Podcast episode
October 13, 2021
Episode 126: Porphyry’s Gods: The Metaphysics and Physics of Divinity
We discuss Porphyry’s god-filled universe and some of the many ways in which humans, daimones, powers, and gods interact and occasionally transform into each other. We discuss Porphyry’s higher, metaphysical realms of existence, the true goal of the philosopher. We then move on to the astral gods, with a discursus on the astral afterlife (on which Porphyry gives us a so-far unprecedented amount of specific information), the soul’s descent into the body and acquisition of an astrally-conditioned pneumatic vehicle along the way, and the possibility of escape from the cycle of incarnations for the true philosophic elite. We then look at the kosmos more generally, noting that it is fully imbricated within a web of hierarchical Powers ultimately derived from the One itself. Last but not least, we discuss the myriad different forms of daimones to be found in the mundus porphoricus, which include some nasty characters indeed.
Having done what is hopefully an adequate job of adumbrating the taxonomies and interlocking religious and philosophic registers used in delineating these divine beings, we look at some of the ways in which gods and humans interact, not all of them positive. There is possession by evil daimones. There are oracles of various kinds, But there is also the philosophic ascent to the true, noetic self, and a separation from the body that looks an awful lot like a programmatic trance-state.
Featuring a special cameo appearance by Jesus.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
Augustine, De regressu animæ citing Porphyry on the importance of theurgy for one’s postmortem state: 287F, 288F, 288aF Smith.
Eunapius on Porphyry’s earlier works contradicted by his later works: VS 457 (p. 360-361 in Wright’s Loeb).
Plato: for the Timæus see Episode 27 of the podcast; for the Myth of Er see Episode 30. The True Earth in the Phædo is discussed in Episode 34.
Porphyry: most of the works cited below are from Andrew Smith’s Teubner edition of the fragments. For the To Gaurus, see now Porphyry: To Gaurus on how Embryos are Ensouled and On what is in our Power, translated by James Wilberding, London: Bristol Classical Papers, 2011. For the Sententiæ we use Lamberz’ Teubner edition.
- ‘the first and transcendent god … which has no shape nor any Form, established above nous and all the noetic reality’: Plot. 23.
- The One/God over All present throughout the universe through his dynameis: De simulac. 353F, 20–7 Smith: εἰ δὲ μὴ τὰ ὁρώμενα σώματα ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων μηδέ γε τὰ αἰσθητὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου φήσουσι θεοποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἐν τούτοις ἀοράτους δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν (ἕνα γὰρ ὄντα θεὸν παντοίαις δυνάμεσι τὰ πάντα πληροῦν καὶ διὰ πάντων διήκειν καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐπιστατεῖν ἀσωμάτως καὶ ἀφανῶς ἐν πᾶσιν ὄντα καὶ διὰ πάντων διήκοντα, καὶ τοῦτον εἰκότως διὰ τῶν δεδηλωμένων σέβειν φασί). κτλ.
- The noetic gods are good and responsible for salvation: De abst. II.34.5
- Zeus as the Demiurgic nous: De simulac. 354aF Smith: «Ζευς ουν ὁ πᾶς κόσμος, ζῷον ἐκ ζῷων και θεός ἐκ θεών. Ζεύς δέ και (ὁ θεός), καθὸ νοῦς, ἀφ’ οὑ προφέρει πάντα, ὅτι δημιουργεῖ τοῖς νοήμασιν.»
- Sacrifices frequented by wicked daimones: De abst. II.42.3, cf. II.39.2.
- Gods play mortals like a flute: Phil. orac. 349F 2-9 Smith.
- The danger of private oracular sessions which invite daimones to ‘penetrate’ the participants and deliver oracles: Phil. orac. 326F, 38-40 Smith: άχρι τούτων τολμά φύσις άνθρώπου εύρίσκειν τάς περι αύτης συνεστώσας παγίδας· καὶ γάρ ό θεός ὅταν εἰσκρίθῃ, πολυπλασιάζεται τό πνεῦμα.
- Ascent as a process of henosis: Sent. 11, p. 5, 1–4 Lamberz: Αἱ ἀσώματοι ὑποστάσεις ὑποβαίνουσαι μὲν μερίζονται καὶ πληθύνονται εἰς τὰ κατὰ ἄτομον ὑφέσει δυνάμεως, ὑπερβαίνουσαι δὲ ἑνίζονται καὶ εἰς τὸ ὁμοῦ ἀντιχωροῦσι δυνάμεως περιουσίᾳ. Sent. 37, p. 45, 5–9 Lamberz: ἐπεὶ δὲ πρὸς μὲν ὕλην ῥεπούσῃ [ψυχῇ] ἀπορίᾳ πάντων καὶ τῆς οἰκείας δυνάμεως κένωσις, εἰς δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἀναγομένη τὸ πλῆρες αὐτῆς κατὰ <τὸ> τὴν δύναμιν ἔχειν τῆς πάσης εὑρίσκετο, τὴν μὲν εἰκότως Πενίαν, τὴν δὲ Πόρον οἱ τοῦτο πρῶτον γνόντες τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ πάθος ᾐνἰξαντο. Cf. Sent. 35, p. 39, 13–17 Lamberz: Τὸ ὄγκῳ μεῖζον δυνάμει ἔλαττον, συγκρινόμενον οὐ πρὸς τὰ ὅμοια γένη, πρὸς δὲ τὰ κατ’ εἶδος ἐξηλλαγμένα δι’ ἑτερότητα οὐσίας· οἷον γὰρ ἔκβασις ἦν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ ὄγκος καὶ κατακερματισμὸς τῆς δυνάμεως. τὸ ἄρα δυνάμει ὑπερέχον ὄγκου παντὸς ἀλλότριον.
- As a process of reuniting with the true, noetic self: Epistula ad Marcellam X, p. 16, 14–22 Potscher: […], εἰ μελετῳης εἰς σεαυτὴν ἀναβαίνειν συλλέγουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος πάντα τὰ διασκεδασθέντα σου μέλη καὶ εἰς πλῆθος κατακερματισθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς τέως ἐν μεγέθει δυνάμεως ἰσχυούσης ἑνώσεως. Συνάγοις δ’ ἂν καὶ ἑνίζοις τὰς ἐμφύτους ἐννοίας καὶ διαρθροῦν συγκεχυμένας καὶ εἰς φῶς ἕλκειν ἐσκοτισμένας πειρωμένη· ἀφ’ ὧν ὁρμώμενος καὶ ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ τὰς ἀνακλήσεις πεποίηται. Cf. Smith 1974, 107–8.
- Union with the nous: Sent. 40, pp. 50, 11–51, 2 Lamberz. Cf., on contemplation (θεωρία), De abst. I.29.
- Leaving the body in a cataleptic state [?]: Nemesius 3, p. 38, 12-40,20 = 259F, lines 129-147 Smith.
Secondary:
- J. Bidez. Vie de Porphyre. Teubner, 1913.
- The Exorcist, dir. William Friedkin, 1973.
- Krulak 2011 (see below), we cite p. 345.
- M.P. Nilsson. Geschichte der grieschen Religion II. Number V.2 in HAW. Munich, 3rd edition, 1974, pp. 534–43.
- Smith 1974 (see below), we cite pp. 58-9 on escaping the cycle of reincarnation and 24 on philosophic catalepsy.
- Viltianoti 2017: see below.
Recommended Reading:
- John Dillon. Porphyry’s Doctrine of the One. In M-.O. Goulet-Cazé, G. Madec, and D. O’Brien, editors, Chercheurs de sagesse. Hommage a Jean Pépin, pages 356–66. Études Augustiniennes, Paris, 1992.
- Aaron P. Johnson. Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre: The Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. The University Press, Cambridge, 2013.
- Todd C. Krulak. ’Invisible Things on Visible Forms’: Pedagogy and Anagogy in Porphyry’s Peri Agalmatôn. Journal of Late Antiquity, 4:343–64, 2011.
- Andrew Smith. Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: a Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. Martinus Nijhoff, den Haag, 1974.
- Irini-Fotini Viltanioti. Divine Powers and Cult Statues in Porphyry of Tyre. In A. Marmodoro and I-F. Viltanioti, editors, Divine Powers in Late Antiquity, pages 61–74. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017.
Themes
Astral Religion, Cosmic Ascent, daimones, Divinisation, Late Platonism, Metaphysics, Oracles, Philosophy, Plotinus, Porphyry, Possession, Salvation, Theurgy
Thomas Kiefer
October 17, 2021
Dear SHWEP–
When you print that t-shirt that says ‘Plotinus was right’, maybe you can have that on the front, and on the back you can have in smaller print, ‘So was Porphyry’. It would be extra-esoteric if it were printed in Greek. (Super-extra-esoteric would be if it were printed in Doric, the dialect of Pythagoras. (I hope my memory is right.))
Porphyry was the man. He was to Plotinus as Engels was to Marx. Relatedly, since we are in a capitalist society, you can always print ‘The Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast” on the front, above the ‘Plotinus was right’. Gotta promote your brand, as they say.
Will you ship those t’s to the USA? ( :
Thomas K.
Earl Fontainelle
October 18, 2021
Let me get on it, and I’ll let you know, Thomas!
[update 2024: we actually made the t-shirts!]
Thomas Kiefer
October 18, 2021
I failed to mention–‘shwep.net’ needs to be on there somewhere too!
Earl Fontainelle
March 18, 2024
Nah.
Sigmund Schilpzand
October 25, 2021
I would super-proudly wear SHWEP merch!
Angela Voss
October 25, 2021
Earl I’m just getting started on listening to the SHWEP material and I have to say it is so brilliant – I am so in awe of how much you have read! You make it all so clear, especially as I am not able to read much at the moment. I love all this neoplatonic ascent material,thanks so much for all your efforts.
Earl Fontainelle
October 25, 2021
Well, thank you very kindly, Angela.
Sigmund Schilpzand
October 31, 2021
This ‘playing mortals like a flute…’-thing: doesn’t that just mean ‘blow pneuma into them’?
Earl Fontainelle
November 1, 2021
Sigmund,
It does mean that, but it doesn’t just mean that. Luckily we have Porphyry’s exegesis of Apollo’s oracle, 349F Smith lines 10-16:
‘The author explains these words [as follows]:
… for the pneuma is that which descends and flows out from the heavenly power, coming into the instrumental (όργανικὸν σῶμα: note, this is the origin of our term ‘organic’, but the root meaning is ‘instrumental’, as in, among other things ‘musical instrument’) and ensouled body, using the soul as its basis, and makes sound using the body as its instrument.’
So, yes, pneuma is being poured into the ensouled body, but the body is then being played like an aulos. This isn’t just pneuma, it’s pneuma which makes people speak the words of the gods. Incidentally, an aulos was a reed instrument, so more like a shawm than a flute, but shawms are a bit obscure to a lot of people.
Lb Behrendt
August 9, 2023
oh boy. okay, so let’s say I sacrifice twelve beautiful sheep at the temple of Zeus and one of those rude and rowdy daimones comes along and says “don’t mind if I do!”…
1. is that daimon just one who’s lucky enough to be passing by or are they the resident daimon of that temple? does it depend?
2. since Porphyry is down with Plotinus’ undescended self (as he should be!), does the daimon gobbling up the good vibes I was trying to send to Zeus have an undescended noetic self within Porphyry’s nous/Zeus who is neither rude nor rowdy?
Earl Fontainelle
August 11, 2023
Dear Lb,
1. I think it depends; Porphyry certainly thinks daimones can have locations, but others are associated with more general areas like “the air” or “the fiery realm”.
2. This is a great question which, although I’m writing off the top, I am pretty confident in stating that Porphyry never addresses. For Plotinus every daimōn has a higher analogue, which is a theos, a god (as laid out e.g. in Enn. VI.7). Okay; but Plotinus also doesn’t believe in evil daimones at all; how would they fit into a Plotinian world-view? Unclear.
As a footnote here, the degree to which Porphyry agreed with the undescended self theory is up for debate, and, as an author who notoriously changed his mind over time (acc. to ancients like Eunapius and to most modern scholars, pace some recent work), we probably have Porphyryian works of “pre-undescended” and “undescended” eras.
The answers to your questions might be addressed somewhere in the monumental Andrew Smith:
@Book{Smith1974,
author = {Smith, Andrew},
title = {Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: a Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism},
address = {den Haag},
publisher = {Martinus Nijhoff},
year = {1974},
owner = {earl},
timestamp = {2011.04.07},
}
Lb Behrendt
August 12, 2023
thanks! even if Smith doesn’t address these questions, I have a lot more Porph questions that I haven’t asked, so it’s still probably worth a schlep to a university library to take a gander.
Dmitry Dundua
March 17, 2024
Thanks for this episode! (And for the whole podcast, I’m new to it and looks pretty amazing.) One small bibliographical question: do you mean that the passage from Phil. orac. 326F Smith about the potential dangers of private oracles is ἄχρι τούτων τολμᾷ φύσις ἀνθράπου εὑρίσκειν τὰς περὶ αὑτῆς συνεστώσας παγίδας?
Earl Fontainelle
March 18, 2024
Dear Dmitry,
Since reading your comment I see I cited this slightly wrong [I left out the final line]; I’ve amended it and added the Greek above, since someone is obviously paying attention! Thank you so much for noting this.
The key verb is εἰσκρίνω, which Liddell and Scott give as “enter into, penetrate”, citing Iamblichus and some PGM. It would seem that this is even something of a terminus technicus when discussing gods entering into pneumata and suchlike.
Dmitry Dundua
March 18, 2024
Dear Earl,
Thanks for this clarification! But what, in your opinion, points to the specifically private character of the oracles discussed in this passage? It seems to me that what Porphyry says can apply across the board, i.e. to public oracular sites as well. Are there any other passages in Phil. orac. where the public/private contrast is made explicit? (Sorry if the question is somewhat naïve—I’m new not just to the podcast but to Porphyry as well.)