Podcast episode
April 13, 2022
Episode 139: John Finamore on Iamblichean Theurgy in Theory and Practice
We are delighted to discuss Iamblichean theurgy with Professor John Finamore, whose many high-quality publications on the sage of Chalcis have been making Iamblichus more accessible since the nineteen-eighties. With the central question of, ‘What was theurgy, according to Iamblichus?’ at the heart of the enquiry, the conversation goes off on a number of interesting tangents, covering topics including:
- What a theurgic ceremony will have looked like,
- Cosmic ascent,
- Speculations as to why Iamblichus rejects Plotinus’ theory of the undescended self based on his hermeneutics of Plato,
- The dialogic nature of Porphyry and Iamblichus’ encounter,
- Abammon’s metaphysical objections to Porphyry’s many questions,
- The passages in De mysteriis Books I and II where gods are summoned to visible appearance and you can judge what sort of critter has appeared based on how they look,
- On whether Iamblichus believes in evil daimones,
- His afterlife in Proclus, Damascius, and later Platonism more generally,
- And his attacks on certain ‘black magic’ type practices, such as ‘standing on charactērēs’.
A fine interview is rounded off with some reflections on the development of scholarship on Iamblichus.
Interview Bio:
John Finamore is a professor of Classics at The University of Iowa. He is the author of many books on the ancient Platonist tradition, notably the essential Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul (1985) and, with John Dillon, the standard edition and English translation of the De anima fragments (2002). He is the editor of The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition and president of the U.S. section of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, the latter of which is, for my money, the finest collegial body devoted to exploration of the Platonist traditions in all their many aspects.
Works Cited in this Episode:
- Finamore’s 1983 dissertation was later published as Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Scholars Press, Chico, CA, 1985.
- Idem. ‘Reason and Irrationality: Iamblichus on Divination through Dreams’. In Eleni Pachoumi and Mark Edwards, editors, Praying and Contemplating in Late Antiquity, pages 39–58. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2018.
- Hans Lewy. Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Études Augustiniennes, Paris, 1978.
- Andrew Smith. Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: a Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. Martinus Nijhoff, den Haag, 1974.
Themes
Cosmic Ascent, Epiphany, Ghosts, Iamblichus, Proclus, Subtle Body, Summoning, Theurgy
Thomas Kiefer
April 14, 2022
Great interview!
My elevator-pitch as to why Plotinus argues for an undescended self whereas Iamblichus disagrees:
–Plotinus holds we can have knowledge in a strict sense in this life/while embodied, nous is required for knowledge in a strict sense, therefore we have nous in this life/while embodied. Plus he’s being Aristotelean here with his account of nous/holding Aristotelean notions about nous. This is the reason for the undescended self.
Iamblichus agrees nous is required for knowledge in a strict sense, but follows Plato’s skepticism and holds we cannot have knowledge in a strict sense in this life/while embodied, therefore we don’t have nous in this life/while embodied. Like Plato holds, we can attain knowledge/access our nous after death (becoming disembodied). In addition though, theurgy can disembody us, therefore we can attain knowledge/access nous with theurgy. This is the reason why Iam. holds Plotty to be wrong.
Not sure if this is worth much.
George Brocklehurst
April 15, 2022
This was a great interview, Earl. Was wondering if you could share the tantalising reference to Proclus’ man buried up to his head? Thanks!
Stephen Rego
April 17, 2022
The theurgic ‘head-burial’ is discussed as a ‘Chaldean ritual’ by Hans Lewy in ‘The Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy’ at pp. 205-7, where it is described as representing the symbolic death of the initiate – “the head is not buried because the soul which abides in it does not undergo ‘death’”.
Here is Proclus in the fourth book of the ‘Platonic Theology’ [4.9 30.17-31.5]:
‘And, that which is most astounding of all, that although the theurgists order [us] to bury the body except the head in the most mystical of rite, Plato, moved by the gods themselves, has anticipated this: “Being pure,” he says, “and not entombed in this thing which we now carry around with us and call a body” [Plato, ‘Phaedrus 250c4-6], we obtained this most blessed initiation and highest initiation being full of intelligible light. For the pure ray symbolically shines the intelligible light on us. Thus, we possess the life in the Intelligible, which is completely separated from the body. Raising the head of our charioteer toward the place outside we are filled with the mysteries there and intelligible silence [cf. Phaedrus 248a2-3].’
(trans. by J. Finamore in ‘Proclus on Ritual Practice in Neoplatonic Religious Philosophy’ (2004) – available on his page over at academia.edu).
Stephen Rego
April 18, 2022
John Finamore (2004 above, p.134) remarks about the passage from the ‘Platonic Theology’:
“Proclus is comparing the Chaldaean burial ritual with the myth of the ‘Phaedrus’, the burial up to the head with Plato’s words about the state of the soul as it ascends to the view the Forms. The soul, Plato says, is free of the body. Thus, both Chaldaean ritual and Platonic philosophy share the same goal: the separation of the soul from the body. But there is more. Proclus again refers to the moment of highest initiation in sacred rites, which for him is the moment when the bodiless soul encounters the intelligible objects under the care of the intelligible and intellectual gods. The Chaldaean ritual has the same aim.”
Earl Fontainelle
April 26, 2022
Stephen, thanks for saving me from having to seek this out!