets them apart from other similar texts like the PGM with their stringent cause-effect connections. The culminant point of the ritual visions seems to be the vision of the divine fire in its primeval, i. e. formless, state: only at that point the performer is not to speak, but to listen to the voice of the fire. Interestingly, the ritual progress is effected here exclusively by spoken formulae which trigger a process of seeing; non-verbal actions are not mentioned in connection with this conjuration. Only during the vision of the divine fire are the roles reversed, and the divine fire speaks while the practitioner listens. Not only speech, but also sight plays an active, not just a passive role, because not only gods appear to the theurgist, but also daimones or their mistress, nature. As we have noted above, the initiand is warned not to gaze upon the daimones before undergoing initiation, in order not to be lured away from it (frg. 135); in another fragment the daimones are said never to show a true sign to mortals.106 The theurgist is also forbidden to look at the v}sir because of her connection with fate.107 The ritually active function of speech and gaze are connected in frg. 101, where the ritual performer is forbidden to invoke the “directly visible cult image of Nature”.108 Interestingly, the only bodily action mentioned in the fragments which have been recognised as genuine by the des Places edition is the sacrifice of the mnizouris/mnouziris

104 Frg. 308F, 16 – 22 Smith: Oqd³m 1m !ham\toisi heo?r pote d?a l\taiom oqd’ !jq\amtom 5kene sovo?r :j\tg heov^tair !kk’ !p¹ pacjqateqo?o m|ou patq|hem jatioOsa aQ³m !kghe_, sekac_fetai, !lv· d³ l/tir 5lpedor !qq^jtoisi l]mei koc_oir bebau?a. desl` d’ owm jk^ife7 heμm c±q %ceir le tos^mde, fssg xuw_sai pamup]qtatom Eqjesa j|slom. 105 E.g. in the Mithras Liturgy, PGM IV 475 – 829. 106 Frg. 90 des Places: […] 1j d’ %qa j|kpym ca_gr hq]sjousim wh|mioi j}mer oupot’ !kgh³r s/la bqot` deijm}mter. 107 Frg. 102 des Places: Lμ v}sim 1lbk]x,r7 eRlaql]mom oumola t/sde. Proclus uses the fragment without reference to cultic context only to illustrate a cosmological point made based on the Timaeus, namely the connection between fate and nature (Theol. plat. V 32, 119 Saffrey/ Westerink). 108 Frg. 101 des Places: […] lμ v}seyr jak]s,r autoptom %cakla.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

38

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

stone discussed above, and that only occurs to protect the performer from the sight of a harmful terrestrial daimon.

2.5 Results: Rituals in the Oracles If we now sum up our reading of the Oracles, what appears quite striking is the comparatively secondary position of rituals in a work that initiated the tradition of theurgy. Although all conclusions rest on a precarious textual base and must therefore remain conjectural, we can say that most extant fragments deal with metaphysics, cosmology, anthropology and soteriology and are similar in outlook to Platonic texts; their closeness to the system of Numenius of Apamea has often been noted.109 The ultimate soteriological goal, the ascent of the soul, is Platonic: she is to remember her divine home, to disentangle herself from the snares of matter, represented by Nature and her daimones, and to return to heaven. This return is effected by means of sumh^lata, tokens or watchwords sown throughout the cosmos by the divine demiurge. The soul must remember them and turn herself towards light – this return of the soul to its higher origin is again a common motif found in Platonic, Hermetic or Gnostic texts.110 In this ascent, rituals, holy words and actions, play a key role: one can discern purificatory rituals, apotropaic ones and those effecting the ascent, qualified technically as “works” or “works of fire” without further specification. The description of the rituals seem to have been modelled upon the mystery cults of the time: the fragments speak of initiation rendering immune against evil chthonic forces, the practitioner is called l}stgr, the purification by sea water is reminiscent of the ûkade l}stai during the Eleusinian mysteries, and sumh^lata or s}lboka, as passwords, symbolic objects or actions are a typical feature of mystery religions in the second century. 109 Dodds (1951), 270 – 271, Des Places (1971), 11, Hadot (1978), 707 – 709 (brief survey of the different positions more reticently pointing out the differences between Numenius and the Oracles), Halleux/Schamp (1985), 56, in latter research notably Athanassiadi (1999), 153 – 155, (2006), 84 – 89, or (2010), 196 – 203 who places the Juliani and Numenius in the same circle of religiously and philosophically interested intellectuals and priests at Apamea – a fascinating and vivid picture, though not quite borne out by the tenuous sources. 110 The motif of the higher homeland of the soul and its status as an alien in a potentially hostile world when embodied can be traced back to Empedocles frg 31 B 115 Diels/Kranz. It finds a canonical expression in Plato’s myth in the Phaedrus, and features in various texts of Imperial times: e. g. Plutarch, De exilio 17 or Plotinus, Enn. IV 8, Porph., De abst. I 28 or 30, or in Gnostic texts (e. g. Zostrianos 1,1 – 29 Sieber). For a survey of this widespread doctrine in Imperial and late antique times see the still monumental collection of Festugire (1953), 27 – 118. Turner (2001), 634 f stresses the similarity of the problem of the conditio humana, to which Platonism and Gnosticism simply respond with different methods and starting from diverging attitudes towards the world.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Great Absents

39

However, the Oracle fragments describing the ascent are mostly indeterminate, allowing for either ritual or purely intellectual interpretations, so that it is impossible to reconstruct an actual ritual sequence from them. This is again a feature, which the Oracles share with Gnostic texts, in which it is often impossible to decide whether the ascent is purely spiritual or effected through ritual actions.111 It must also remain open whether the Chaldean rituals concerning divine visions are separate from the ascent, as Lewy postulates,112 or connected with it, as a comparison with the ascent in the Mithras Liturgy might suggest.113 The warnings against looking at daimones before initiation prove that good or bad visions played a key role in the ascent process as well; nevertheless, the highest goal, the grasp of the noeton, requires no ritual. Interestingly, all the rituals which are securely attested give pride of place to speech: remembering and using passwords, barbarian, incomprehensible terms, uttering different invocations or other formulae, listening to the voice of fire; speaking and seeing alternate.114

2.6 Great Absents What is still missing from our description, are the rituals that figure prominently in later texts about theurgy, namely the use of the stq|vakor, the magical wheel of Hecate, and the s}stasir, the ritual introduction of the practitioner to a certain god or spirit forming the base of a longer ‘working 111 See Turner’s discussion of gnostic rituals for this ambivalence (Turner (2000), esp. his discussion of baptism 87 – 106 and ascent 128 – 137). Van Liefferinge (1999), 155 – 156 proposes the term “rite intellectuel” for such ambivalent fragments like frg. 2, 159 and 1, based upon the use of military and combat metaphors: the elevation towards the One is a combat for the soul; one could consider this combat an 5qcom and thus as an intellectual rite. This, however, stretches the term ‘ritual’ too much to remain a useful analytical tool. An important problem lies in the free use Neoplatonists made of the Oracles, quoting the same phrase in different contexts to prove different points; e. g. frg. 66 is quoted by Proclus in his essays on the Republic to underline the workings of inspired poetry, while he uses it in his Theol. plat. V 1 to describe cosmic demiurgical processes at the level of the intellectual gods. 112 Lewy (1978) discusses them in chapter IV, 240 – 247 as magical rituals of the Chaldeans, distinct from the “principal Chaldaean sacrament” of the elevation (for the distinction see 227). 113 The Mithras Liturgy pictures the ascent through the heavenly spheres and thus describes a variety of visions that are comparable to frg. 146 – 148 (see esp. PGM IV 538 – 725). This ascent comprises a (temporary) immortalisation and cosmic rebirth of the practitioner. However, the purpose of the ascent is divinatory, and the immortalisation is just a means to this end, allowing the practitioner access to the sphere of the divine and direct contact with the oracular deity, and not a goal per se (IV 715 – 734). 114 Thus the rituals set out in the Oracles would be situated closer to the “words only” extremity of the spectrum of ancient ritual structure which Janowitz draws, going from “ ‘words only’ rituals” over different combinations of words and bodily actions to bodily actions without words (Janowitz (2002), 18).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

40

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

relationship’. The stq|vakor is mentioned in a verse quoted by Psellus; earlier, we hear about Proclus’ proficiency in its use from his biographer Marinus.115 Des Places lists it among his Chaldaean terms, without including the whole verse from Psellus’ collection. The main reason against its inclusion is that the term does not appear in the discourse about theurgy prior to Marinus’ reference to Proclus. To judge from a TLG search, it seems to be a neologism which appears for the first time in Marinus, and then later in the fragment mentioned above, quoted by Psellus as Chaldean, as well as in his corresponding exegesis.116 Were it already contained in the Oracle collection, one would expect its mention by other sources like Porphyry or Iamblichus; it is not even employed by the other major fragment source, Damascius. Interestingly, the other term designating a magical instrument, the magical bird or wheel, Uucn,117 which is sometimes identified with the stq|vakor, appears in the Oracles not as a magical instrument, but rather as a name for a specific class of entities mediating between the noetic and the lesser worlds.118 The description of these entities retains some reminiscences of the original instrument; most notably, they are said to move and to emit a whirring sound, Noife?m. Nevertheless, they are not connected with ritual performance in the fragments. Only Damascius in his discussion of the passage refers to the possible ritual use of the Uucn to conjure and release divine beings, but unspecifically, without connecting it to theurgy. The Uuccer of the Chaldean system which he discusses are clearly cosmological, linked with ritual only perhaps by possible analogies which prompted their name.119 These findings reinforce the closeness of ritual and spiritual ascent, as ritual objects are projected onto a cosmic level and metaphorically come to designate spiritual entities. Whether they are more than a cosmic metaphor, whether theurgists were supposed to use real magical wheels to become connected with the cosmic magical wheels, the Oracles do not tell us. The same evidence problem pertains also to the s}stasir, which also appears in Marinus’ list of Chaldean rituals practiced by Proclus.120 In both 115 Vita Procli 28. 116 Phil. minora 38, 133 O’Meara. 117 For the different forms and roles of the Uucn in ancient magic see Gow (1934) and Johnston (1990), 93 – 99 and (1995), 180 – 186. 118 For their exact role see Johnston (1990), 91 – 93. 119 Damascius In Parm. II 47 Westerink/Combs. 120 Des Places (1971), 114 includes s}stasir as frg. 208 in his list of Chaldean terminology referring to Lewy and to Olympiodorus, In Phaed. 121, 1 – 2 Norvin. Lewy’s account (1978, 228 – 238) is based only on Proclus and Psellus, that is, two rather late sources. Van Liefferinge (1999), 148 – 149 points out the tenuousness of the evidence (“On avouera qu’il s’agit l de tmoignages tardifs d’auteurs qui rattachent l’origine de certaines pratiques aux Chaldens, alors que les Oracles eux-mÞmes n’en font que peu tat ou pas du tout.”), but still holds on to des Places’ assignment of the two terms to the genuine Chaldean vocabulary, interpreting them in the light of Proclus and Psellus. The same course is adopted by Majercik (1989), 25 – 26: stating that “the term “conjunction” (s}stasir), although it appears just once in a questionable fragment

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Great Absents

41

cases it might be possible that the terms – and the rituals associated with them – have found their way into the tradition associated with theurgy at a later point in time, in the Athenian theurgical circles from which Proclus derives his knowledge of theurgy. Finally, another aspect that plays a very important role in later theurgic texts has been omitted here: the consecration of statues, also known as the telestic art, which appears in Dodds’ descriptions as one of the two important “branches of theurgy”.121 The question of evidence for such consecrations in the Oracles depends on the inclusion of the Hecatean oracles found in Porphyry’s De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda as genuine Chaldean oracles. Lewy has argued forcefully for the inclusion,122 and his arguments have been adopted by some scholars, e. g. O’Meara.123 Nevertheless, the basic objection formulated e. g. by Dodds124, des Places125 or Hadot126, regarding the complete

121 122 123 124 125

(fr. 208), is familiar to us from its widespread use in the magical papyri […]”, she goes on to discuss magical texts, Proclus and Psellus. Both Majercik and van Liefferinge perpetuate des Places’ attribution to Olympiodorus, in spite of Westerink’s proof that the anonymous commentary on the Phaedo in the Marc. gr. 196 had better be attributed to Damascius (see his remarks in the edition of the commentary, Westerink (1977), 15 – 17). The passage in question is then Damascius, In Phaed. I 167, 100 Westerink, stating that 1m to?r Reqo?r there was a sequence of purification, sust\seir, lu^seir and 1popte?ai, which then is applied to the Neoplatonic degrees of virtues. The context has nothing Chaldean about it, while it strongly recalls three sequences from the Eleusinian mysteries: the various rites of purification and the two degrees of initiation. The context alludes mostly to Dionysiac rites (166 and 168). The passage can thus not be taken as a safe basis for a Chaldean rite. Other mentions of the term in Neoplatonic texts can be found in Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo 2, 2 f Sodano: %kkoi paqajokouhoOmter 2auto?r jat± t± %kka, jat± t¹ vamtastij¹m hei\fousim, oR l³m sj|tor s}meqcom kab|mter, oR d³ jatap|seir tim_m, oR d’ 1p\d±r ja· sust\seir7 ja· oR l³m di’ vdator vamt\fomtai, oR d’ 1m to_w\, oR d’ 1m rpa_hq\ !]qi, oR d’ 1m Bk_\ C %kk\ tim· t_m jat’ oqqam|m. Again, the context is not distinctively Chaldean; Porphyry’s aporiai about divination recorded in De mysteriis encompass all its forms, from public to private, as we shall see below. Iamblichus’ response in De mysteriis III 14 groups these particular forms of divination together under the label of photagogy, which he then goes on to describe and defend as a form of theurgy ; however, a ritual of vytacyc_a is also given by PGM IV 956 – 1113, which shows that Porphyry and Iamblichus draw on a magical koine, which Iamblichus then casts as theurgy ; there is no obvious link from the s}stasir mentioned by them to the Chaldean Oracles. At the end of the fifth century, Marinus mentions Chaldean 1mtuw_ai and sust\seir practiced by Proclus (VP 28), and Proclus himself alludes to certain names in the tradition effecting the conjunction of the practitioner with deified personifications of temporal divisions (am|lat\ te he?a mujt¹r ja· Bl]qar 1jdidoOsa ja· lgm¹r ja· 1miautoO sustatij± ja· jk^seir ja· aqtovame_ar). Given his extensive work, this appears only as meagre evidence for s}stasir in Proclus. So even the later evidence does not bring sufficient material to flesh out a Chaldean ritual of s}stasir. Therefore one might consider to excise the term and frg. 208 as not specifically Chaldean with Tardieu in his concordance in Lewy (1978), 679 – 691, here 680. Dodds (1951), 291 – 295. Lewy (1978), 9 – 21, 40 – 62. O’Meara (1959), 35. Dodds (1961), 267. Des Places (1971) lists a brief selection of Lewy’s fragments in his edition among the dubia; for his reasons see 8 and 114, n. 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

42

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

absence of these particular oracles in subsequent references to Chaldean theurgy, remains valid, and it appears more plausible to view the Porphyrian oracles as derived from a source close in outlook to but not identical with the Chaldean Oracles.127 If this is so, all our evidence for the consecration of statues in the Oracles disappears.128 It must nevertheless be kept in mind that to Julian the Theurgist a book entitled Telestika is assigned by the scholiast to Lucian’s Philopseudeis; but the late accounts of the two Juliani which turn Julian the Theurgist into an accomplished magician rivalling Apuleius, Simon Magus or Apollonius are mostly to be relegated to the realm of legend.129 The second major “branch of theurgy”, according to Dodds, the practice of the “mediumistic trance”,130 has also little foundation in the Oracles themselves. The only fragment within the secure fragments of des Places’ edition that could refer to such rituals is frg. 141: “An indolent mortal tending to that represents the liberation of the god.”131 The term ‘liberation’, 5jkusir, can be found in magical rituals to design the end of the constrained presence of the god conjured, which has led to an interpretation of the fragment as reflecting theurgic conjurations.132 A look into the context of the verse in Proclus, however, shows no reference to a ritual context, but to an anthropological and soteriological concern: Proclus uses it to illustrate that the quest for the One can only be accomplished if one utterly renounces the material world.133 On its own, this verse therefore can hardly be seen as a safe basis for the integration of conjurations and divine possession into the framework of thought of the Oracles. Other evidence for such practices is listed by des Places among the dubia: a verse from Proclus referring to divine possession (frg. 211 des Places) and some Porphyrian fragments from the Philosophy from Oracles reflecting the conjuration and binding of gods through ritual actions, subject to the same caveat that pertained to the fragments about telestic statues. If the Oracles included divine possession at all, they did so in a very subdued manner as a matter of secondary importance. 126 Hadot (1978), 712. 127 Cf. also Busine (2005), 200 – 202, who summarises the scholarship on this question. For a discussion of these oracles and their religious context see below (section on Porphyry). 128 Majercik (1989), 26 again relies on Psellus, Iamblichus and the dubium frg. 224 des Places, although she acknowledges that it is “a “Porphyrian”, not Chaldean Oracle”. This absence of ‘telestic’ in the Chaldean Oracles proves the approach of Boyanc right, who stresses that the concept of the telestic art found in later Neoplatonists cannot be derived from the Chaldean Oracles alone but was a widespread practice with roots in Orphism as well as Oriental cults ((1955), esp. 208 f). 129 See Athanassiadi (2010), 203 – 207 and Seng (2009a), 142 – 150 for the development of the legends. It is thus safe to conclude with van Liefferinge (1999), 149: “Il n’y a aucune trace de ce rite dans les Oracles Chaldaiques.” 130 Dodds (1951), 295 – 299. 131 Frg. 141 des Places: =jkusir 1sti heoO myhq¹r bqot¹r 1r t\de me}ym. 132 Lewy (1978), 42 f, des Places (1971), 101, Majercik (1989), 27 and 141, van Liefferinge (1999), 147. 133 Proclus, In Parm III 1094 (I 70 Steel).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Great Absents

43

The survey of the ritual aspect of the Chaldean Oracles has thus left us with a more restricted material basis for theurgy than the usual reconstructions which use later material to fill the gaps: the initiation ritual, invocations and formulae triggering visions, apotropaic sacrifices. All the rites alluded to have their parallels in Greek religious thought and practice. What the Oracles do is to take up common ritual patterns and interpret and develop them along the lines of their Platonic-Stoic theology and their penchant for esoteric wisdom. Thus, instead of the normal hus_a of an animal, a plant or incense, they enjoin the sacrifice of the mysterious stone mnouziris. The initiation is set in the context of the soul’s entrapment in matter and need to reascend to the divine; its counterparts in Gnostic texts have been pointed out by Majercik.134 The magical Uucn turns into a cosmic entity, although retaining some of its features as a ritual object, such as the specific noise. The visions feature various forms of the divine fire that pervades the whole universe; they forcefully picture ideas that can be found in different traditions of thought such as Heraclitus, the Stoics or Gnostic texts. The text of the Oracles plays freely with various philosophical or ritual elements found in their historical context from the safe position of divine legitimisation secured by the oracular form. At this point the question arises whether we can go beyond the textual level. Did these ‘theurgic’ ritual variations exist in reality ; were they practiced at all? Lewy gives a highly compelling picture of the Chaldeans as an existing mystery cult, a real religious group among the many that thrived in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, outside the Oracles there is no evidence for either a religious group that would call themselves ‘Chaldeans’ or for the use of the term ‘theurgy’ to denote a specific form of religious activity. Julius Pollux, the professor of rhetoric, can have gleaned the term ‘theurgist’ from a perusal of the Oracles, which with their affectation of archaising style and their mostly hexametric form may have appeared to be decent reading, fit to furnish a term for a rhetorical handbook. He does not use it in connection with the term ‘Chaldean’ and does not mention any specific practice connected with it; his theurgist is yet another designation for a person performing cultic functions; the same as e. g. hu^pokor, which is recommended as the more ancient and poetical term. The question of religious practices connected with the Chaldeans and labelled ‘theurgy’ arises only later on, in the late third/early fourth century, in the debate between Porphyry and Iamblichus, which shall be studied below.135 In this light, the Oracles had best be described not as the holy book of revelations of an existing community136 but rather as just a text, constructing a worldview and rituals out of established patterns of thought, 134 Majercik (1989), 44. 135 Cf. Potter (1991), who therefore pleads for a later date of the Oracles altogether, placing them in the middle of the third century. The mention of ‘theurgists’ by Julius Pollux however makes that appear unlikely. 136 See Lewy (1978), e. g. 177 (“Chaldean sacramental community”), van Liefferinge (1999), 138 or 175, Athanassiadi (2006), 41 – 61, to a certain extent Saffrey (1990 a), 74 f, Majercik (1989), 5.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

44

Theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles

competing with other religious texts of the period, such as other collections of theological oracles, Gnostic texts, the Hermetica or the PGM, all sharing a common theological framework.137 This view might challenge certain assumptions about ritual: ritual is not per se a matter of mere action, but can be played out on a meta-level using the linguistic representations of such actions and can be designed to fit the exigencies of a particular theology and anthropology.138 By slightly changing features of established rituals and using mysterious names, they attract attention and create an aura of hidden wisdom. Taking up the terminology of cognitivist theories of religion and extending it beyond the cognitive structure of the human mind to the knowledge acquired through socialisation,139 the Oracles could be said to aim at creating minimally counter-intuitive images of rituals,140 based on the implicit knowledge about rituals and ritual patterns which a certain society shares.141 However, even if not practiced at the time of the composition of the Oracles, such representations of rituals may initiate the development of real ritual practice during the process of their reception. This shall be the focus of the next chapters.

137 Cf. Graf (2010), 75: “was Hans Lewy seinerzeit als charakteristisch chaldaeisch angesehen hatte, ist in Wirklichkeit Teil dieser Koin”. By showing the lack of evidence for a real cultic provenience of the Apollinian theological oracles, he tentatively asserts: “Damit aber sind sämtliche theologische Orakel möglicherweise nur Buchorakel” (73 f). It certainly is so for the Chaldean Oracles, and positing a common late antique theological discourse in which oracles play an important part as supposed divine utterances helps put them into the proper context: the hands of theologically interested pepaideul]moi. 138 See e. g. Rüpke (2004), 30 – 32, for a literary ‘creation’ of a ritual in Livy and the function of such invention for the Roman discourse on ritual: he argues for the necessary interdependence of the ritual acts and the communication about ritual (40). Beard (2004), 125 f also argues for the centrality of literary representations of ritual, real or imagined, to the discourse about rituals, given that “the primary locus of religion is, as it must be, in people’s heads”. 139 This extension seems legitimate when we take into consideration the way socialisation achieves the internalisation of the worldview of a particular society, a web of basic implicit assumptions which are not questioned and provide the basis for knowledge and action in the world (see Wittgenstein, Über Gewißheit). 140 For the idea of minimally counter-intuitive concepts/rituals that have the best chances to both attract attention and be easily remembered and transmitted see e. g. Whitehouse (2004), 31. 141 In this respect, the rituals of the Oracles are similar to those of the magical papyri, which also operate with particular salient changes of some elements within the framework of the knowledge about rituals shared by the Greco-Roman society. This point is developed by Johnston (2002) (see esp. 346 – 349 and 357 f.).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

3. First Debates about Theurgy : Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus 3.1 Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus Apart from the mention of heouqco_ in Julius Pollux, the Chaldean Oracles and the term “theurgy” are not mentioned explicitly by any author before Porphyry.1 This situation is intriguing, as one might imagine that they would have appealed to the circle of the Severi who had strong ties with the Orient (more exactly, Syria, where the Oracles have been situated by Saffrey and Athanassiadi) and commissioned Philostratus to write his biography of the wonderworking philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, describing in great detail his journeys to the wise people of the East as far as India.2 The Christian sources do not mention them either, although keen to discuss and appropriate pagan literature and especially pagan oracles. Porphyry is traditionally regarded as the first Neoplatonist to integrate the Oracles into a philosophical Neoplatonic framework. Often he is cast as deeply rooted in religious ritual which he then seeks to harmonise with the strict intellectualism of Plotinus’ religiosity, arriving at an awkward compromise.3 Other scholars, on the 1 A possible exception could be seen in Clem. Alex. Strom. VII 5 28, 1 – 4, where Clement inveighs against the pagan cult statues. There he speaks of he¹m 1qc\feshai. This, however, is just an expression for the standard Jewish and Christian argument against cult statues as being made by the hands of men and therefore not holy or divine. The reference is to public statues located in temples; it does not go beyond this tradition and point to any esoteric or ‘Chaldean’ lore, so that the linguistic proximity to theurgy must be seen as a coincidence. The first clear Christian allusion to the Oracles can be found in Arnobius, Adv. nationes II 25; a very similar passage is found in Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29, 2. Both are directed against Porphyrian ideas, possibly mediated through Cornelius Labeo (see already Courcelle (1953), Mastandrea (1979), 127 – 134 for the Porphyrian colouring of the viri novi, against whom Arnobius directs the second book of his work, for both Arnobius and Gregory see Majercik (1998), 290 – 292, Seng (2009a), 151 – 162 for an analysis of Arnobius’ reception of the Oracles). On the whole, Christian theologians thus show little interest in the Oracles; see the overview of quotations in Seng (2009a), 17 – 23; if we exclude Synesius as a Neoplatonic philosopher, albeit coming from a probably Christian family, from his list, we are left only with Marius Victorinus as a more notable instance, before PsDionysius’ reception of Proclus opens the way for Chaldean imagery and vocabulary into Christian theology. 2 This speaks against the hypothesis about the composition of the Oracles put forward by Athanassiadi; had they been composed in Apamea and been deposited as a famous holy book in the temple of Bel, contributing to the fame of this temple visited by Septimius Severus, one might expect some mention of it. Instead, only the sacred stone in the temple of Emesa and the priestly dynasty there are mentioned. 3 E.g. Bidez (1913), Smith (1974).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

46

First Debates about Theurgy

contrary, label Plotinus himself a theurgist or magician.4 In order to better understand the development of the discourse on theurgy in Porphyry and Iamblichus, a brief look at the Plotinian circle as their intellectual matrix is necessary. Our basic knowledge about Plotinus (205 – 270) and his school rests on Porphyry’s biography of his teacher.5 One of the main motifs throughout the biography is the elusiveness and otherness of Plotinus. No one knows his family, homeland or birthday,6 as he studiously avoids mentioning them.7 He refuses to sit for a portrait, so that Amelius has to resort to a subterfuge to get his likeness.8 Invitations by Amelius to join him in the performance of rituals elicit only an enigmatic and reserved response which leaves his students puzzled and amazed.9 Even the famous “sance”10 in the Iseum, in which Plotinus meets his guardian spirit, not a daimon, as would have been consonant with ancient ideas, but a god, ends on an ambiguous note: this peculiarity of Plotinus once revealed, the friend who accompanies him strangles the birds out of fear or envy and thus ends the vision.11 This otherness and reluctance to offer basic details about his person have a strong foundation in Plotinus’ anthropology : the body – and with it the individual person – is merely an accessory to the soul, not the real self.12 As far as Porphyry’s account goes, Plotinus understands and presents himself exclusively in terms of a philosopher. Instead of talking about his biological family, he only reveals his philosophical quest and filiation, namely his studies with Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria and his endeavours to travel as far East as possible by joining the army of Gordianus on its way to Persia in order to learn the philosophy of the Indians and Persians.13 Only after these endeavours meet an unexpected end with the death of Gordian in Mesopotamia does Plotinus move west, first to Antioch and later, already in his forties, to Rome,14 where 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14

E.g. Eitrem (1942), 50 or Merlan (1953). For Plotinus’ biography see e. g. Edwards (2006), 29 – 35. VPlot. 1 and 2. Instead, he ventures the strange detail about his prolonged breastfeeding. This motif is widespread; it can also be found in the hagiographical texts like the Acts of John 26 – 29 or in Paulinus of Nola, ep. 30,2. For a discussion of these parallels see the notes of A.-Ph. Segonds and L. Brisson on the passage (VPlot. II 192 – 193 and Brisson (1992), 323 – 325). Brisson (1992) furthermore shows that the anecdote is grounded in Plotinian anthropology and aesthetics and places it within the context of Plotinus’ school and his debates with the Gnostics. VPlot. 10. Dodds (1951), 286. VPlot. 10. See VPlot. 1. Cf. Goulet (1982), 374 – 375 who stresses that as a consequence of Plotinus’ anthropology, the moment of death is the supreme moment of his life, marking his birth into a new celestial order of beings, thus comparable to the Christian martyrs’ conception of their martyrdom as a birthday. VPlot 3. Edwards (2006), 31 suspects that Porphyry “is crediting his master with his own interests,” as Plotinus does nowhere in the Enneads evince any interest in these cultures. VPlot. 3.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus

47

soon a circle of various aristocratic personalities forms around him. Instead of celebrating his own birthday, he observes the birthdays of Platon and Socrates.15 Porphyry’s account thus is modelled upon the traditional motif of conversion to philosophy, stressing the creation of a new identity in perfect accordance with the basic tenets of Plotinus’ anthropology.16 The circle which forms around Plotinus includes various members of the social elite from different regions of the Empire.17 The two major disciples who carry on as philosophers are Porphyry and Amelius, the first from Tyre, the second from Etruria. Besides these two philosophically important figures, physicians, rhetoricians, poets and politicians, Roman senators and women pursuing philosophy are part of his closer entourage, the fgkyta_, as opposed to the wider circle of hearers, the !jqoata_.18 East and West thus meet in Rome, in a private circle centered upon the quest for philosophical truths and the charismatic teacher figure of Plotinus. Beside Porphyry and Amelius, most fgkyta_ do not pursue philosophy in a professional manner, but more as a form of life, most of them retaining their worldly occupations.19 Goulet-Caz has shown how the structure of the circle, its communal life, its method of teaching and its learning places bear a strong resemblance to the Pythagorean ideal and thus are part of the Pythagorizing current of thought that was so strong during Imperial times.20 Discussions of theurgy usually omit the Plotinian circle, jumping from the Oracles directly to the debate between Porphyry and Iamblichus. This can appear justified insofar as there is little to no explicit evidence for their use in the Plotinian circle. But if one looks beyond the mere reception of the Oracles and the term “theurgy”, one can find in the religious practices and the philosophy of the circle close parallels to what later is discussed as theurgy in the debate between Porphyry and Iamblichus. Furthermore, the school’s affinity to Numenius, whose system in turn displays close parallels with the theology of the Chaldean Oracles, must be taken into account as a possible catalyst for the reception of the Oracles themselves. Thus, the enquiry will proceed along two lines: first the discussion of the attitude to religious practice in the school of Plotinus, and second, the role of Numenian philosophy therein. 15 VPlot. 2. His actual age is revealed in the narrative only on his deathbed to his friend and physician Eustochius (VPlot. 2). 16 The protreptic intent of this enterprise is stressed by Goulet (1982), 375: “la biographie se fait vangile”. As Edwards (2006), 30 cautions us, the use of a topos does not a priori imply a mere construct divorced from reality ; but the grasp of that reality remains beyond the historian’s reach. 17 The overview of the closest students in VPlot. 7 includes Italian regions, Scythopolis, Alexandria, Arabia and Phoenicia. 18 See VPlot. 7 and 9 and Goulet-Caz (1982), 223 – 241. 19 Goulet-Caz (1982), 234 – 236. 20 Goulet-Caz (1982), 254 – 256.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

48

First Debates about Theurgy

Concerning the first question, one must look first at Plotinus himself and then to what is known of his immediate disciples. There has been an ongoing discussion about Plotinus’ attitude to magic and “theurgy”, the latter often defined not in terms of the use of the term or any connection to the Chaldean Oracles, but understood as a synonym of magic. The discussion centers around three anecdotes that make up the tenth chapter of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini. The first recounts that Plotinus was subject to an evil spell by one of his rivals in Alexandria; the magical attack was eventually deflected and turned back upon the aggressor. The second describes how Plotinus was invited by an Egyptian priest to have his personal da_lym evoked. The evocation allegedly took place in the temple of Isis as the only pure spot in Rome, and the appearing spirit turned out to be not a da_lym, but a god. Further questioning of it was prevented, as Plotinus’ friend strangled the birds which he was in charge of and the vision was interrupted. While these two anecdotes seem to have happened before Porphyry came to Rome and rely on Plotinus’ own relation, the last episode takes place within the circle of fgkyta_: Amelius, “who had become a lover of bloody sacrifices” and who had taken to visiting the shrines regularly, invites Plotinus to come along with him, only to receive a puzzling response: “It is not meet that I go to the gods, but rather that they come to me”. Porphyry states that no one dared to inquire about the reasons and meaning of such a bold statement. To some scholars, these episodes were proof that Plotinus was indeed a practicing magician, able to defeat his opponents by stronger spells, interested in evoking spirits and full of the hybris of the magician summoning the gods through his power. This view has most notably been put forward by Merlan.21 Other scholars interpret the anecdotes in a more spiritual way, having Plotinus defeat Olympius through his superior soul powers, not through counter spells, and interpreting the puzzling statement about the gods as a hint at the Plotinian idea that the gods are always present to the sage. Even such views have to acknowledge that the second anecdote, the “affair of the Iseum”22 shows at least a marked interest of Plotinus to attend such rituals and have his da_lym evoked, although they readily stress that he, after all, was only invited and did not actively seek the encounter.23 In order to clarify the questions about Plotinus as a magician or theurgist, we have to carefully delimit the terms. For theurgy in the sense of practices connected with the Chaldean Oracles there is no evidence. Plotinus does not connect these episodes with the Oracles, nor does he or Porphyry use the term “theurgy” in connection with them. As Dillon has shown, Plotinus may have read the Oracles, but all he may have derived from them amounted at most to

21 Merlan (1953). 22 So labelled by Dodds (1951), 286. 23 Dodds (1951), 286, Brisson (1992).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus

49

some sparse terminology.24 The three episodes are thus to be understood in the broader context of Imperial religion and magic. The first two episodes are anchored in the magical practice of Late Antiquity. Regardless of how exactly Plotinus defended himself, Olympius is said to have repeatedly employed harmful magic to rid himself of his rival to the first position in the school of Ammonius. This might be just Plotinus’ spiteful memory, but still it is relevant that he chose to report this to his closer disciples. These are not quite the manners one would have expected from the legendary school of Alexandria. And yet we see in Origen, another famous student of Ammonius, the same interest for magic, the same assumption of its efficacy and its systematic character.25 This also squares well with the theory of magic which Plotinus gives in his Enneads (IV 4, 28), which recognizes its efficacy based on the cosmic sulp\heia, while limiting it to the level of matter and the lesser, irrational parts of the soul.26 There Plotinus states that the sage, when attacked by magic, should use counter spells to counter the aggression.27 The context does not specify what spells are meant; the literal understanding of Merlan is as justified as the spiritualised, metaphorical interpretation of Brisson,28 although the latter would certainly fit better with Platonic philosophy. Nevertheless, the disparaging manner in which he speaks of magic rites employed by the Gnostics, strange sounds and expulsion of daimones, which in his view are only good to impress the crowds, not the philosophically-minded,29 lends more support to the assumption that Plotinus did not deign to actually practice magic himself. What remains is a strong curiosity which leads him to formulate a theory about magic based on the cosmic sympathy and to acknowledge its efficacy on lower levels of existence. His position in the question of magic resembles that which he assumes regarding astrology : the cosmic sulp\heia implies that stars, like animals or birds, can signify the future, as everything is mechanistically connected with everything. Nevertheless, the stars are not the determinant cause of what they

24 Dillon (1992), esp. 140, developing the stance of Theiler (1966), 41, against the denial of knowledge of the Chaldean Oracles by Plotinus in Dodds (1951), 287 or Hadot (1978), 711. Seng (2009a), 15 leaves this possibility open. See also Soares Santoprete (2010). 25 See Origen, CCels I 24 f, I 60, IV 33, IV 33 – 35, V 45 – 46, VI 39. Eitrem is right to point out this interest in magic in the school of Ammonius Saccas (1942, 50 – 51 and 66, based only on Plotinus and Olympius, without considering Origen), although his contention that Ammonius and Plotinus draw heavily on Egyptian magic is too speculative and goes beyond the evidence. 26 Enn. IV 4 26 and 30 – 44. 27 Enn. IV 4, 43: j d³ spouda?or p_r rp¹ cogte_ar ja· vaql\jym; K t0 l³m xuw0 !pahμr eQr co^teusim, ja· oqj #m t¹ kocij¹m aqtoO p\hoi, oqd’ #m letadon\seie7 t¹ d³ fsom toO pamt¹r 1m aqt` %kocom, jat± toOto p\hoi %m, l÷kkom d³ toOto p\hoi %m7 !kk’ oqj 5qytar 1j vaql\jym, eUpeq t¹ 1q÷m 1pimeuo}sgr ja· t/r xuw/r t/r %kkgr t` t/r %kkgr pah^lati. ®speq d³ 1p\da?r t¹ %kocom p\swei, ovty ja· aqt¹r !mtõdym ja· !mtepõdym t±r 1je? dum\leir !mak}sei. 28 Merlan (1953), 343 , Brisson (1992), 467 – 468. 29 Enn. II 9, 14.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

50

First Debates about Theurgy

signify, let alone the determinant cause in shaping men’s destinies.30 This squares well with Porphyry’s notice that Plotinus spent some time studying astrology and the methods of casting horoscopes, but ultimately discovered their unreliability and denounced them in philosophical treatises.31 Plotinus discusses the workings of magic in the context of questions about the nature of the soul. In the same context he refers briefly to another aspect of religious practice that is often connected with theurgy : the fabrication of sacred statues. The practice is attested for later Neoplatonists such as Proclus and is there often called ‘telestic’. As noted above, Dodds viewed the telestic art as a major “branch of theurgy”. As already Boyanc (1955) has shown, the use of ‘telestic’, especially when designating the preparation of sacred statues, is not reducible to a part of theurgy understood as special ritual practices connected with the Chaldean Oracles; instead it goes beyond this specifically ‘theurgic’ use of the term and it can be traced in authors without any interest in theurgy as a practice related to the Chaldean Oracles, like Maximus of Tyrus. So what does Plotinus have to say about the fabrication of statues? It seems to me that all the sages of old who wished that the gods be present to them through the fabrication of sanctuaries and statues, looked at the nature of the universe and grasped in their mind that the nature of soul is something that is easily led everywhere, but that it were easiest of all to receive it if somebody built something with an affinity to it, capable of receiving some part of it. But what possesses this affinity is that which is somehow an imitation, like a mirror capable of snatching some form.32

Thus en passant, discussing the distribution and actions of the soul in the universe, Plotinus gives a theory of divine images. They are receptacles for the divine substance in virtue of their resemblance and affinity to the divine, designed by the sages of old to make the divine present. It is not clear whom Plotinus has in mind, as such general references to the mythical wisdom of the ancient can be just a topos; Boyanc proposes to view an allusion to Greek, especially Orphic practices.33 This is supported by the fact that Plotinus repeatedly alludes to Orphic lore (see e. g. Enn. I 6, 6 and perhaps also 8; III 5, 2 and 8; V 1, 7), while on the whole keeping references to religious practice down to a minimum. The status of temples and statues was variedly discussed in Imperial times, with positions ranging from viewing them as mere material 30 This is discussed e. g. in Enn. II 3, see esp. 7 – 9. 31 VPlot. 15. 32 Enn. IV 3, 11: Ja_ loi dojoOsim oR p\kai sovo_, fsoi 1bouk^hgsam heo»r aqto?r paqe?mai Req± ja· !c\klata poigs\lemoi, eQr tμm toO pamt¹r v}sim !pid|mter, 1m m` kabe?m ¢r pamtawoO l³m eq\cycom xuw/r v}sir, d]nasha_ ce lμm Nøstom #m eUg "p\mtym, eU tir pqospah]r ti tejt^maito rpod]nashai dum\lemom lo?q\m tima aqt/r. Pqospah³r d³ t¹ bpysoOm lilgh]m, ¦speq j\toptqom "qp\sai eWd|r ti dum\lemom. 33 Boyanc (1955), 195 – 209.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus

51

things to symbols or even receptacles of the divine.34 It is interesting that Plotinus does not opt for the theories which downgrade the temples and statues to mere matter and view them at best as representations of higher truths; instead, he understands the temples and statues here as receptacles ably crafted to snatch into themselves a real portion of the divine soul. He thus endorses explanations, which belong to the wider background out of which theurgy emerged. But it is also important to see that he does so only in this passage, which stands alone in the Enneads. His other mentions of statues and temples are metaphorical: Plotinus uses them to illustrate the stages of ascent to the contemplation of the One.35 This fits his general approach to cult matters, which he mentions rarely, and only only insofar as they illustrate or convey philosophical meanings; aQm_tteshai is a key term in such passages.36 The second episode has obvious parallels in the Egyptian Greek magical papyri. One papyrus gives a technique for the s}stasir Qd_ou da_lomor. Here the term used is jk/sir, another magical technical term; the desired direct vision, aqtox_a of the da_lym is also the goal of many invocations of the papyri.37 Often the spells in the papyri consider the possibility that the practitioner be assisted by a friend and give instructions as to his part in the ritual. The Egyptian priest also points to the familiar Graeco-Roman construction of Egypt as the land of occult lore and magic; Isis, in whose temple the evocation takes place, is widely regarded as the patroness of magic.38 Thus one need not to look to theurgy or the Chaldean Oracles to explain the episode; it is perfectly understandable as a common instance of magical practice.39 Plotinus obviously displays an interest for such practices; he moves in circles who also do so, and he takes the vision seriously enough, if we are to believe Porphyry, that he thence derives inspiration for a philosophical treatise on the issue of the personal daimon. The final anecdote about the enigmatic reply to Amelius tells us little about Plotinus, as the text gives no clues as to the right interpretation, and this is precisely the intention of Porphyry, to present his teacher as a higher being, an elusive stranger beyond the comprehension of common people. But it tells us 34 For an aspect of this debate see Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009b), with further bibliography. 35 See Enn. I 6, 7 – 8 and VI 9, 11. See also Criscuolo (1992), 87 f. 36 See e. g. Enn. V 8,6 (the meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphs on temple walls), III 6, 19 (discussion of Hermae), I, 6,6 (Orphic mysteries), V 1,7 (mysteries and myths about Rhea, Kronos and Zeus, probably Orphic), VI 9, 11 (mystery cult), V 5,11 (wrong behaviour during cultic festivals as illustration of wrong approach to the contemplation of the One). 37 For parallels in the magical papyri see Eitrem (1929), 49 – 51 and his discussion of the Iseum episode (1942), 62 – 65. 38 For the clich of Egypt as a hotbed of magic see e. g. Lucian, Philopseudeis and his description of the Egyptian priest and magician Pancrates (Philops. 31 and 33 – 36). 39 Dodds’ concession that the evocation “is theurgy, or something like it” (1951, 286) as well as his whole discussion of Plotinus as a theurgist shows a terminological confusion between theurgy and magic; again, the tendency to use theurgy as the meta-level term to neatly cover all these practices is perceptible.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

52

First Debates about Theurgy

something about Plotinus’ circle, more specifically about his prominent disciple Amelius. Vikoh}tgr cecom~r implies that Amelius underwent some sort of change, that he became interested in religious rituals.40 Here, we do not have magic, but another aspect of traditional religion, the frequentation of public sanctuaries on the occasion of feast days and regularly at the beginning of the month on the day of the new moon. Brisson has pointed out that the latter practice is a private devotion as opposed to the 2oqta_, which designate the public feasts repeated annually.41 The combination of cultic acts both on the moulgm_ai and on all the 2oqta_ as an expression of true piety, better than bloody sacrifices, is elsewhere commended by Porphyry who quotes a similar episode from Theopompus.42 In the Vita Plotini, Porphyry thus points out that Amelius scrupulously performs traditional cultic acts touring all sanctuaries.43 At this point Plotinus, though again invited to join in the rituals, declines. His refusal can be understood in terms of his theology, which does not leave any room for rituals as meaningful cultic acts: what is below the intellect is governed by sympathy and thus quasi deterministically organized, while the intellect cannot be influenced by prayer – or sacrifice. A little note on wrong cultic behaviour helps perhaps to understand his position better. In Enn. V 5, 11, stressing the necessity to contemplate God not in the manner one contemplates visible things, Plotinus stresses that on feast days one should not concentrate upon the material banquet, but seek the god himself, whose contemplation is the true banquet; whoever is content to fill his stomach does not really take part in the sacred rites.44 We see here a spiritualised conception of cult, which naturally leads to the consequence that the contemplation of the divine being the goal, this can be achieved independently of material cultic acts. Nevertheless, in his circle his close disciple Amelius goes another way and insists on the importance of traditional cults. Perhaps here we catch a little glimpse of the tensions that later on led, as Goulet-Caz pertinently stressed, to

40 In Julius Pollux’ Onomastikon, vikoh}tgr is listed as a synonym for heo»r mol_fym !mμq (I 20, 5 Bethe). 41 Brisson (1992), 472 – 473 with n. 32 – 34. 42 De abst. II 16. 43 Brisson (1992), 472 with n. 32 translates Req\ with “sacred statues”, but both (closely related) meanings “statues” and the more common “sanctuaries” are allowed by the text. 44 Enn. V 5, 11: T¹ d³ pq_tom !qwμ toO eWmai ja· juqi~teqom aw t/r oqs_ar7 ¦ste !mtistqept]om tμm d|nam7 eQ d³ l^, jatakeke_x, 5qglor heoO, oXom oR 1m ta?r 2oqta?r rp¹ castqilaqc_ar pk^samter 2auto}r, ¨m oq h]lir kabe?m to»r eQsi|mtar pq¹r to»r heo}r, mol_samter l÷kkom 1je?ma 1maqc]steqa eWmai t/r h]ar toO heoO, è 2oqt\feim pqos^jei, oq let]swom t_m 1je? Req_m. Ja· c±q 1m to}toir to?r Reqo?r b he¹r oqw bq~lemor !piste?shai poie? ¢r oqj £m to?r 1maqc³r mol_fousi l|mom, d t0 saqj· l|mom Udoiem7 oXom eU timer di± b_ou joil~lemoi taOta l³m pist± ja· 1maqc/ mol_foiem t± 1m to?r ame_qasim, eQ d] tir aqto»r 1nece_qeiem, !pist^samter to?r di± t_m avhakl_m !me\c|tym avhe?si p\kim jatadaqh\moiem.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus

53

the dissolution of Plotinus’ school already some time before his death, which occurred when Amelius had already retreated to Apamea.45 Bearing in mind the discussion about ritual and spiritual ascent methods in the Chaldean Oracles, it is important to stress that ascent was an important concern of Plotinus as well. According to Porphyry, he developed a form of ascent following the steps outlined in Plato’s Symposium. This methodical ascent allows him a vision of the highest god “who has no form or outward appearance, but is firmly planted above Intellect and all the Intelligible”.46 As far as metaphysics are concerned, this god goes one step beyond the Chaldean Oracles, which describe the Intelligible in frg. 1 as the summit of essence that has to be approached with the “flower of intellect”. But regarding the idea of spiritual ascent to the highest god beyond intellect, there is a structural similarity between what Porphyry describes as Plotinus’ ultimate goal and the Chaldean frg. 1: a union transcending all thought and knowledge, in utter passivity of the human person. The spiritual aspect of Chaldean theurgy could thus have appeared to persons from this circle as a poetic elaboration of Plotinian ascent. Another aspect of Plotinus’ circle that must be mentioned in this context is the presence and influence of Gnostics in Rome. Interestingly, Porphyry is in perfect accord to Hippolytus of Rome when he points out that the Gnostics have developed their thoughts and theories from ancient philosophy, and Plotinus portrays them along the same lines, distinguishing between the ideas they rightly drew from the wise men of old and their confused innovations.47 Their contention that Plato had not penetrated to the depths of the intellect and the writings they presented as divine revelation were discussed and refuted by Plotinus, Amelius and Porphyry ; Gnostics must have also frequented the circle of Plotinus, as he refers to them as good friends in his refutation of Gnostic views, though he is ashamed and annoyed at their persistence in their wrong way of thinking.48 Among the works mentioned by Porphyry, some could be identified with texts extant in Coptic translation in the Nag Hammadi library (which by its eclecticism combining Platonic with Gnostic texts again bears witness to their perceived closeness); these Coptic texts, ascribed to Sethian Gnosticism, show, as has been pointed out above, 45 Amelius in Apamea at the time of Plotinus’ death: VPlot. 2. For the dissolution of the school see Goulet-Caz (1982), 254 – 255. 46 VPlot. 23: Ovtyr d³ l\kista to}t\ t` dailom_\ vyt· pokk\jir 1m\comti 2aut¹m eQr t¹m pq_tom ja· 1p]jeima he¹m ta?r 1mmo_air ja· jat± t±r 1m t` Sulpos_\ rvgcgl]mar bdo»r t` Pk\tymi 1v\mg 1je?mor b he¹r b l^te loqvμm l^te tim± Qd]am 5wym, rp³q d³ moOm ja· p÷m t¹ mogt¹m Rdqul]mor. An example of Plotinus’ conception of ascent which explicitly takes up the Platonic procession from corporeal beauty to spiritual beauty can be found in Enn. I 6. 47 Plot. Enn. II 9, Porph. VPlot. 16. This is one argument among others for Tardieu (1992), 509 – 517 to assume a dependence of Porphyry on Christian heresiological sources. If so, knowledge of that source should be extended also to Plotinus, as he uses the same language as Porphyry. 48 Enn. II 9.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

54

First Debates about Theurgy

close parallels to the triadic speculation of the Chaldean Oracles. These works were read, discussed and then refuted. Interestingly, that was not the only point of contact with Christian texts: Amelius is said to have read and commented on the prologue of the Gospel of John.49 Finally, the role of Numenian thought in the school of Plotinus must be considered. Again, it is Amelius who is portrayed by Porphyry as a fervent admirer of Numenius, who before coming to Rome had collected all of Numenius’ writings which he could find and learnt them mostly by heart.50 According to Porphyry, Plotinus used the commentaries of Numenius among others in class, but departed from them in his exegesis.51 Nevertheless, in Greece he was considered a plagiator of Numenius, so that Amelius wrote a defence which he dedicated to Porphyry.52 All these aspects taken together show that, even if there is no trace of reception of the Chaldean Oracles or of the term “theurgy” for ritual practices based on them in the circle of Plotinus, the interests and preoccupations of its members are very close to them. Plotinus is highly interested in the exotic wisdom of Eastern cultures; he studies the casting of horoscopes and willingly has his personal daimon summoned by an Egyptian priest, turning his practical experience of magic into philosophical treatises. Amelius discovers the importance of traditional cults, although his religiosity appears excessive to Porphyry or Plotinus. The members of the school are closely acquainted with Numenius and with Gnostic writings which display a triadic theology similar to the Chaldean Oracles; these writings and the views of the Gnostics who frequent the school are discussed and refuted for their anti-cosmic 49 Eusebius, PE XI 18, 26 – 19, 2: eQj|tyr d/ta ja· t_m m]ym vikos|vym diavamμr cecom½r )l]kior, t/r Pk\tymor ja· aqt¹r eQ ja_ tir %kkor fgkytμr vikosov_ar, pkμm !kk± b\qbaqom amol\sar t¹m :bqa?om heok|com, eQ ja· lμ 1p’ am|lator An_yse toO eqaccekistoO Yy\mmou lm^lgm poi^sashai, 1pilaqtuqe? d’ owm flyr ta?r aqtoO vyma?r, aqt± dμ taOta pq¹r N/la cq\vym7“Ja· oxtor %qa Gm b k|cor jah’ dm aQe· emta t± cim|lema 1c_meto, ¢r #m ja· b Jq\jkeitor !ni~seie ja· mμ D_’ dm b b\qbaqor !nio? 1m t0 t/r !qw/r t\nei te ja· !n_ô jahestgj|ta pq¹r he¹m eWmai ja· he¹m eWmai7 di’ ox p\mh’ "pk_r cecem/shai7 1m è t¹ cem|lemom f_m ja· fyμm ja· cm pevuj]mai7 ja· eQr t± s~lata p_pteim ja· s\qja 1mdus\lemom vamt\feshai %mhqypom let± toO ja· tgmijaOta deijm}eim t/r v}seyr t¹ lecake?om7 !l]kei ja· !makuh]mta p\kim !poheoOshai ja· he¹m eWmai, oXor Gm pq¹ toO eQr t¹ s_la ja· tμm s\qja ja· t¹m %mhqypom jatawh/mai.” This follows upon a mention of Numenius and his accord with the ‘Hebrew’ sages. The same quotation from Amelius is taken up by Theodoretus of Cyrus, Graec. aff. cur. II 88. See Dörrie (1972) and Brisson (1987b), 840 – 843 who concludes his close reading as follows: “Ce que l’vangile de saint Jean prsente sous forme d’un drame: l’Incarnation du Fils de Dieu pour racheter les hommes, sa Mort sur la Croix et sa Rsurrection, il faut l’interprter comme un processus cyclique de type pq|odor – 1pistqov^ qui se droule de faÅon pratiquement automatique dans un systme parfaitement clos et fortement hirarchis. Et, dans ce contexte, il n’y a bien evidemment aucune place pour la notion de grce.” (843) – a typical Neoplatonic interpretation on the lines of Salutius’ taOta d’ oqj 1c]meto, 5sti d’ !e_, as Vollenweider (2009), 388 rightly points out (which certainly need not have excluded granting Jesus a special status as a particular manifestation of the divine Logos (ibid. 391 – 393)). 50 VPlot. 3. 51 VPlot. 14. 52 VPlot. 17 (Porphyry gives the introductory letter).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Theurgy and the Circle of Plotinus

55

dualism and their irreverent attitude to Plato. It may well be imagined that the Oracles, whose dualism is less pronounced than Gnostic forms of dualism and which are steeped in Platonism, had a good chance of being read and accepted in such a circle. The taste for poetical productions combining philosophy and religion is shown by a brief anecdote where Porphyry relates how he once recited at a school banquet on Plato’s anniversary a “mystic poem” about the sacred marriage which elicited censure from a hearer, but from Plotinus the enthusiastic commentary : “You have shown us the poet, the philosopher and the hierophant all in one.”53 The Oracles were thus sure to find fertile ground in the school of Plotinus; their practices combining ritual and spiritual ascent could resonate well with the interests of philosophers like Amelius or Plotinus himself. Why the circle around Plotinus dissolved during his lifetime and he died alone, with only the physician Eustochius by his side, must remain an unsolved and insolvable question. Differences with Plotinus regarding religious practice seem not to have estranged Amelius. Although he is in Apamea at the time of Plotinus’ death, he seeks and obtains an Apollinian oracle concerning the whereabouts of Plotinus’ soul which he communicates to Porphyry, who quotes and comments upon it in his Life of Plotinus.54 Here we see again the two philosophical disciples of Plotinus resorting not only to philosophical reflection to ponder on the fate of their master after death, nor interpreting it with reference to the vast amount of philosophical literature on the topic, but actively seeking oracles, commenting on them and placing them as some sort of interpretatory key in the Life of Plotinus which serves in its turn as an introduction to Porphyry’s edition of the Enneads.55 The exact provenance of the oracle is uncertain. It might of course have been composed by Amelius himself, it might have come from an Apollinian shrine, but it is also possible that it was obtained through a private ritual of the kind Porphyry alludes to in his Philosophy from Oracles.56 Here we come quite close to the 53 VPlot. 15. 54 VPlot. 22 – 23. 55 See Goulet (1982), 375 – 376: the oracle serves to confirm the divinisation of Plotinus’ soul after death and thus lends support to Porphyry’s protreptic project. 56 That is the opinion of Goulet (1982) and (1992), who situates the bulk of the oracle in theurgic circles in Asia Minor, proposing Apamea, the home of Numenius and retreat of Amelius, as a likely place of composition (1982, 403 – 409 and 1992, 605). The existence of such theurgic circles itself for that period, in the sense of people using the term “theurgy” for their rituals and using the Chaldean Oracles, is hypothetical, but private divination was widespread at that time and gave rise to hexametric oracular utterances, as can be seen from Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles, which features a number of such private oracles. Goulet’s position has been criticised with different arguments (see his review of the critique in his article of 1992 or most recently, the bibliographical review of Busine (2005), 301 – 313). These positions try to make cases for alternative solutions, like the provenance from a traditional oracular shrine or from Amelius or Porphyry. Arguments can be found for both the provenance from an oracular shrine or for private divination, so that a definitive decision appears impossible.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

56

First Debates about Theurgy

attitude which characterises e. g. Iamblichus’ defence of divination understood as theurgy – paradoxically against the objections of Porphyry himself. The debate between these two philosophers marks the point where ‘theurgy’ enters Neoplatonism as a technical term; it shall be the focus of the next chapters.

3.2 Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry Traditionally, in discussions of theurgy, Porphyry (ca. 234 – 30557) is viewed mainly as the link between Plotinus’ lack of interest in such rituals and the later Neoplatonists’ reverence. He is credited with a high interest in theurgic rituals and the Chaldean Oracles, which he supposedly sought to accommodate within the frame of the abstract metaphysics and intellectual religiosity of Neoplatonism, ending up with a queer hybrid position later Neoplatonists rejected.58 Matters are further complicated by the indiscriminate use of “theurgy” as a synonym for ritual in the discussion of his writings, regardless of his own use of the word or his reception of the Chaldean Oracles59 as well as by the fragmentary state of precisely the crucial works regarding religious practice. Furthermore, the chronology of his works is a matter of debate, due to the lack of objective criteria in the texts. The biographical and chronological reconstruction of Bidez, who proposed to see an evolution from early superstitions of the Near Eastern adolescent to an increasingly intellectual and spiritualised religious outlook determined by his studies of philosophy and especially his encounter with Plotinus,60 has been challenged in later research, and there is now a tendency to stress the unitary and coherent character of the Porphyrian corpus.61 Nevertheless, contradictions between the different 57 See Smith (1987), 719 – 721. 58 For this middle position see e. g. Dodds (1947), 58 (= 1951, 286 f), Smith (1974), 122 – 150, e. g. 140: “His attitude to theurgy and religion seems to be a dangerous halfway house between Plotinus and Iamblichus.” See also Smith (2004), 78 – 85 and (2011), Saffrey (1990b), 39 f or (1990c), 56 f; see also Lewy (1978), 453, who speaks of the “perplexity” pervading Porphyry’s works, or Fowden (1993), 131. Van Liefferinge has argued that Iamblichus was actually the first to introduce theurgy into Neoplatonism (1999, 186 or 208). Her position did not find much echo in the study of theurgy ; it did not even elicit any comment from her reviewers Moreschini (2004) or Klitenic (2000). 59 See e. g. the discussion of Bidez (1913), 17 – 18, who indiscriminately uses “theurgy”, “magic” and ”mystery” to denote the practices Porphyry refers to. Van Liefferinge rightly points to this confusion, even though her argument is informed by a normative conception of what theurgy ‘really’ is, a conception derived from Iamblichus and based on a strict dichotomy between theurgy and magic ((1999), 179; for the dichotomy as the working axiom in her work see also Klitenic (2000), 481). 60 Bidez (1913). 61 E.g. O’Meara (1959), (1960) and (1969), Smith (1983) or (2004), Zambon (2002), 31 – 35, Smith (1987) or Schott (2005), 284 f, Johnson (2009). Cf. also Edwards (2006), 37, who considers yet another possibility, inverting Bidez’ scheme and toying with a development from the “youthful

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

57

works persist and cannot be reasoned away, and the chronological hypothesis is the simplest and most elegant explanation.62 The works which are primarily relevant for Porphyry’s attitude to theurgy are his Philosophy from Oracles, which is only fragmentarily extant, and some works written after his studies with Plotinus, namely the Letter to Anebo and the enigmatic De regressu animae, which survives only in Augustine’ s paraphrase. While the term “theurgy” is explicitely used in the last work and possibly also in the Letter to Anebo, the Philosophy from Oracles does not use it but has to be examined in this context because some of its oracles have since Lewy been considered ‘Chaldean’.

3.2.1 The Philosophy from Oracles 3.2.1.1 The Work and Its Intention The Philosophy from Oracles has been considered since Bidez a work of the youthful Porphyry, full of unqualified enthusiasm for religious practice and the supernatural.63 Later research has called this into question, ever since J. O’Meara pointed out the similarities between this work and the De regressu animae, which used to be considered as a later treatise critical of religious practice. His identification of the two treatises stretches the evidence too far, turning a blind eye to the actual differences between the fragments of the two works.64 Nevertheless, it had the salutary effect to show that Porphyry’s interests and ideas are much more constant than they had been supposed to be. One such constant that appears in the Philosophy from Oracles as well as in works that are more critical of traditional religious practice like De regressu, the Letter to Anebo, De abstinentia or his Letter to Marcella is the idea of a scepticism” of the Letter to Anebo to the Philosophy from Oracles and De regressu animae; his conclusion that Porphyry’s was “not a mind whose growth could be plotted on a simple curve” can be safely accepted. See alsoTanaseanu-Döbler (2009a), where a text-by-text discussion and comparison is advocated. 62 This is not to imply a rigid monocausal view of biographic development, against which Smith (2011), 3 rightly cautions us, when he writes “In fact I would regard the picture of a Porphyry engaged in constant enquiry as more likely and more interesting than the notion of a series of developmental leaps from superstition to rationalism and then back to superstition after the death of Plotinus.” 63 Bidez (1913), 14 – 20. 64 O’Meara (1959), (1960) and (1969). His position was accepted by Beatrice, who went so far as to include the treatise against the Christians into the identification (e. g. 1993, 45ff), and further developed by Digeser (2000, 91 – 102). For a balanced critique see Hadot (1960) and (1978), 712, n. 63, Smith (1987) or Zambon (2002). An overview over the state of the question can be found in Busine (2005), 235 – 242. Freund (2006) has shown that there is no evidence for a direct link between the theological oracles contained in Lactantius’ Institutiones and Porphyry’s Philosophia, thus casting further doubts on Digeser’s interpretation (283 f).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

58

First Debates about Theurgy

supreme god who can be approached only through immaterial worship through contemplation and virtue. Below this god, a plurality of lesser gods and spiritual beings exists, to whom the traditional material cult practices are directed. These beings play a much more important role in the Philosophy from Oracles than in other writings, which give pride of place to the philosophical worship of the first god.65 Another significant difference is the acceptance of bloody sacrifices in the Philosophy from Oracles, whereas they are rejected in De abstinentia, which was written sometime after the death of Plotinus. Finally, it can plausibly be assumed that Porphyry was probably not familiar with the Chaldean Oracles when he wrote the Philosophy from Oracles, as he there draws upon the traditional view of Chaldeans as just one wise barbarian race among others, without any allusion to the Chaldean Oracles.66 Hence it is plausible, though not fully provable to assume that the Philosophy from Oracles was written before De regressu and before De abstinentia, although we cannot be more specific than that.67 If Porphyry did not know the Chaldean Oracles when he wrote De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, what do we make of Lewy’s claim that a number of his oracles are actually Chaldean? As discussed above in connection to the Chaldean Oracles, this contention has already been problematised by Dodds, des Places, Hadot or van Liefferinge, who pointed out that Porphyry’s oracles are not cited or alluded to elsewhere in the Neoplatonic reception of the Chaldean Oracles.68 Nevertheless, even if not Chaldean, the Philosophy from Oracles can help us better understand the context in which the Neoplatonic reception of the Chaldean Oracles and the development of the conception of theurgy are situated. The work survives only in fragments which can be found in various Christian writings. Interestingly enough, besides one reference to the work as

65 For a detailed analysis of Porphyry’s attitude to rituals see Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009a). 66 See Tanaseanu-Döbler (2010), 35 – 38. Van Liefferinge (1999), 184 also maintains that Porphyry did not know the Oracles at the time he wrote De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, but without giving any reasons. 67 Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009a), 145 – 147. Wintjes (2010) attempts to reconstruct the structure of the work and sees a basic parallelity to the Letter to Anebo: first the classification of the gods and reflections on possibilities to connect with them, second, a discussion of more practical matters, that is, how to overcome the obstacles of fate and make sure that the respective contact with the gods is fully obtained, while the third book would deal with the Jews and the Christians. This parallelity leads her to argue in favour of a temporal closeness between the two works, and she toys with the identification of the Philosophy with De regressu (2010, 58 – 60). However, she does not consider the clear discrepancies mentioned above. One need not assume that the two works were composed close to one another in time to account for the parallelity : Porphyry might simply adapt a pattern that he had previously found helpful, given that the issues at stake – the proper mode of contact with the properly understood divine – are similar, although his position in the two works is not, as we shall see below. 68 Dodds (1961), 267, des Places (1971), 18 f and 55 f, Hadot (1978), 712, van Liefferinge (1999), 179 with n. 407.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

59

a whole in Eunapius,69 there cannot be found any evidence of it, let alone any fragment, in pagan writers. Perhaps the same characteristics which rendered it apt for use in Christian polemic against paganism made it unfit for pagan use. Perhaps his later works established him as an old-fashioned opponent of cult in the name of purely intellectual philosophy, so that his contribution to oracular lore was forgotten. The reconstruction of the contents of the work has been a disputed question for some time.70 Porphyry’s prologue, which partly survives, states that the work was to contain an enumeration of philosophical beliefs, “just as the gods had pronounced them to be true”. Besides, he would also comment briefly upon the science of applying or handling the oracles, insofar as it were useful for contemplation and for the whole purification of life.71 The work thus appears as a collection of oracles chosen so as to illustrate different philosophical theories, emended with regard to metre and content, with some discussion about the practical use of the oracles applied to one’s philosophical life and contemplation. A passing remark of Firmicus Maternus suggests that the oracles formed the first part of the book;72 possibly a more coherent discussion followed upon this, the brief discussion about the use of the oracles which Porphyry had announced in the prologue. Of this, however, there are no traces left. The work is intended for those “who after suffering the birth pangs of truth prayed that by receiving the revelation from the gods they might gain respite from the perplexing puzzle through the reliable teaching of the speakers.”73 As Porphyry remarks, “firm and unswerving is only he who derives from here as from the only firm basis his hopes of salvation”.74 Porphyry plays with the usual Platonic topos of secrecy and esotericism, enjoining the imaginary addressee to keep the teaching secret and divulge it only to those who have directed their life toward the pursuit of salvation of the soul.75 The work is intended therefore for people seeking salvation of the soul, who have tried to find it through philosophy but have met only with puzzling

69 Eunapius, VS IV 1,11 – 12. 70 The ordering of the fragments differs between the older edition of Wolff (1856) and the now canonical edition of Smith (1993). Another reconstruction was proposed by Wintjes (2010). See also Johnson (2009). 71 Phil. ex or. frg. 303F Smith: 6nei d³ B paqoOsa sumacycμ pokk_m l³m t_m jat± vikosov_am docl\tym !macqav^m, ¢r oR heo· t!kgh³r 5weim 1h]spisam7 1p’ ak_com d³ ja· t/r wqgstij/r "x|leha pqaclate_ar, Ftir pq|r te tμm heyq_am am^sei ja· tμm %kkgm j\haqsim toO b_ou. 72 Frg. 306F Smith, 10 – 11: in primis enim librorum partibus, id est in ipsis auspiciiis […]. 73 Frg. 303F Smith: Dm d’ 5wei ¡v]keiam B sumacycμ l\kista eUsomtai fsoipeq tμm !k^heiam ¡d_mamter gunamt| pote t/r 1j he_m 1pivame_ar tuw|mter !m\pausim kabe?m t/r !poq_ar di± tμm t_m kec|mtym !ni|pistom didasjak_am. 74 Frg. 303F Smith: B]baior d³ ja· l|milor b 1mteOhem ¢r #m 1j l|mou beba_ou t±r 1kp_dar toO syh/mai !qut|lemor. 75 Frg. 304F Smith. For this topos see Cherlonneix (1992).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

60

First Debates about Theurgy

unsolvable questions.76 As Porphyry puts it, philosophy does not provide the firm ground required; only the divine utterances appear to be reliable enough. That means that philosophy is in need of divine revelation to support and solve its perplexities. Porphyry is thus not speaking to second-class people who cannot practice philosophy and who need another, lesser way to salvation,77 but to philosophers. The Philosophy from Oracles (B 1j koc_ym vikosov_a) can thus be understood as an alternative approach to philosophy beside the traditional approach, using oracles to establish beyond doubt the true philosophical doctrines. His enterprise is akin to the Jewish and Christian insistence that the truth as a whole is not to be found through traditional philosophy but through divine revelation, which alone is true philosophy (!kghμr vikosov_a).78 Regarding, however, the philosophical doctrines derived from the oracles, the reader is disappointed; the Christian writers concentrate upon the oracles in order to prove the base nature of the pagan gods and do not heed Porphyry’s plan or intention. Still, every now and then, a glimpse is possible. Porphyry discussed the pokite_a, the hierarchy of the gods, the questions of true piety (eqs]beia) and the cult of the gods (he_m heqape_a). He spoke at length about daimones, who are presented in a very negative way, and about the means to turn them away and purify one’s body as well as one’s private and cultic surroundings. An oracle about Hecate served to establish the Platonic tripartition of the soul. The problem of divination and truth is treated in several oracles, as well as questions pertaining to the summoning of the gods for oracles – the methods and the attitude of the gods towards such practices. The Christian problem was also explicitly addressed and a clear distinction established between the wisdom of Jesus and the obtuseness of his followers. The topos of the barbarian wise peoples, who unlike the Greek had found the path to the gods was also duly remembered – it nicely fits the mfiance in philosophy Porphyry expressed in the prologue – and connected to the necessity for purificatory sacrifices. To judge from the extant fragments, the “philosophy” derived from oracles had a strong religious penchant, searching for the structure of the spiritual world, discussing purification and sacrifices, oracles and different religious traditions. Insofar, the subjects treated remind 76 Frg. 303F Smith. 77 This view is put forward by Smith (1987) and (2004) or Zambon (2002). 78 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 2 – 8 or Clem. Alex. Strom. I 5, 28 – 32, who takes up the Philonic allegory of Hagar and Sarah. This attitude is connected with another topos of the discourse on philosophy in later antiquity : the emphasis on the insoluble contradictions and strife reigning supreme in Greek philosophy and the need to look elsewhere for solid and pure truth. See e. g. Diod. Sic. II 29, esp. 4 – 6; Tatian, Or. ad. Graecos 3,7 with 32,1 – 2, Clem. Rom. Hom. I, 3, or, in a satirical vein, Lucian, Herm. 64 f or 70, Menippus 4 – 6 or Icaromenippus 5 – 10, where the failure of philosophers to help him in his quest for moral and cosmological certainty leads Menippus to seek truth in the underworld and on Olympus – a parody of the same stance with which Porphyry opens his Philosophy from Oracles.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

61

us of Middle Platonic philosophers such as Plutarch or Numenius, who both discuss the nature and fate of oracular shrines,79 different mystery cults like the one in Eleusis80, or those of Isis81 or Mithras82. The method, however, is radically different, being based on the interpretation of the collected oracles. Thus, while Numenius devotes a treatise to the Good,83 the supreme principle, Porphyry here also establishes the existence of a first God, radically different from all other levels of Being, but not through systematic Platonic reasoning, but by quoting a lengthy oracle on the subject, which also provides him with material for his angelology and for the confirmation of providence.84 In the framework of this conception of philosophy, rituals play an important role. If we are to believe John Philoponus’ testimony, Porphyry seems to have coined the term pqajtijμ heosov_a to encompass them all.85 A lengthy oracle preserved together with Porphyry’s comments describes the right sacrifices for every class of the divine hierarchy. A group of oracles concern exact instructions about the fabrication and ritual perfection of statues, mostly of Hecate, or contain hymns or spells which the gods teach the practitioners. The question of the veridicity of oracles and the methods to obtain them by conjuring the gods to appear are also discussed at length. The practice of conjuring the gods, the fabrication of ritual statues and the presence of Hecate as an oracular goddess remind us of theurgy, as we know it from later authors like Proclus (for whom see below, ch. 5). Moreover, the highly philosophical oracle about the utterly remote highest god and his angels, or the oracle where Hecate presents herself as the Ensouler of the whole cosmos, recall the Chaldean Oracles. But we must also keep Graf ’s caution in mind: it may also simply be the same theological koine of otherwise separate oracle collections. The use of the term s}lbokom, which recurs in the explanation of sacrifice as well as in the discussion of statues also has parallels in theurgical texts. So the question arises whether we can here speak of theurgy and of a Chaldean influence; to answer it, we will look at the rituals mentioned in the text.

79 Cf. Plutarch’s De Pythiae oraculis or De defectu oraculorum. 80 Cf. Numenius, frg. 55 des Places. 81 Cf. Plutarch’s treatise De Iside et Osiride; Numenius frg. 53 des Places (Origen, CCels V 38) mentions a work treating the subject of Serapis. See des Places (1973), 21 – 23 on Numenius’ Orientalism. 82 See Turcan (1975) 14 – 22 and 62 – 89. 83 Frg. 1 – 22 des Places. 84 Frg. 325F Smith. 85 Frg. 340aF Smith; see also van Liefferinge (1999), 184 f.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

62

First Debates about Theurgy

3.2.1.2 Sacrifice In the oracle about sacrifice,86 Apollo instructs the inquirer how to sacrifice to the different classes of gods – earthly, heavenly, aerial, marine and netherworldly deities. The sacrifices for each class follow the established ideal patterns of Greek religion.87 Light-coloured victims are designed for the heavenly gods, dark victims for the chthonic entities. The description of sacrifices starts with the gods of the netherworld and proceeds until the heavenly and astral gods. The victims for the infernal deities are to be buried in a pit and then slaughtered with libations of honey and wine – reminiscent of Odysseus’ sacrifice in the Nekyia.88 The gods of the air receive offerings of birds that are burned upon the altars with libations of honey, offerings of flour, barley-groats and incense. Sacrifices to marine gods are to take place on the shore, sea-water is sprinkled on the head of the victim and the body is to be thrown into the sea. Finally, the astral and heavenly gods receive the accustomed sacrifices of victims slaughtered at the altar, burnt thighs and roasted meat to be presumably eaten up by the participants while the gods feast on the smell. The prayer which was to accompany the sacrifice is not preserved. As Johnston notes, the oracle does not give a systematic structure of the divine world, but only contents itself to indicate the general principle of appropriate sacrifices.89 The interesting aspect of the sacrificial instructions is that the distinct sacrifices seem to be at least in part connected. This is suggested e. g. by the phrase “when you have finished all this, go to the wide choir of the airy heavenly,” which connects the sacrifice for the marine gods with that of the heavenly gods. Is this an injunction for real practice, or do we have here a 86 Frg. 314F Smith. See the recent discussion by Johnston (2010b). 87 For the ideal-type distinction between chthonian and Olympian sacrifice formulated first by Plato, Nomoi 717a–b and its actual relevance and applicability see the skeptical position of Schlesier (1997), 1188 f versus Scullion (1994); the distinction between two clear-cut types of sacrifices was cogently challenged by Ekroth (2002) with regard to hero cult (see esp. 310 – 325 and 341). For a more comprehensive recent discussion see the essays in Hägg/Alroth (2005), and especially the article of Auffarth therein, who shows that although not strictly insisted upon in the actual performance of the rather loose and poorly institutionalised Greek ritual, the distinction chthonian-Olympian was known and could be alluded to and employed e. g. in drama (19 f). Johnston (2010b) also not only shows how Porphyry engaged in an endeavour to impose philosophical systematic categories upon religious phenomena, but also demonstrates that this impetus to ascertain the different types of sacrifice which can be grasped also in the oracle which Porphyry quotes, albeit not in the rigid form which Porphyry develops in his interpretation, is eventually rooted in Greek religion: “And yet, Apollo’s words should caution us as well, for they suggest that the existence of transcendent categories […] was not anathema to Greek religious outlook: […] Rather, the categories, such as they are, emerge organically from a discourse that is primarily aimed at guaranteeing that the gods receive what they require.” (130). 88 See Busine (2005), 166. 89 (2010b), 121.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

63

purely literary picture of an ideal sacrifice encompassing various unnamed divine addressees? The literary character of such “oracles thologiques”, in the terminology of Nock,90 should make us cautious here, as should the decided turn to religious archaisms and particularly to Homer, which Busine has noted as a basic characteristic for the imperial Apollinian oracles.91 Read in this light, the Philosophy from Oracles resembles the Chaldean Oracles, even though the content is radically different, oriented more towards a synthesis of traditional practices than towards esoteric sacrifices of strange stones. In discussing the significance of this oracle,92 Porphyry points to the basic principle that the like rejoices in the like, interpreting the characteristics of the different sacrificial victims as symbols.93 The sacrificial victims as symbols here have a twofold function, referential and representational on the one hand, efficacious on the other, insofar as they influence a specific class of gods. Nevertheless, the concept of symbol here lacks the cosmic and soteriological aspects which we find in the Chaldean Oracles.

3.2.1.3 Statues The concept of symbol appears again in connection with another group of ritual prescriptions, namely the fashioning of cultic images. The images involved represent Hecate,94 making us think of the statue of Hecate attested in connection with theurgic practices for Maximus of Ephesus;95 they present strikingly different options as to form and material. Frg. 318 reminds us of prescriptions referring to the creation of sacred images in the Greek magical papyri: the materials used for the consecration are wild rue, ‘adorned’ with domestic lizards.96 The statue is to be ritually perfected (teke?m, a term typical 90 Nock (1928). See also Athanassiadi (1992), and Graf (2010) for the impossibility to connect the literary productions safely with a ‘real’ oracle and a cultic setting. 91 Busine (2005), 160 – 169; however, she connects these Apollinian oracles with a real cultic background and understands them as the product of the “prÞtres hellnophones de l’Empire romain” (167) attempting a “nouvelle forme pure du culte paen, centre sur la prire et la contemplation” (170). 92 Frg. 315F Smith. 93 Cf. Johnston (2010b), 125. 94 Frg. 317F, 319F, 320F. Frg. 318F, which describes the appearance of Pan, does not directly relate to the making of a concrete statue. 95 For Maximus making the statue of Hecate in her temple move, smile and light her torches see Eunapius VS VII 2, 7 – 11. For the theurgic ritual of statue animation see Johnston (2008a). 96 )kk± t]kei n|amom, jejahaql]mom ¦r se did\ny. pgc\mou 1n !cq_ou d]slar po_ei, Ad’ 1pij|slei f]oisim kepto?si, jatoijid_oir jakab~tair. sl}qmgr ja· st}qajor kib\moi| te l_clata tq_xar s»m je_moir f]oir, ja· rpaihqi\sar rp¹ l^mgm aunousam, t]kei aqt¹r 1peuw|lemor t^md’ eqw^m. eWt’ 1n]dyjem eqw^m, 1d_dan] te, p|sour kgpt]om !sjakab~tar7

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

64

First Debates about Theurgy

for the ritual perfection of an object intended for ritual use in the PGM97) by anointing it with a mixture of myrrh, styrax, incense all ground together with the lizards; the anointing must take place under the waxing moon and is accompanied by a certain prayer which Hecate gave in the lost subsequent part of the oracle. The injunction is to use three lizards, as many as there are forms of the goddess. The statuette is to be placed in a shrine made of laurel; frequent prayer to it leads to dream visions of Hecate. Here Hecate appears as the nocturnal goddess (the ritual of anointing the statue takes place under the moon). Although the traditional word for wooden cult image, n|amom, is used, the choice of materials remains unspecified (at least if we accept the conjecture !cq_ou d]slar for !cq_oio d]lar). The mixture she is to be rubbed with is as fanciful as the recipes in the PGM. We do not learn anything about the form of the statuette or the attributes Hecate is made to bear. As in the Chaldean Oracles we encounter indeterminacy : we are not told how much exactly one must pray to ensure the dream vision. Another statue of Hecate is described in frg. 319F. There she specifies the form and the attributes. The form is to be that of Demeter, dressed in white robes and with golden sandals on her feet – the typical habit of Greek goddesses. Around her girdle two long snakes spring forth, hanging from her head to her feet and winding around her. For this more traditional statue Hecate recommends either Parian marble or ivory, which both belong to the traditional repertoire of Greek cultic sculpture.98 The use of this statue is not specified. The last mention of an image of Hecate appears in Porphyry’s comments: it is made of tri-coloured wax99, white, black and red, bearing the imprint of Hecate with a whip, a torch and a sword, around whom a snake coils. To confirm this, he uses an oracle given by Pan; however, this oracle mentions in addition to the above-named attributes also the key, an important attribute of Hecate both in her public cults in Asia Minor (Lagina or Miletus) and in the fssai loqva_ loi, t|ssoir f]oir se jeke}y ja· sv|dqa taOta teke?m7 d\vmgr d] loi aqtocem]hkou oUjou 1loO w~qgla poie?m. ja· !c\klati pokk¹m je_m\ 1peuw|lemor di’ vpmym 1l³ d?am !hq^seir Wolff (1856), 130, n. 10 follows Scaliger’s conjecture !cq_ou d]slar for !cq_oio d]lar and can thus assign the wild rue to the material used for the purification and consecration of a statuette of unspecified material. His reconstruction of the text is given above. Smith opts for the manuscript reading d]lar, which would give the meaning “make a body out of wild rue”. Given that rue is a herb and cannot be possibly used for a statuette which has to bear anointing I prefer Scaliger’s conjecture which would lead to bundles of wild rue possibly attached to the statuette. If Smith’s text is followed, we arrive at a ‘statue’ of Hecate as a mixture of the ingredients (Haluszka (2008), 487, Johnston (2010a), 415 f). 97 E.g. IV 788 f; 1700; IV 2390 f; V 231 and 243 – 245. See Haluszka (2008) for a discussion of the consecration and roles of statues and engraved images in the PGM. 98 See e. g. Mylonopoulos (2010), 9. However, a statuette of this type seems to have no archaeological counterpart (see Sarian (1992), 1018). 99 For wax as an ingredient for divine images in the PGM see Haluszka (2008), 484 and 488.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

65

Orphic hymns, where she is invoked as the key-bearer of the cosmos.100 The use of this image is not specified; Porphyry’s comment suggests that the wax with the imprint bearing the symbola of Hecate might have had an apotropaic use, as it is mentioned along with the symbols of heaven, starfish, that are to be riveted to the doors – possibly to ward off evil. The three statues are thus very different, corresponding to the many facets of Hecate in the Late Antique world. They use attributes that are traditionally associated with Hecate – the torch, the key, the whip, the snakes and the sword. Later Roman representations of Hecate show a three-bodied or three-headed goddess bearing all the attributes mentioned;101 as these representations span 100 See Orph. hymn. 1. The key of Hecate was apparently carried in procession at her most important cult site in Lagina; the function of jkeidov|qor appears frequently in inscriptions and seems to have been one of considerable prestige. See e. g. the inscriptions 17, 227, 235, 237, 1430 f, 1433, 1435 – 1437 or 1439 f S¸ahin and also (Kraus) 1960, 48 – 50. 101 E.g. the bronze statuette of a triple Hecate in the Museo Capitolino in Rome, nr. 1 in Mitropoulos (1978) (torch, key, snake and something resembling a hammer ; a different interpretation by Werth (2005), 331 (nr. 79), who rejects the hammer and identifies a rope and a dagger beside the torches, key and snake). See Mitropoulos (1978), 31 and 65. A free-standing marble Hecateion from the 2nd–3rd cent. AD preserved in Cortona features the two torches, a whip, a snake, a dagger and a key (nr. 111 Werth, p. 347). Another medium on which the attributes appear are magical gems, see nr. 45 – 47 Mitropoulos and nr. 247 – 263 and 266, 268, 270, 272, 278 – 281 Werth. Nr. 276 Werth describes a bronze bell with a triple Hecate with torches, whips and daggers, flanked by stars and a snake, used probably for magical purposes. Of particular importance are the two divinatory bronze tablets listed by Werth as nr. 265 and 269 which date to the late Roman period. The first, described in detail by Wünsch, who connected it to an Orphic context, features three single female deities in the corners bearing the attributes of Hecate, as well as magical spells and invocation of Hecate. Beneath each figure the title “Amibousa” is found, and each bears an individual name: Dione, Phoibie, Nychie. The other one bears the three female figures and in the fourth corner a tripleheaded figure with a whip and a torch; below it the inscription “Amibousa” and above it “Dione”. Hecate appears here as a changing goddess, combining celestial and diurnal aspects with nocturnal ones. The importance of the tablets is their divinatory use, which is the only explicit instance of a connection between Hecate and divination apart from the literary oracles found in the Chaldean collection or in Porphyry. The above-mentioned attributes appear not only on statuettes or magical items, but also on marble reliefs, e. g. a relief for Thrace from the 2nd century AD (nr. 11 Mitropoulos, nr. 238 Werth, with torches, a snake and a sword), a relief from Tomis from the same period (nr. 22 Mitropoulos, nr. 204 Werth) with torches, sword, whip, pomegranate flowers and phiale, a relief from Dacian Sucidava from the early 2nd century AD (nr. 57 Mitropoulos, nr. 192 Werth: torch, whip, sword) a marble relief from the 2nd–3rd century AD from Sconoscinta with torches, hammer, whip, sword, snake (nr. 58 Mitropoulos, nr. 207 Werth), a base relief from the same period kept in Bucharest, featuring snake, sword, torch and hammer, or a relief from Istanbul with torches, snake, sword, key and whip, dated to Roman times (nr. 26 Mitropoulos, nr. 221 Werth). The attributes listed by Porphyry can even be found on coins. Thus, a bronze coin from Karian Antiochia dating from the mid-third century AD (nr. 33 Mitropoulos, nr. 306 Werth) features the three-bodied goddess with torches, whip, sword, key and another unidentified object. Similar coins are described as nr. 34 – 38, 40, 42 and 43 Mitropoulos, listed as nr. 295 – 296, 303, 307, 308, 314 – 316 by Werth, who additionally gives another instance of a coin, nr. 304. The appearance of these attributes in representations of Hecate seems to be a phenomenon of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

66

First Debates about Theurgy

a wide range of media, from magical instruments to public reliefs and statues or coins, the assumption that the whip, sword and snake underline the terrifying, magical, dark aspect of Hecate is mistaken.102 Porphyry’s oracles and their prescriptions were not composed out of the blue, but did draw on existing religious practice, ranging from magical concoctions to statues fashioned out of traditional materials and bearing traditional forms, which are found in public and private media alike. All three images seem to be intended not for public worship, but for private use, e. g. dream divination. This can be taken to illustrate the flexibility of the rituals envisaged in Porphyry’s oracles: apart from oracular shrines and their statuary, the practitioner can “construct a small place” (in J. Z. Smith’s apt phrase103) and receptacle of the divine and thus establish contact with the gods anywhere when needed.

3.2.1.4 Waqajt/qer and sacred space Not only sacred tri-dimensional images are discussed in Porphyry’s collection of oracles, but also the ‘characters’, signs which are used in divination to conjure the gods. They are discussed by Porphyry and Iamblichus in their debate about theurgy, while Eusebius relegates them to the domain of magic.104 Again, it is Hecate who according to Porphyry reveals in an enigmatic oracle that the gods delight in these characters, by comparing the desires of the gods to those of the mortals: Which mortal does not desire to be joined with the characters of bronze and gold and gleaming silver? Who again does not delight in these characters, standing atop of which, gathering together into one the multiplicity of men, fastening them together he […]?105

102 103

104 105

Roman times, judging from the examples in Sarian (1992) (LIMC VI, 1), 997, 1001, 1002 f and 1010 f. The use on such different media, ranging from private magical devices to public reliefs and coins mirrors precisely the wide-ranging religiosity, encompassing practices from ‘magic’ to public religion, which is mirrored by the gods and oracles of Porphyry’s Philosophy. See for this assumption e. g. Fauth (2006), 116 – 117. Smith (1998) on the miniaturization of ritual space in later Antiquity ; his title is “Constructing a Small Place”. See esp. 25 – 28 for the construction of ritual space in the PGM, which closely resembles the matters discussed here. De myst. III 13, Eus. PE V 15, 4 (commenting on this passage of Porphyry’s Phil. ex or.). Frg. 321 F Smith, 6 – 9: T_r bqot¹r oq pep|hgje waqajt/qar ap\sashai wakjoO ja· wqusoO ja· !qc}qou aQck^emtor; t_r d³ t\d’ oq vik]ei t_m dμ jah}peqhem 1vest~r, eQr 4m !ceiq|lemor eUqym pokulo_q´a vyt_m; Different conjectures have been proposed for the problematic last line. Here I follow the text given by Smith (eQr 4m !ceiq|lemor eUqym pokulo_q´a vyt_m;), who in his turn follows the conjecture of Mras of eUqym for the eUqy of the manuscripts. This emendation would leave the oracle incomplete, as the predicate of the last sentence would be missing. Another possibility

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

67

Whatever the original meaning of the oracle was, Porphyry offers an interesting explanation: the gods cannot be borne by earth as such, but only by holy earth (c/ Req\), made holy through the image of the god (eQj~m). Once that image is destroyed, the gods recede, because there is nothing able to hold them back.106 Holiness here has a very compelling aspect: the divine image makes earth holy and capable of holding the divine by force.

3.2.1.5 Conjuration and divine possession Conjuring divine beings and binding them by force in order to obtain oracles is an issue that is discussed at length in the Philosophy from Oracles. The gods are summoned either to appear by the use of characters, as noted above, or to enter into a medium – here we approach the “mediumistic trance” which Dodds (1951) considered central to theurgy. Thus, Serapis is summoned to enter the body of a medium (frg. 306F).107 Again, in frg. 339 F somebody asks to be possessed by a god and learns that he first has to perform certain apotropaic rites (termed lace?ai in the oracle) in order to overcome the bounds set on him by nature, which Porphyry equates with fate. The possession of a medium is also discussed in frg. 349F, where the terminus technicus dowe}r is used (349F, 5, see also 350F, 19). Porphyry explains the divine possession by a descending spirit (pmeOla), an “emanation of the heavenly power”, which “entering into an instrumental and ensouled body and using the soul as a basis, renders a voice through the body as through an instrument”.108 At a certain point, the medium cannot longer hold the god, who longs to be set free (frg. 350F). The procedures used to set the god free are sometimes alluded to; they consist of the removal of the ritual objects that the medium bore (Egyptian linen cloth, crown, twig held in the medium’s right hand; according to Porphyry, they effected the resemblance of the god) and of the ritual diagrams designed to keep the god in place.109 The prostrate medium is propped up and his face is rubbed (350F). Other fragments speak of a presence of the gods without mentioning a

106 107

108 109

would be the more elaborate emendation by Wolff (1856), 137, n. 6: eQr 4m’ 1ceiq|lemor t¹m 5qy pok»m 5qmesi vyt_m (“incited to one and the same overwhelming love as the offspring of men”). Yet another possibility is the emendation by Cougny (1890), who gives the oracle in his appendix to the Anthologia Graeca, cap. VI 200, 505 with notes on 550: T_r d³ t\d’oq vik]ei; t_m d^, jah}peqhem 1vest_s’ /eQr 4m !ceiqol]mym, eUqy pokulo_qea vyt_m […], which would put Hecate herself atop the signs. All reconstructions must leave the last sentence incomplete. Phil. ex or. frg. 321F Smith. 306 F Smith, 12 f: Serapis vocatus et intra corpus hominis conlatus talia respondit (Latin translation of Firmicus Maternus, who points out the inferiority of a god that can be coerced at will). Frg. 349F, 12 – 16. See the oracles in frg. 350F.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

68

First Debates about Theurgy

medium. Thus, Hecate, presenting herself as the Ensouler of the world, appears and allows herself to be fettered– the exact method is not clear (frg. 308F). Asclepius comes to answer an oracular enquiry (312F); Hermes, too, appears upon an invocation (313F). In frg. 329, a pqov^tgr tries to obtain a direct vision of Apollo but is hindered by the presence of a daimon who must be appeased first by sacrifice and prayer, as Apollo instructs him. There appear to be different stages of contact with the god in this oracle, as the pqov^tgr is able to converse with Apollo before obtaining the aqtox_a. The pqov^tgr is one of the traditional cultic functions at the Delphic shrine;110 here, however, not the Delphic divination is envisaged, but a closer and more flexible contact with the god, allowing multiple questions and leading to the immediate vision. The same form of dialogue with the divine appears in frg. 330F, where Apollo instructs the practitioner to call upon certain gods jk^sesim !vh]cjtoir, “with ineffable invocations, which the best of the magicians discovered, the master of the seven sounds, whom all know;” the inquirer asks, just to make sure, whether the god means Ostanes, which is then confirmed: “surely I do (mean him), and for each god utter the invocation always seven times.” The gods themselves derive their foreknowledge from the stars, so that they can be called “elite magicians and horoscope casters” (frg. 331F and 330F). The problem of oracular mistakes is also explained by the influence of the stars: when the Olympian gods, the descendants of Kronos and Rhea, descend to their oracular shrines and their images to give oracles, they fall under the sway of the stars, the gods who rule the sublunar world (frg. 337F, see also 340 – 341F). The gods themselves warn that they shall speak falsely on account of the conjunction of the stars if the rite is continued, or they refuse to speak; the responsibility for the false oracle lies with the people who foolishly (di± tμm !lah_am) force them to speak anyway (341F–342F). The conjurations of the gods into immediate presence or the manifestation through a medium all function through the use of constraint on the part of the practitioners. )m\cjg, necessity, and b_a, force, occur repeatedly in the oracles and comments of Porphyry together with their cognates; the oracular fragments sometimes talk about the “fettering” of the gods.111 The spells used to conjure the gods are termed 1p\macjoi, constraining spells, by Porphyry112 or simply “necessities”, !m\cjai,113 sometimes qualified in the oracles as hei|daloi !m\cjai, always used in the dative as a stereotype formula useful for filling the hexameter.114 Such rituals of invocation feature mainly “ineffable words (or verses)” designed to charm the gods (%qqgta 5pg, frg. 347,22 and 349,4; cf. 341aF, 14), of prayers (347, 25); chants (349,4). Ritual actions are also 110 111 112 113 114

Cf. Burkert (2004) (ThesCRA III 6.a. Divination, gr. C 1 vii) 28 f. Frg. 308F, 21; 347, 42. E.g. frg. 341aF, 4; 342F, 18; 348, 2. Frg. 347F, 29 and 39. The oracles in question are 342F, 21 – 23 and 347F, 28 – 29, 37 – 41.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

69

alluded to: in frg. 347,31, the heavenly gods are said to be dragged to earth by using the “ineffable Uuccer”, which here appear to mean not metaphysical entities, but ritual instruments, the magical wheels. Again, in frg. 348, 7 – 10 the utterance of words is accompanied by the “compression of pure fire by holy blows” – a ritual striking of the fire? Close observation of the oracles enables Porphyry to support the position of a certain Pythagoras of Rhodes, namely that the gods come against their will, swept away by a certain necessity of causal connection. Some accept their fate and form a habit of appearing, even more so, if they are benign, some try by all means to harm the practitioners and watch for opportunities if somebody handles the ritual all too carelessly.115 Nevertheless, and this forms the great ambiguity of Porphyry’s position, all the forms of cult, including the rituals of constraint, have been given to mankind by the gods themselves: Not only have they indicated the structure of their realm and all the other things we mentioned, but they also suggested what things they find pleasure in and are mastered through, and surely also by what things they are compelled, what one must sacrifice and which day to avoid, and also how the form of the statues should be fashioned, in what shapes they themselves appear and what sort of places they frequent. And on the whole, there is not one thing that men did not first learn from the gods and then honoured them accordingly.116

The key term for this divine transmission of cult in Porphyry’s comments is 1jdid|mai, ‘hand over, deliver’, which implies giving out something belonging to one’s sphere of authority or possession (e. g. to give a daughter away in marriage, to give a son for adoption, for a woman also to give birth).117 The aspects of cult which he lists here show a broadly inclusive approach; no difference is made between the various sacrifices, and the normative dichotomy between (acceptable) religion and (inacceptable) magic, which would be suggested by exercising constraint over and master the gods, is not brought into play. In another fragment, Porphyry bluntly states that lace_a has been given (here the simple did|mai is used) by the gods to mankind as a means to overcome fate.118 There is no real distinction between legitimate and 115 Frg. 347F. 116 Frg. 316F, 3 – 11: Oq l|mom d³ tμm pokite_am aqt_m aqto· lelgm}jasim ja· t± %kka t± eQqgl]ma, !kk± ja· t_si wa_qousi ja· jqatoOmtai rpgc|qeusam, ja· lμm ja· t_sim !macj\fomtai, t_ma te d³ de? h}eim ja· 1j po_ar Bl]qar 1jtq]peshai, t| te sw/la t_m !cakl\tym potap¹m de? poie?m, aqto_ te po_oir sw^lasim va_momtai 5m te po_oir diatq_bousi t|poir7 ja· fkyr 4m oqd]m 1stim d lμ paq’ aqt_m lah|mter %mhqypoi ovtyr aqto»r 1t_lgsam. Cf. also Hecate’s oracle in frg. 347F, 25 – 26: “I came hearing your wise prayer, which the nature of the mortals discovered through the suggestions of the gods.” 117 9jdid|mai is used by Porphyry for sacrifices (frg. 315F, 4), the prayer used to perfect the statue of Hecate and the instructions about her divine images (317F 10 and 16), a hymn given by Pan on himself (318F, 10), spells of constraint, exemplified by the one Apollo gives for himself (348F, 2 – 4). 118 Frg. 339F, 9 – 11: “[…] magic was given by the gods for the solving of the workings of fate, so

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

70

First Debates about Theurgy

illegitimate rituals, even though Porphyry maintains that the gods resent being coerced. The manipulation of the gods is not simply effected by coercion, but by peiham\cjg, coercion disguised as pleasurable persuasion,119 an oxymoron that well grasps the ambivalent nature of the ritual conjuration of divine presence which Porphyry describes by his mosaic of oracular fragments. 3.2.1.6 Purification A last group of rituals that needs to be discussed are rituals of purification, which are discussed in close connection with the evil daimones in Porphyry’s comments. These evil material daimones are literally everywhere. They are under the rule of Sarapis-Pluto and Hecate, who can hold them in check and reveal the s}lboka through which the daimones can be expelled.120 The daimones fill temples, houses and the bodies of men alike, to which they are attracted through the use of blood and other impure foods; they instil in men longing for such things and make them behave unseemly, causing flatulence and belching. In order to conduct holy rites properly, either in temples or in private houses, Porphyry enjoins that the place must be previously purified from daimones through preliminary rites, after the custom of the Egyptians, Phoenicians and other people endowed with wisdom about the gods; for the body, periods of fasting are necessary to drive the daimones away.121 that this [i.e. fate] may be turned aside as much as possible”. For magic as a gift from the gods in Greek and Roman religion see Graf (1996), 85 f. Cf. also the Egyptian idea that ‘magic’ is a divine art, practiced and given by the gods and thus divinely sanctioned (Ritner (1995)). This positive view of magic, which was propagated also by the ‘translators’ and interpreters of Egyptian religion for the Hellenistic public (Chaeremon in Porph. ep. ad Aneb. 2, 8c Sodano; part of frg. 4 with n. 3 van der Horst), reflects itself in Greco-Roman texts showing Isis as the mistress of magic (e. g. Lucian, Philops. 34, where the renowned Egyptian magician Pancrates is said to have been taught by her). 119 Other occurrences of peiham\cjg stress the latter part: the term is used for situations of force majeure and duress, it can also be used as an euphemism for torture (see the examples given in LSJ). Porphyry seems to envisage a more literal meaning, as he quotes oracles which address the more subtle form of coercion by use of incantations and spells pleasurable to the gods (347F, 19 – 23 and 25 – 26). 120 In frg. 326F Porphyry presents Sarapis as the ruler of daimones; in frg. 327F he again describes Sarapis as the ruler of the “evil daimon in the three elements, water, earth and air”, which are symbolised by the three-headed dog (Cerberus) and associates Hecate with him in this function. For Hecate as ruler of the daimones see the oracle preserved in 320F (l. 23). Hecate is presented as the goddess of nature bearing the triple sumh^lata of nature; her breed of black dogs is equated by Porphyry with the evil daimones (frg. 328F; oracles and Eusebian paraphrase of Porphyry’s comment on the dogs). 121 Frg. 326F, 14 – 26. See also frg. 329F, where Apollo instructs the seeker of a direct divine vision to first appease the chthonic daimon by a sacrifice and prayer ; the oracle fragment speaks of the “venerable denizen of the fatherly earth”, while Porphyry’s comment again turns him unceremoniously into the “evil daimon”. Here one can observe well his tendency to view the chthonic realm as a whole as negative.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

71

3.2.1.7 Oriental wisdom The mention of Egyptians and Phoenicians leads us again to the questions that arose from the prologue. These peoples surrounded in Late Antiquity by an old aura of exotic and hidden wisdom, especially concerning religion, are the only authorities Porphyry quotes in his Philosophy from Oracles apart from the gods themselves and the brief mention of the otherwise unknown specialist in magic, Pythagoras of Rhodes, noted above. No traditional Greek philosopher seems to have been mentioned, as far as one can judge from the fragments, which shows again how Porphyry explicitly distances himself from Greek philosophy in his quest for truth in this work. The difference between the wise barbarians, who have found and kept the way to the gods, and the Greeks who lost it, is illustrated in Porphyry’s exegesis of an Apollinian oracle: Steep is the road to the blessed and extremely rugged, opened up first by gates with bronze fittings. No god could number its paths. The first mortals who revealed them for never-ending labour were those who drink the sweet water of the land around the Nile. The Phoenicians too have learnt many ways of the blessed, the Assyrians, the Lydians and the race of Hebrew men.122

So far Apollo. Porphyry interprets him in the following manner : Have you heard how great a toil it takes to perform the purification sacrifices for the body, let alone to discover the salvation of the soul? The road to the gods is bronzebound, steep and rugged, whose many paths the barbarians discovered, the Greek lost, and the ones in power already thoroughly destroyed. The god assigned their discovery in his testimony to the Egyptians, the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans (for these are the Assyrians), the Lydians and Hebrews.123

This interpretation is supported by two other oracular fragments about the wisdom of the Chaldeans and Hebrews as the only peoples who have worshipped the true god.124 The first fragment is quoted by Ps.-Justin.125 The 122 Frg. 323F, 8 – 14: AQpeimμ l³m bd¹r laj\qym tqgwe?\ te pokk|m, wakjod]toir t± pq_ta dioicol]mg puke_sim7 !tqapito· d³ 5asim !h]svatoi 1ccecau?ai, $r pq_toi leq|pym 1p’ !pe_qoma pq/nim 5vgmam oR t¹ jak¹m p_momter vdyq Meik~tidor aUgr7 pokk±r ja· Vo_mijer bdo»r laj\qym 1d\gsam, )ss}qioi Kudo_ te ja· :bqa_ym c]mor !mdq_m. 123 Frg. 324F, 2 – 9: )j^joar p|sor p|mor, Vm’ rp³q s~lat|r tir t± jah\qsia h}s,, oqw fti t/r xuw/r tμm sytgq_am 1ne}qoi; wakj|detor c±q B pq¹r heo»r bd|r, aQpeim^ te ja· tqawe?a, Hr pokk±r !tqapo»r b\qbaqoi l³m 1neOqom, þkkgmer d³ 1pkam^hgsam, oR d³ jqatoOmter Edg ja· di]vheiqam. tμm d³ evqesim AQcupt_oir b he¹r 1laqt}qgse Vo_min_ te ja· Wakda_oir ()ss}qioi c±q oxtoi), Kudo?r te ja· :bqa_oir. 124 Frg. 324F, 11 – 12 and 15 – 18. 125 Cohort. ad Graecos 12 and 24.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

72

First Debates about Theurgy

thrust of the fragments situates them in the milieu of Jewish propaganda and apologetics; the close connection and sometimes identification between Hebrews and Chaldeans which they display, is found in Jewish writers and is taken over by Christian authors; after all, the Bible tells us that Abraham was a Chaldean.126 A nice example for this sort of literary production is the Jewish imitation of an Orphic poem which ran by the name Diah/jai in Jewish and Christian writers.127 The stance of Porphyry is clear : the barbarians have not lost sight of the ways to the divine, whereas the Greeks have gone astray – the topos of barbarian wisdom is part of the Orientalism that was so widespread in the Roman Empire.128 It is important that Porphyry takes up the metaphor of the oracle and speaks of one main road with many side paths; the traditions of the different barbarian cultures are seen as valid autonomous ways as such, without the need to merge them all into one single exclusive way ; this should be kept in mind for the later discussion of Augustine’s contention that Porphyry sought a via universalis animae liberandae in the treatise on the Return of the Soul. 3.2.1.8 Oracles and oracle collections In the Philosophy from Oracles Porphyry has thus collected oracles of different provenance and fitted them into his framework of thought, superimposing on them a meta-level of interpretation. These oracles show a bewildering variety of practices in between the PGM and traditional public oracular shrines. There is a marked tendency to extend the sphere of oracular activity and thus the availability of direct contact with the divine and access to privileged information to deities that were not traditionally primarily perceived as oracular, e. g. Pan, Hermes, Sarapis or Hecate. The private oracles use different rituals to bring about the direct presence of the gods, either in direct visions or through divine possession; they try to create the conditions for a continued dialogue with the divine, allowing for immediate reaction and response on both the practitioner’s and the god’s side – and thus getting the desired information in one single ritual, which would otherwise have necessitated, say, repeated visits to Delphi or Didyma. The rituals employed function as a kind of shortcut to the divine, bypassing public sanctuaries and their comparatively rigid schedules and procedures and enabling the performers to establish the contact with the divine anywhere and anytime, creating a sacred sphere wherever necessary into which the gods can enter. The rituals presented and used by Porphyry share with later theurgic rituals this flexibility and the 126 Tanaseanu-Döbler (2010a), 26 f. 127 The Jewish poem was modelled very closely upon an Orphic hieros logos; its opening lines are found in the poem quoted by the Derveni papyrus. For the successive stages of Jewish and Christian redactions see Riedweg (1993), 44 – 55 and 62. 128 See e. g. Baltes (1999) for the Platonic tradition in which Porphyry stands, or Jeck (2004), 21 – 142 for an overview of the most important Greek texts of Orientalising Platonism.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

73

directness of contact with the sacred, as noticed and described by Johnston (1997 and 2010a). Yet we have no allusion to the Chaldean Oracles and to the practices alluded to therein, moreover, there is no mention of the term “theurgy” and Porphyry appears to have employed the phrase pqajtijμ heosov_a as a handy term to denote them.129 On the other hand, the fragments of the Oracles which we have do not envisage the constraint on the gods exercised in the Porphyrian fragments. We can view the rituals Porphyry describes on a par with the rituals presented by the Chaldean Oracles and with the ones described in the PGM; all these sources form related and yet distinct collections of private ritual practices for contact with the divine, so that their relationship may be best described with Wittgenstein as different family resemblances. 3.2.1.9 Hecate What about Hecate? As could already be seen, many of the oracles discussed feature Hecate in various poses. She appears as the mistress of chthonic daimones together with Sarapis, daimones associated with the v}sir of the lower elements, bearing the triple sumh^lata of nature, but also as the celestial ensouler of the world;130 the combination of these aspects in the first Orphic hymn as well as in the representations of the two divinatory tablets described above show that this ambivalence has its parallels in other religious phenomena of the late Roman period. After all, the portrayal of Hecate as ruler of earth, sea and air has its roots as far back as in Hesiod’s Theogony.131 Her cult images show this diversity in their forms, attributes and materials; the comparison with the archeological material shows that Porphyry, or more exactly his source material, does not innovate, but rather draws on a broad range of possible aspects of Hecate in late Roman religion. Even the divinatory aspect can be compared with the major role assigned to Hecate on two divinatory tablets; the innovation of Porphyry’s material would be to let Hecate herself speak directly, which can be understood in the light of the emergence of new private practices allowing the direct contact with, in principle, any deity except the highest god. The Hecate of the Philosophy from Oracles appears therefore to be firmly anchored in the religious ideas and practices of the late Roman period and need not be derived from the Chaldean Oracles. The conclusion that we reached concerning the relationship of the rituals collected in the Philosophy from Oracles with theurgy, i. e. the practices alluded to in the Chaldean Oracles, hold true for the Porphyrian and Chaldean representations of Hecate: both are close, but nevertheless distinct accentua129 See van Liefferinge (1999), 184 f, who signals the closeness of Porphyry’s ‘theosophy’ to Iamblichus’ ‘theurgy’. 130 Frg. 308F Smith, 16 – 21. 131 Theogony 413 – 414, cf. Fauth (2006), 1 – 4.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

74

First Debates about Theurgy

tions of the same common material. This can be shown by a closer look at the text of the Porphyrian oracle which stresses Hecate’s celestial character : Never has the divine Hecate among the immortal gods announced anything idle or unfulfilled to the wise who converse with the gods, but coming down from almighty Intellect, from the Father, she shines brightly in truth and around her prudent wisdom stands firm, mounted on unbreakable oracles. Now fetter me with a bond, as you bring me hither, such a great goddess as to be able to ensoul the highest cosmos.132

Here we find language that is close to that of the Chaldean Oracles: Hecate is situated in the heavens, in the proximity of the Intellect, and associated with a Father, seemingly a high deity ; her function is to infuse the cosmos with soul and life. But there the resemblance ends: the binding of the goddess has no parallels in the Oracles. Not the heouqco_, but the heov/tai, the wise who converse with the gods, are the recipients of the goddess’ revelation; to judge from a TLG search, the term is again a neologism which does not point with certainty to any distinctive religious group of the late antique Mediterranean.

3.2.2 The Letter to Anebo The Letter to Anebo, surviving only in a very fragmentary state, can be viewed in many respects as the opposite of the Philosophy from Oracles. In it Porphyry addresses an “Egyptian” priest called Anebo in order to obtain a clear solution to his apparently insoluble problems concerning different aspects of religious practice.133 The topos of the firm wisdom of barbarian peoples versus the uncertainties and contradictions of Greek philosophy is played out masterly, and at the end turned into its very opposite: after reviewing all sorts of problems pertaining to cult, of which the Egyptian priest appears as an 132 Frg. 308F Smith, 16 – 21: Oqd³m 1m !ham\toisi heo?r pote d?a l\taiom oqd’ !jq\amtom 5kene sovo?r :j\tg heov^tair, !kk’ !p¹ pacjqat´qoio m|ou patq|hem jatioOsa aQ³m !kghe_, sekac_fetai, !lv· d³ l/tir 5lpedor !qq^jtoisi l]mei koc_oir bebau?a. desl` d’ owm jk^ife7 heμm c±q %ceir le tos^mde, fssg xuw_sai pamup]qtatom Eqjesa j|slom. 133 For the possible identity of this priest see Sodano (1958), XXXVII–XXIX, who reviews the possible variants. Saffrey (1971) conjectures that Anebo was an Egyptian student of Iamblichus. Altheim/Stiehl (1954) point to a notice in the Fihrist of al-Nadim, where a book by ‘Anabu’ to Porphyry is mentioned, on the topic of Aristotelian theology ; they take this to show that a real ‘Anebo’ wrote to Porphyry first and thus triggered the Letter (I would like to thank my colleague Jens Scheiner very much for his help with the Arabic text). The translation of Dodge (1970), 705 with n. 174 understands the reference to be to Porphyry’s own letter to Anebo. See also Saffrey (1994), 203 who maintains the possibility of Anebo being a real student of Porphyry and Iamblichus, but considers it to be ultimately irrelevant: “Mais en ralit, il est certain qu’ travers Anbon Porphyre dsirait s’adresser  Jamblique”.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

75

authority, Porphyry concludes that the human, erring Greek philosophy is a better way to happiness.134 The letter elicited a famous response from Porphyry’s former student Iamblichus, in which the term “theurgy” features prominently – the apology known by its Renaissance title as De mysteriis. We cannot be sure if Porphyry himself used the term in his letter.135 Sodano includes one question from De mysteriis, which features the term “theurgic”, in the text of his reconstruction of the letter,136 but as Iamblichus is wont to formulate rhetorical questions to stress Porphyry’s position and in the absence of corroborating evidence from other writers, one cannot establish with perfect certainty whether the questions were Porphyrian or Iamblichean. If Porphyry used the term, then he did so very sparsely. Porphyry’s objections concern a variety of consequences that arise from religious practices and either make these appear as contradictory in themselves or severely at odds with philosophy. The classification and distinctions between the various beings invoked in cult are questioned: are they distinguished by the quality of their bodies, their passibility or impassibility, and what does that exactly imply for the cults performed? Certain rituals intended to appease the wrath of the gods or to obtain something from them through prayer indicate a underlying assumption of passible divinities and thus propagate a lowly and unworthy conception of the gods. Divination is subjected to a serious enquiry, which tends to deny divine agency and reduce the working force of divination to lesser, demonic or human powers. Egyptian practices are satirically questioned, as are the righteousness of love and harm-bringing spells, the coarse materiality of Egyptian theology as Porphyry reconstructs it from the writings of the Stoic Chaeremon, astrology and the quest for the personal daimon and finally the key question of the usefulness of all these practices for achieving the only supreme goal, the eqdailom_a of the soul. What is striking is the plethora of rituals that Porphyry draws into his enquiry.137 Writing as he does to an ‘Egyptian’ priest, one would expect him to inquire about ‘Egyptian’ practices. But these make up only a part of what he is 134 See Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009a), 135 f. 135 See van Liefferinge (1999), 197 – 199. 136 Ep. ad Aneb. 1, 2b Sodano = Iambl. De myst. I 9: (T_hgli dμ oqm 1qyt_mt\ se oqj 1je?mo t¹ !p|qgla) Di± t_, 1m oqqam` jatoijo}mtym t_m he_m l|myr, whom_ym ja· rpowhom_ym eQs· paq± to?r heouqcijo?r jk^seir ; Van Liefferinge (1999), 197 reads it on account of the context as a purely Iamblichean formulation; however, the very context suggests that Iamblichus might here really take up the Porphyrian aporema and – in dubio pro reo – assume that Porphyry had aimed at something else through that seemingly stupid question. The 1je?mo t¹ !p|qgla suggests a direct reference to a question raised by Porphyry in his text. 137 The assessment of des Places (1966), 8: “Porphyre attaquait la thurgie et spcialement les formes de divination pratiques par les ministres de l’art nouveau” is overly reductive, as we shall see in the course of the analysis of the Letter : Porphyry ultimately questions both ‘theurgic’ and traditional forms of ritual.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

76

First Debates about Theurgy

concerned with. The first section (Sodano 1) deals with the worldview to be derived from various unspecified rituals – invocations, appeasements, sacrifices of expiation, prayers to the gods and the he_m !m\cjai, the constraint spells known to us already from the Philosophy from Oracles.138 The only specific ritual mentioned, the erection of phalloi, could refer to the Egyptian cult of Osiris as well as to Greek cults, especially of Dionysus or Hermes.139 A question is directed at the criteria for the discretio spirituum in different visions – how is one to judge what spiritual being one has exactly in front of oneself during a vision? Rituals that effect direct visions of spiritual beings are thus an important class of the rituals at stake for Porphyry. Iamblichus’ paraphrase and answer in De myst. II 3 – 10 shows the range of possible divine beings which could appear – gods, angels and archangels, archons, daimones and souls. The heroes who usually come in between the daimones and the souls in Platonic enumerations are missing, instead, probably Gnostic influences have led to the inclusion of the archons.140 The apparitions are treated in an abstract, general manner, without any details on what vision or what gods Porphyry alludes to – the direct visions of gods from the Philosophy from Oracles come to mind, together with Plotinus’ “affair of the Iseum”, with the apparitions of Hecate to be glimpsed from the fragments of the Chaldean Oracles or the visionary rituals outlined in the PGM.141 Porphyry’s satirical comment that as far as he could observe, all spiritual apparitions behave in the same way, with a great propensity to speak about themselves and display a distinctly shaped image,142 shows that here he is quite critical of such rituals, whereas he had taken them for granted and for a divine gift in the Philosophy from Oracles. The second section, which is devoted more specifically to the rituals themselves and less to the theology underlying them, begins with a large disquisition on divination, inquiring after the exact mechanism of prognosis. 138 Ep. ad Aneb. 1, 2c Sodano = Eus. PE V 10, 10: EQ d³ oR l³m !pahe?r, oR d³ 1lpahe?r, oXr di± to}tym vakko}r vasim 2st\mai ja· poie?shai aQswqoqqglos}mar, l\taiai aR he_m jk^seir 5somtai, pqosjk^seir aqt_m 1paccekk|lemai ja· l^midor 1nik\seir ja· 1jh}seir, ja· 5ti l÷kkom aR kec|lemai !m\cjai he_m. !j^kgtom c±q ja· !b_astom ja· !jatam\cjastom t¹ !pah]r. 139 For Osiris see e. g. Diod. Sic. I 22, 7. For phalloi and aischrologia in Greek cults, cf. Burkert (1977), 171 – 172. Phalloi were carried in processions in honour of Dionysus as early as the late archaic period, and later authors connected the role of the phallus in the cult of Osiris and Dionysus (e. g. Diod. Sic. I 22,7; cf. Graf in Graf/Johnston (2007), 148). 140 For the Gnostic archontes see Rudolph (2005), 76 f. An allusion to them fits the text better than des Places’ supposition of a reference to a class of archikoi in the Chaldean Oracles (1966, 83, n. 1). 141 E.g. the Mithras Liturgy quoted above, or the rituals for obtaining a p\qedqor (PGM I 43 – 195), the aqtopt¹r s}stasir (PGM IV 930 – 1114, cf. also PGM V 55 – 70 or VII 726 – 737); cf. also PGM IV, 244 – 255. 142 Ep. ad Aneb. 1, 3d–4b Sodano = Iambl. De myst. II 9 and 10: 9pifgte?r c\q, t_ t¹ cm~qisla heoO paqous_ar C !cc]kou C !qwacc]kou C da_lomor E timor %qwomtor C xuw/r. […] K]ceir l³m c±q t¹ peqiautokoce?m ja· t¹ poi¹m v\mtasla vamt\feim, joim¹m eWmai heo?r ja· da_losi ja· to?r jqe_ttosi c]mesi ûpasi.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

77

In keeping with the basic, systematic nature of the question, Porphyry discusses all possible divinatory practices, from the Apollinian oracular shrines at Delphi, Branchidae or Claros down to divination by means of flour.143 In between we find both inspired and artificial types of divination.144 Divine posession and dreams play a great part,145 as does the divination by means of characteres, which Hecate so strongly advocated in the Philosophy from Oracles.146 Another type is the manipulation of one’s lesser and more problematic cognitive faculty, the phantasia, which differs from possession in that the practitioner at least partially retains his consciousness. This faculty of phantasia, the imaginative part of the soul, centralises, so to speak, the input from the senses and makes it available to the intellect; the fact that it has an activity of its own, allowing us to imagine things independently of actual sensory perception and inducing corresponding emotions, makes it a doubleedged sword to be closely kept in check by volition and intellect.147 Porphyry mentions manipulation using darkness, potions, and sundry spells to effect the desired vision on walls, in water, the air, the sun or another part of heaven.148 Divine apparitions are described by Porphyry as bearing stones and plants, binding and loosening certain sacred bonds, opening up what is closed and able to modify the intentions of those who receive them.149 The techniques of entrail and bird divination are mentioned along with astrology.150 Another type of divination consists in the fabrication of “efficacious images” observing favourable astrological conditions. The practitioners of this technique allow for a great influence of the stars on the outcome of divination, pointing out when the oracles will be false and when true – a theme reminiscent of Porphyry’s discussions of false oracles in the Philosophy from Oracles. The exact use of the “efficacious images” is not detailed, showing that Porphyry assumed it to be largely known to his readers.151 What we have here is a good overview of the mantic techniques of Greco-Roman Late Antiquity, with hardly any specifically Egyptian elements. Porphyry opposes the claim of the practitioners of such arts that divination rests upon the work of the gods, pointing out that this would imply a wrong, irreverent conception of the divine; instead, he seeks the mechanism in the human soul, and more 143 144 145 146

147

148 149 150 151

Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 3a Sodano = Iambl. De myst. III 17. For this ideal-typical ancient distinction of divinatory forms see e. g. Johnston (2008b), 9. Ep. ad Aneb. 2,1 – 2d and 5a–d Sodano (Iambl. De myst. III). Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 2e Sodano = Iambl. De myst. III 13: ]dylem to_mum t¹ 1mteOhem %kko eWdor Qdiytij¹m ja· oq dgl|siom lamte_ar, peq· ox k]ceir taOta7 oR d³ 1p· waqajt^qym st\mter, ¢r oR pkgqo}lemoi !p¹ eQsjq_seym. For Neoplatonic conceptions of phantasia see Deuse (1983), di Pasquale Barbanti (1998), Sheppard (2007) (Porphyry), Finamore (1985) (Iamblichus), Aujoulat in Lamoureux/Aujoulat (2004) (Synesius). Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 2 f. Sodano. Ep. ad Aneb. 2,6a Sodano = Iambl. De myst. III 27. Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 2 g Sodano. Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 6b Sodano = Iambl. De myst. III 28.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

78

First Debates about Theurgy

specifically in its passions, as well as the action of certain highly deceitful daimones.152 Following upon the section on divination, we have a long extract preserved in its original wording by Eusebius,153 where Porphyry ingenuously expresses his deep inquietude at the fact that in cult gods are invoked as superiors and subsequently ordered about like inferiors. They prescribe ritual sexual purity but let themselves be coerced into leading people into lawless love affairs, they prescribe abstinence from meat, but seem to delight in animal sacrifices, as most heacyc_ai, conjurations of gods, are brought about through dead animals. After these more general subversive remarks about love spells and conjurations, he finally adopts a distinctively Egyptian target: the ritual menaces proffered at the gods described by Chaeremon as the most effective spells, as well as prayers picturing the sun god in crudely material ways as appearing forth from mud, sitting on a lotus and sailing in a boat. Porphyry demands that any alleged symbolic meaning must be made clear, lest a wrong notion of the god be propagated. Here we can trace a clear reference to Egyptian religion: for one, we have the reference to Chaeremon, the Egyptian Stoic philosopher who tried to present his native religion in a manner intelligible and interesting to Hellenistic audiences.154 Preposterous though they may appear to Porphyry, the ritual menaces can indeed be understood as part of traditional Egyptian religion, of which the employment of specific ritual techniques for manipulating the gods to achieve determined ends, is an integrant part, which baffles our modern attempts to distinguish between ‘religion’ and ‘magic’.155 The sun imagery is also well-known, especially the journey of the sun in its boat through the different cosmic realms. Another aspect which Porphyry criticises is the use of %sgla or b\qbaqa am|lata, of meaningless or barbarian, i. e. non-Greek, words. His aporia shows a more or less conscious slip of the personae: although addressing an Egyptian priest, Porphyry mocks the use of Egyptian words in cult, as if the underlying meaning were not the same in all languages or the gods would only understand Egyptian.156 The mockery only makes sense if Porphyry aims at Greek speakers conducting Greek rituals and interspersing them with 152 153 154 155 156

Cf. Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 2 c, 3 – 7 Sodano. Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 8 – 10 Sodano. On Chaeremon see van der Horst (1984), IX–XI. See Ritner (1995), 52. At stake here are probably formulae which Porphyry perceives as new-fangled combinations of meaningless utterances or non-Greek words; as a small fragment, which Callanan (1995) has discussed, shows, Porphyry probably took quite a different attitude to formulae which were part of Greek tradition, such as the jmanfbiwhuptgsvkeclodqyx, whose interpretation can be traced back to Thespis. As Callanan shows, Porphyry might have offered an exegesis of the formula in the light of natural philosophy. That is, he would have taken it as encoded language in need of decryption, not as an efficacious, ‘talismanic’ symbol, to use the term of P. Struck (2005), 204. Even when accepting such formulae, his approach is thus completely different from Iamblichus’ position in De mysteriis, who would stress the efficacy.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

79

Egyptian words; this might remind us of the Greek magical papyri, with their combination of meaningless and Coptic words within the Greek main text.157 In Porphyry’s view, such practitioners could just as well use plain, decent Greek, and Iamblichus takes great pains to prove the opposite.158 For Porphyry, the matter admits one of two solutions: either the use of these words is a trick used by sorcerers to impress people, or their users have espoused unbeknownst to themselves a fundamentally wrong notion of the divine.159 Egyptian theology is subsequently attacked on account of its supposed inability to see beyond the material world. Again, the Stoic Chaeremon is quoted to prove that even its first principles are conceived as material, and that the Egyptian world is a dreary place under the rule of the astral bodies as the highest gods. The hieratic myths of Isis and Osiris actually refer only to different astronomical processes, they remain in the realm of nature, of t± vusij\, not going beyond to incorporeal essences. The Egyptian cosmos is thus under the rigid sway of Heimarmene, and thus all cult must be directed at propitiating the gods who as astral beings themselves are and embody Fate and thus could influence its course. The Homeric remark that the gods are easily turned around, comes in handy as a little sting against this lack of metaphysics and the erroneous cults built thereon.160 The question of the personal daimon leads from traditional Egyptian religion again into a grey zone of religious syncretism. The idea goes at least as far back as Plato, where the daimon is either chosen by the souls at their entrance into the body or identified with their highest part.161 In later times it became connected with astrological speculation. The PGM contain a ritual designed to connect the practitioner with his personal daimon.162 For Porphyry, this was not a matter of abstract texts, but something connected with his own teacher : in the “sance”163 at the Iseum Plotinus had precisely had his own personal daimon conjured by an Egyptian priest, an experience which had inspired him to write treatises about the nature of the personal daimon. Porphyry sides with the Platonic idea that the daimon is just the better part of human nature, not an external entity to be found by highly uncertain astrological speculation and horoscope casting; in doing so, he implicitly rejects the idea that the daimon may be invoked ritually.164 At the end, the question of eudaimonia is addressed. Porphyry’s puzzles 157 For the use of barbarian or meaningless names cf. Zago (2010); for the importance of the distinction between Greek and barbarian language see especially Struck (2002). 158 De myst. VII, see below. 159 Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 10b Sodano = Eus. PE V 10, 9. 160 Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 11 – 13 = Iambl. De myst. VIII 1, Eus. PE III 4, 1 – 2, Iambl. De myst. VIII 8. 161 See Resp. 617 d–e or 620d–e, Tim. 90a oder c. The tradition is continued e. g. in Plutarch, De genio Socratis 591D. 162 PGM VII 505 – 529 (s}stasir Qd_ou da_lomor). 163 Dodds (1951), 286. 164 Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 14 – 17 = fragments of Iambl. De myst. IX.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

80

First Debates about Theurgy

now become more and more pressing: he wonders whether, after all, the road to happiness might not be totally different from all the practices discussed above. One should look beyond people’s opinions (d|nai) – implying, as Iamblichus’ response suggests, opinions that persons who possess expertise in such rituals are commonly praised and highly regarded. The human soul is able to make great things of whatever comes its way. Iamblichus objects that Porphyry goes on to insult these practitioners as vagrants and conceited braggarts. Foreknowledge is basically a natural process: animals foresee storms and earthquakes, and doctors infer from the symptoms the evolution of a disease; do such people gain happiness by their foreknowledge? What is happiness, after all?165 The conclusion fortunately has been preserved by Eusebius: For among us, there is much fighting about words, because the Good is conjectured from human reasoning. But if those who have contrived to converse with the higher beings, have left this part out of their enquiry, then in vain has their wisdom been exercised, if they have pestered the divine Intellect about the discovery of a runaway slave or buying land or the question whether a marriage will come about, or about trade. If, on the other hand, they have not left it out, but their companions speak most truthfully about all other things but have nothing safe and reliable to say about happiness, then they were neither gods nor good spirits, but either the so-called Deceiver, or else utterly a human invention.166

This last attack serves to tie together all the loose ends of the Letter, showing us that Porphyry did not simply attack various unconnected practices, but aimed at a specific audience. These are people who “converse with” or “frequent” the higher beings (sumous_a t_m jqeitt|mym), and their main aim seems to be divination, which here is taken up again and is exposed to one last sting, the accusation of irrelevance. Failing to address the ethical and soteriological question of happiness, their sumous_a with the gods only produces answers to commonplace, age-old questions. As there is no mention of traditional oracle shrines, but only of mobile self-proclaimed oracular specialists claiming direct contact with the gods, Porphyry’s target resembles the milieus in which the private oracles listed in the Philosophy from Oracles were created. We found similar practices there – various kinds of sacrifices, constraining spells, 165 Ep. ad Aneb. 2,18 – 19a =Iambl. De myst. X 1 – 5. 166 Ep. ad Aneb. 2, 19a–b Sodano = Eus. PE XIV 10,2 and V 10,11, preserved also in Theod. Graec. Aff. Cur. I 48 and III 68: Paq± l³m c±q Bl?m kocolaw_a t_r 1sti pokk^, ûte 1n !mhqyp_mym kocisl_m toO !cahoO eQjafol]mou7 oXr d³ lelgw\mgtai B pq¹r t¹ jqe?ttom sumous_a, eQ paqe?tai t¹ l]qor toOto eQr 1n]tasim, l\tgm aqto?r B sov_a 1n^sjgtai peq· dqapetoO erq]seyr C wyq_ou ¡m/r C c\lou, eQ t}woi, C 1lpoq_ar t¹m he?om moOm 1mowk^sasim, eQ d’ oq paqe?tai l]m, oR d³ sum|mter peq· l³m t_m %kkym t!kgh]stata k]cousim, peq· d³ eqdailom_ar oqd³m !svak³r oqd’ 1w]ccuom, oqj Gsam %qa oute heo· oute !caho· da_lomer, !kk’ C 1je?mor b kec|lemor pk÷mor […]. The Latin translation quoted by Augustine, Civ. Dei. X 11 alone preserves the last part missing in the Greek (aut illum qui dicitur fallax aut humanum omne commentum).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

81

conjurations, rituals facilitating visions and thus obtaining a direct contact with the gods, the difficult question of exercising power as a mortal over the gods during such conjurations. He insists on the moral questions connected with conjurations, on the legitimacy and indeed possibility of forcing the gods to bring about illicit love or harm. Just as in the Philosophy from Oracles, traditional shrines and private practices stand side by side, in his criticism Porphyry also refers to the public oracular shrines as some part of the ideas and practices of his target that he deems philosophically problematic. A distinct aspect, which in the Philosophy from Oracles was not as marked, is the connection to ‘Egypt’. Porphyry frames his attack as a letter from the puzzled Greek philosopher to the Egyptian priest Anebo, only to decide in the end that the human Greek way, with all its frailties, at least asks the right questions.167 He criticises Egyptian theology and astrology and in a momentary slip of the tongue asks why those whom he criticises make use of meaningless or Egyptian words. All this taken together shows that Porphyry has in view a certain Greek-speaking audience with a strong Oriental penchant, claiming the knowledge of ‘Egyptian’ traditions and thus the power of direct contact with the gods – very similar to the enterprise of his own Philosophy from Oracles, where he had tried to develop a different kind of philosophy, standing firm on the rock of divine revelation. Against these he now pits the Greek way of philosophy as the unspoken but transparently suggested solution to the apories and as a solid way to happiness. Can we say more about this intended audience? Its precedents are fairly clear. The Greek fascination with Egypt is already well attested in Herodotus, and almost every notable Greek philosopher is credited with studying with Egyptian priests, e. g. Pythagoras or Plato.168 To move closer to Porphyry : in the later first century AD, Plutarch had attempted to give a philosophical explanation of the myth and cult of Isis and Osiris, in order to show the true meaning of the seemingly crude and contradictory tales and practices. His manner of presentation shows that he held Egyptian lore and the cult of Isis in high esteem.169 The prologue of the treatise On the powers of herbs ascribed to Thessalus of Tralles, which is dated to the second century AD tells a wondrous tale of Thessalus’ quest in Egypt for superior wisdom that would enable him to 167 In view of his concerted aporiai, all operating on philosophical lines and correlating with his outspoken critique of the majority of religious practices in De abstinentia II, 31 – 43, it would be a fallacy to take his doubts and perplexity at face value, as is still done in scholarship (e. g. Athanassiadi (2006), 182, who has “l’me chancelante de Porphyre” offer “en toute innocence” his Christian opponents the best weapons against theurgy and pagan cult, thus calling for a violent reaction on the part of Iamblichus). 168 For the Greek view of Egypt and the topos of Egyptian priestly wisdom see Momigliano (1975), Dihle (2003), for Platonism Baltes (1999) and Jeck (2004), esp. 23 – 34, 59 – 72 for a succint overview of the most important Platonic texts taking up this theme. For the development of the biographical topos of outstanding Greeks journeying to Egypt see Lefkowitz (2007). 169 Plutarch, De Iside 1 – 3, 351C–352C; for the key hermeneutical principle that the Egyptians used coded symbolic language for deeper wisdom De Is. 8 – 11, 353E–355D.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

82

First Debates about Theurgy

achieve the desired results from the application of an Egyptian treatise on herbs. The quest is satisfied by a vision of Asclepius evoked by an Egyptian priest in the innermost chambers of a Theban temple.170 The interest in various esoteric religious and magic traditions, especially Eastern, found in philosophical circles of the second century AD were mercilessly satirised by Lucian in his Philopseudeis as crude superstition;171 the tale of Eucrates’, the host’s, studies in Egypt and acquaintance with the Egyptian magician Pancrates forms the crowning ending of this work.172 In a more serious vein, this penchant is conspicuous in the surge of interest in Apollonius of Tyana as a Pythagorean philosopher-magician in the third century AD: the empress Julia Domna commissioned Philostratus to write his biography.173 During the Diocletianic persecution he advanced to the position of pagan anti-model to Christ in the missionary pamphlet of Hierocles.174 An interest in magic had brought Apuleius to trial, even though he managed to assert his innocence; his definition of magic as a communio loquendi cum deis immortalibus and the special power derived from it175 closely fits the claims of Porphyry’s opponents. A brief look at the circles in which Porphyry moved also shows a great interest for the practices which he criticises. As we have seen, the interest in Eastern wisdom was quite prominent in the circle of Plotinus, who himself had studied in Egypt and had taken pains to get as far East as he could by attaching himself to a military campaign. Plotinus had also studied astrology, even though he finally rejected it; he was quite interested in having his personal daimon conjured by an Egyptian priest in the Roman Iseion. He himself had once been attacked by magic in Alexandria and had repelled the attack possibly by spells. Amelius had developed a faible for sacrifices and took pains to obtain an oracle about the whereabouts of Plotinus’ soul. Finally, Iamblichus, whose daughter-in-law also belonged to the Plotinian circle,176 felt himself addressed by Porphyry’s letter and wrote a lengthy response, justifying all that Porphyry had called into question. That he in particular was Porphyry’s target is possible;177 this assumption is supported by the fact that Porphyry dedicated one of his works on the Delphic precept ‘Know Thyself ’ to 170 Thessalus of Tralles, De virt. herb. I 6 – 28, 47 – 60 Friedrich. 171 Especially the Platonists and Pythagoreans are ridiculed by Lucian as paragons of superstition, cf. the analysis of the characters in Ogden (2007), 21 – 26 and 28 – 29. 172 Philops. 33 – 37. A detailed analysis of the sources is found in Ogden (2007), 231 – 270. 173 See VA I 3. Philostratus attempts to defend Apollonius from the charge of magic by pointing to the Pythagorean model of the philosopher as a close friend of the gods and thus above the conditio humana (VA I 1 – 2). Origen sees Apollonius as a l\cor ja· vik|sovor, who seduced other philosophers by his magical powers (CCels. VI 41). 174 The pamphlet is no longer extant but can be reconstructed from Eusebius’ refutation; on this see Jones (2006), 147 – 152. 175 Apuleius, De magia 26. 176 VPlot 9. 177 Cf. Clarke/Dillon/Hershbell (2004), xxix, who take this for granted.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

83

Iamblichus. In the fragments extant in Stobaeus, Porphyry expounds the Delphic maxim as an exhortation to philosophy, which is the only way to eqdailom_a.178 Maybe his Letter to Anebo was meant as a reaction against Iamblichus’ attempts to seek a way beyond traditional vikosov_a. In any case, Porphyry wrote against tendencies quite close to his philosophical home.179 It is important to note with van Liefferinge180 that so far “theurgy” is not yet a prominent notion to label and categorise these tendencies. It appears with some probability in only one passage and is not developed systematically. The Chaldeans do not play any part at all; their oracles are not even alluded to. Porphyry chooses to construct his subversive enquiry around the topos of Egyptian wisdom, and in his critique he repeatedly uses the disparaging term cogte_a, the accusation of sorcery. Not only for him, as van Liefferinge stresses, but also for his audience, “theurgy” is therefore not yet a key term. The scene changes in another work dedicated to the return of the soul to its heavenly homeland. 3.2.3 De regressu animae The only Porphyrian text that explicitly mentions theurgy is also the most enigmatic one: the treatise On the return of the soul is mentioned solely by Augustine in his De civitate Dei, but treated there extensively as a major work of Porphyry. Attempts to identify this work with either the Philosophy from Oracles or even Porphyry’s work against the Christians – another phantom haunting scholarship – have failed,181 so that it appears best to treat it as a separate work in its own right. Another work of Porphyry on a closely related subject is extant: the Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, which also treat of the nature and cosmic place of the soul, of its fate after death and the ways in which it can disentangle itself from matter. The Sententiae have an abstract, Plotinian ductus, and allude only to philosophical authorities, mostly to Plato.182 No reference to religious practice is found, nor to constructs like the 178 The fragments are listed as frg. 273F–275F Smith. For the dedication to Iamblichus, cf. frg. 273F, 18. For (philo)sophia as the way to eudaimonia cf. frg 274F, 18 – 34. 179 Cf. also his attack in De abstinentia II 40, 1 – 5, esp. 5, on philosophers who are overly fond of traditional cults and bloody sacrifices, which actually address evil daimones. Bouffartigue and Patillon (1979), 218, n. 5 conjecture that Porphyry refers to Gnostics or Christians like Origen. But the statement in 43, 1 – 5 that a true philosopher will not perform bloody sacrifices for such daimones even if the cities have to do so in order to avert their wrath, points in the direction of pagan cult and to figures like Amelios vikoh}tgr cecom~r or Iamblichus. 180 Van Liefferinge (1999), 183 – 185 (Philosophy from Oracles) and 197 – 199 (Letter to Anebo), although the latter should be modified, as discussed above, section 3.2.2. 181 See Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009a), 109 with n. 5 and 120 with n. 47 with further literature on the subject. For the vicissitudes of Porphyry’s work against the Christians see also Edwards (2007), esp. 125, who pleads to see it either as “a lexicographer’s fancy” or as a “small library of discrete works”. 182 Sent. 21 (only explicit mention of Plato), indirect reference to Plato as the author of the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

84

First Debates about Theurgy

‘Egyptians’ or the ‘Chaldeans’. To judge from what we find in Augustine, De regressu seems to have extended the scope of enquiry, examining religious practices alongside the philosophical way to the divine and dealing with the question whether there could be something like a universal way for the salvation of the soul. Porphyry is introduced by Augustine in the context of debating with the Platonists, as the noblest of philosophers, the question of cult. To whom is divine honour to be paid – to the highest God alone or also to other gods and lesser divine beings such as daimones? After a refutation of the view that divine honour is to be paid to daimones, in which Apuleius and Hermetic writings are chosen as opponents, the question whether at least purer higher beings, “the immortal and blessed beings who have their seats in heaven as Dominations, Principalities and Powers: those whom the Platonists call gods, and to some of whom they give the name either of good daimones or, as we do, of angels,”183 should receive cult is addressed. In this context, Augustine relates and ridicules Porphyry’s thoughts on theurgy in the treatise On the return of the soul, contrasting them to the views expressed in his Letter to Anebo. The major difference to the Philosophy from Oracles is that Porphyry now uses the term “theurgy” and assigns the Chaldeans a special place, quoting them as important authorities on theurgy and the fate of the soul. The most plausible explanation is that he became acquainted with the Chaldean Oracles and the practices labelled “theurgy” mentioned therein some time after writing the Philosophy.184 For our endeavour to reconstruct what meaning and

Phaedrus myth in Sent. 37. The “ancients” in Sent. 38 also refer to a Platonic context, to the problem of the 4m p\mta – either Plato himself or Plotinus could fit the formulation. The Stoics (“the disciples of Zenon”) are mentioned in Sent. 42, a verbatim quotation of Empedocles figures in Sent. 40. All other allusions are woven into the text in paraphrase, without reference to their authors. 183 De civitate dei X 1 (trans. Dyson): inmortales ac beati in caelestibus sedibus dominationibus, principatibus potestatibus constituti, quos isti deos et ex quibus quosdam vel bonos daemones vel nobiscum angelos nominant, quo modo credendi sint velle a nobis religionem pietatemque seruari; hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, uel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus. 184 See Tanaseanu-Döbler (2010a), 35 – 38. Van Liefferinge (1999), 204 f also notes the point and attempts to elaborate a chronological succession of works based on her assumption that Iamblichus introduced Porphyry to theurgy, which, however, failed to captivate and persuade him. De regressu would then have been written after De mysteriis, when Porphyry toyed with theurgy, and before De abstinentia, where Porphyry would have taken up a clear stance. This chronology is all too hypothetical – we simply do not know when De mysteriis was written, whether Porphyry was still alive and around, able to read it, and we do not have any evidence to establish a secure relationship between it and Porphyry’s other works. Also, her chronology relies on a problematic assessment of Porphyry, viewed as genuinely questioning and going through “une priode de doubte, pendant laquelle il rdige la Lettre  Anbon.” As shown above, the Letter had much better be read as a cleverly orchestrated Platonic attack on the ritual practice of persons in Porphyry’s milieu.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

85

ritual content theurgy had acquired by the time of Porphyry, it is important to keep in mind that Porphyry does not discuss theurgy here as a subject of its own, but only insofar as it is relevant for his discussion of the purification, ascent and subsequent fate of the soul. The rituals which Augustine’s paraphrase presents as “theurgy” all seem to centre on the anima spiritalis, the pneumatic envelope of the soul. This pneumatic part of the soul appears also in Sent. 29, and Porphyry hints that the immaterial soul borrows the pneuma from the spheres as an means that enables it to unite with a material body. The pneuma, also described as eidolon, reflects in its consistence the state of the soul: evil thoughts and acts lead to a humid, heavy pneuma, which after death sinks to the underworld, while good ones render the pneuma light and dry, so that it can ascend to higher spheres after death. Here Porphyry employs ideas that go back as far as the Presocratics, most notably Heraclitus, and which are also found in Middle Platonists like Plutarch.185 As Porphyry firmly states that the soul itself is incorporeal and does not literally descend into the body but only unites itself with it,186 the pneuma serves to explain how punishment and ascent after death are possible. This pneuma is described in De regressu as anima spiritalis, that is, as pmeulatijμ xuw^, and distinguished from the higher soul, the intellect. This would imply that at least here the pneuma is conceived as the seat of the lower, irrational soul. It is especially the imaginative faculty, the phantasia, that is of peculiar importance to the discussion of theurgy,187 as we shall see presently. A later discussion of Porphyry’s psychology found in Proclus traces its origins to the Chaldean Oracles, insofar as these postulate according to Proclus’ account the formation of the pneumatic vehicle of the soul during its descent through the sphere of aether, sun, moon and air. Porphyry seems to have combined this conception with the idea of the descent through the planetary spheres, which make up the realm of aether.188 If Proclus is right to 185 Heraclitus, frg. 77, 117 und 118 Diels/Kranz. The idea that dryness and lightness are beneficial for the soul is parodied in Aristophanes’ Clouds 228 – 234. Reminiscences can be found in Plato, Tim. 90e–92c. For Plutarch see De sera 25, 565E–566 A or De defectu orac. 41, 432F–433 A. 186 This idea, which was developed by Plotinus and opposed by Iamblichus (see Shaw (1995) or (2000), 62 – 73), can already be found in the myth of Timarchus in Plutarch’s De genio Socratis 591D–F: the daimon, the highest part of the soul, which stays free of involvement with the body, remains on high like a floating marker, while the rest of the soul is plunged in the waters of Hades, i. e. the terrestrial existence. 187 Deuse (1983), 222 – 227 argues that the pneuma, being a body, cannot have been identified by Porphyry with the lower soul, and gives a strained interpretation of the relevant passages of De regressu mentioning the anima spiritalis, arguing that because of the close relationship and interaction of pneuma and soul, theurgy, working on the pneuma, can be said to purify the lower soul and help it ascend. The equation of the two should be sought in Iamblichus. This, however, does not explain why already Porphyry chose to call the pneuma pmeulatijμ xuw^; it is safer to assume that he closely connected the two, viewing the pneuma as the substrate or organ of phantasia. See e. g. di Pasquale Barbanti (1998), 107 – 130. 188 See Deuse (1983), 218 – 222 with reference to Sent. 29 and Procl. In Tim. I 147 and III 234 Diehl.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

86

First Debates about Theurgy

establish a connection between Porphyry’s doctrine of the pneuma and the Chaldean Oracles, then we have here an instance of a philosophical understanding and use of the Oracles, without adopting their peculiar soteriology or even their ritual aspects. From Augustine’s paraphrase, we can distinguish two aspects of theurgy in Porphyry’s lost work, which are closely connected. On the one hand, we have the question of ascent and salvation of the soul. One the other, we have the aptitude to receive visions of higher beings. Both aims are connected through the underlying issue of purity, which is needed for the ascent as well as for enabling the soul to see the divine visions and converse with them. Porphyry is quite emphatic on one point: theurgical rituals cannot purify the soul proper, but only the pneumatic envelope of the soul.189 The anima intellectualis or rationalis (probably moeq\ or kocij^) cannot be affected by them, but can only be purified by the “principles”, presumably because the theurgic rituals have no influence on ignorance and the vices resulting from it. This can be glimpsed from the two following fragments: Porphyry also says that the divine oracles responded that we are not purified through the initiation rites [teletae] of the moon and the sun, so that it becomes clear that man cannot be purified by the initiatory rites of any god. For whose initiatory rites should purify, if those of the moon and the sun do not, whom they reckon foremost among the heavenly gods? Eventually he says that it was expressed by the same oracle that the principles can purify […]. But we know well what he, as a Platonist, probably means by ‘principles’. For he means God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls in Greek the Paternal Intellect or Paternal Mind; he does, however, say either nothing of the Holy Spirit, or at least nothing openly ; although I cannot understand whom else he should call ‘their mediator’. For if he also had wanted to signify, in the manner of Plotinus, by the third the nature of the soul where he speaks of the three principal hypostases, he would not have said ‘their mediator’, that is, that what is between Father and Son. For Plotinus situates the nature of the soul after the Paternal Intellect; this author, however, when he says ‘mediator’, situates it not after, but in between.190 You say, that certainly ignorance, and the many vices that derive from it, cannot be 189 Cf. frg. 287F Smith in Aug. civ. Dei X 27; 288F in civ. Dei X 9, 290F in Aug. civ. Dei X 9. 190 Frg. 284F Smith, 1 – 6 and 9 – 19 in Aug. civ. Dei X 23: Dicit etiam Porphyrius divinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis atque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Cuius enim teletae purgant, si lunae solisque non purgant, quos inter caelestes deos praecipuos habent? Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum principia posse purgare, […] quae autem dicat esse principia tamquam Platonicus, novimus. dicit enim deum patrem et deum filium, quem Graece appellat paternum intellectum vel paternam mentem; de spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit; quamvis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intellego. si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste vellet intellegi, non utique diceret horum medium, id est patris et filii medium. postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellectui; iste autem cum dicit medium non postponit, sed interponit.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525540206 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647540207

Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy in Porphyry

87

purged by any initiatory rites, but only by the patqij¹r moOr, that is, by the Paternal Mind or Intellect, who is aware of the Paternal Will.191

The two fragments are crucial for understanding Porphyry’s position to theurgy and the Chaldean Oracles. As already Theiler observed, the principia, making up a triad of Father, Paternal Intellect and an entity in between, possibly to be identified with the paternal Will, mentioned in frg. 291 Smith, resemble the Chaldean triad of Father, Dynamis and Nous, the latter being called in the Oracles moOr patqij|r, exactly the expression Porphyry uses.192 P. Hadot took up this suggestion and argued that Porphyry developed his triad of principles modelled upon the Chaldean triad,193 later bequeathing it to Christian Neoplatonists like Marius Victorinus or Synesius of Cyrene.194 Given this, Porphyry’s attitude to the Oracles in De regressu is complex. As he did in Sent. 29, he takes from them certain philosophical tenets, here the metaphysical construction of the supreme triad. It is interesting that he quotes a “divine oracle” to support the fact that purification is to be obtained not through teletae of the sun and the moon, but through the first principles, which he identifies as Father, mediating entity and moOr patqij|r. Such an oracle is not extant in our collection; however, a fragment warns against concerning oneself with different methods of divination, including measuring the course of the sun and the moon, while losing sight of one’s true goal, the “holy paradise of piety, where virtue, wisdom and lawfulness are joined together”.195 The combination of the rejection of solar and lunar divination and the description of paradise as a place of wisdom, virtue and lawfulness correspond to the contrast developed by Porphyry. Also, the moOr patqij|r has a special soteriological function in the Chaldean Oracles, being the one who on the one hand sows throughout the cosmos the symbola/synthemata, and on the other hand accepts the desire of the soul and thus facilitates its ascent after it has remembered the paternal synthema.196 But here Porphyry and the Oracles

191 Frg. 291F Smith, 3 – 6, in Aug. civ. Dei X 28: […] ignorantiam certe et propter eam multa vitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum patqij¹m moOm, id est paternam mentem sive intellectum, qui paternae est conscius voluntatis. 192 Theiler (1942), 7 – 9. 193 Hadot (1966), 261 – 267. 194 Hadot (1966), 469 – 474. 195 Ch. Or. frg. 107 des Places (emphasis mine): Lμ t± pek~qia l]tqa c}gr rp¹ sμm vq]ma b\kkou7/ oq c±q !kghe_gr vut¹m 1m whom_ . / Lgd³ l]tqei l]tqom Aek_ou jam|mar sumahqo_sar7/ !zd_\ bouk0 v]qetai patqºr, oqw 6mejem soO. /L^mgr No?fom 5asom7 !e· tq]wei 5qc\ !m\cjgr. / )st]qiom pqop|qeula s]hem w\qim oqj 1kowe}hg. / AUhqior aqm_hym t\qsor pkat»r oupot’ !kgh^r, / oq husi_m spk\cwmym te tola_7 t\d’ !h}qlata p\mta, / 1lpoqij/r !p\tgr stgq_clata. VeOce s» taOta, /l]kkym eqseb_gr Req¹m paqade_som !mo_ceim, / 5mh’ !qetμ sov_a te ja· eqmol_a sum\comtai. 196 Ch. Or. frg. 108 des Places: s}lboka c±q patqij¹r m|or 5speiqem jat± j|slom, oXr t± mogt± moe? ja· !vq\st\ j\kkei 2moOtai and frg. 109 des Places: