Storytime: Reading Hierocles on the Golden Verses, Part II

Comments

1. 

   Stephen Rego
   March 23, 2024

   Hi Earl, first of all thank you for the excellent episodes on Hierocles. Secondly, around the 15.00 min mark, you pondered the possible link between the ritual purification of the soul-vehicle and the animation of statues under the rubric of “telestic” and would like to offer my conjecture  which is admittedly drawn from later evidence, namely Proclus:

   Tanaseanu-Döbler (2013, p.197) discerns *three* areas with which “telestic” (and its cognates) is concerned in Proclus, with the first two being:

   (1) purifications and initiations, e.g.,

   ‘It is impossible for the imperfect to attain their own perfection, unless they have first travelled via the path of personal purification from their impediments, since purification everywhere has this function. But the true cleansing of the soul is threefold: one through the art of initiation concerning which the Socrates of the 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘴 [244d-e, 250b-c] speaks…’ ~ Proclus, 𝘐𝘯 𝘈𝘭𝘤. 174.5-9 Westerink, trans. O’Neill, 2011, p.230,

   and (2) divinely activating (i.e., animating) statues by means of symbols, noting that “[h]ere telestic and theurgy meet, the symbols are often interpreted as the Chaldaean 𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘢, sown throughout the cosmos by the demiurge, The most monumental treatment of this subject, embedding telestic in the cosmic demiurgy, is naturally found in the 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘦𝘶𝘴 commentary,” e.g.,

   ‘Every image that participates more distinctly in the form is indeed an image of a paradigm with a higher degree of purity. Just as in the case of statues connected with telestic, those who obtain a  dimmer divine presence enjoy the secondary and the tertiary powers of the divine, but those who obtain a clear presence participate in the very first and highest creations of the divine, in the same way, I imagine, the god who was initiator of the cosmos made it appear most beautiful as an image of the very first of the eternal beings.’ ~ Proclus, 𝘐𝘯 𝘛𝘪𝘮. I.330.30ff. Diehl, trans. Runia & Share, 2008, p.186, slightly modified.

   I think perhaps it is here, through the notion of the fitness/suitability/receptivity (ἐπιτηδειότης, epitēdeiotēs) of the recipient for divine illumination, that one can find a shared characteristic of the soul-vehicle and the animated statue that brings together these first two forms of “telestic” in the manner to which you may have been alluding; in other words, the purification of the soul vehicle makes the soul/vehicle a suitable receptacle just as adorning the statue with its proper συνθήματα (𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘢) and/or σύμβολα (𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘢) enables the statue to receive the divine presence, viz.:

   ‘For a theurgist who sets up a statue as a likeness of a certain divine order fabricates the tokens of its identity with reference to that order, 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻 [sc. the Demiurge] 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹.’ ~ Proclus, 𝘐𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘮. IV.847 Cousin, trans. Dillon & Morrow, 1987, p.218.

   Thus, by purifying the soul-vehicle (for Proclus, the “pneumatic” vehicle) of its material defilements the theurgist’s soul is properly prepared and enabled for its ascent up towards the ‘Paternal harbour’ of the Demiurge, from where it can contemplate the Forms, viz.:

   ‘[It is] necessary for the soul, after becoming an intellective cosmos [κόσμον νοερὸν] and assimilating itself to the extent possible to the entirety of the intelligible cosmos, to make its approach to the Maker of the universe, and from this approach to become familiar with him somehow through its continual concentration – for untiring activity focused on an object summons forth and kindles the rational principles we have in us – and through this familiarity to stand at the gate of the Father and be unified with him. This is the discovery, to encounter him, to be unified, to be together as the soul alone with him alone, to obtain this self-manifestation, to snatch itself from all other activity and focus on him… For it is only when the soul has passed beyond the distraction of birth and the [process of] purification and beyond the illumination of scientific knowledge that its intellective activity [τὸ νοερὸν ἐνέργημα] and the intellect in us lights up, anchoring the soul in the Father and establishing it immaculately in the demiurgic thoughts. It connects light with light [φῶς φωτὶ συνάπτων], not in the manner of scientific knowledge, but in a manner that is more beautiful, more intellective and more unificatory. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿 [ὁ πατρικός ὅρμος], 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 [ἕνωσις] 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗺.’ ~ 𝘐𝘯 𝘛𝘪𝘮. I.301.23ff. Diehl, trans. Runia & Share, 2008, pp. 156-7.

   There is a further, rather interesting link between the soul, statues and theurgy (or rather its limits) in Proclus that is adduced by Lankila (in 𝘏𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴, 2010, p.161) with the soul’s ‘hypernoetic’ faculties, such as the ‘One of the soul’, the ‘flower of the whole soul’, and the ‘flower of intellect’, etc., which, he argues, “represent in the human psychic structure the illumination from the highest gods. This is how he comes to his peculiar late Neoplatonic answer to the question of what the soul ultimately is: “We are images of the intellective essences and statues of unknowable signs” [ = Psellus, 𝘌𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘵𝘢 𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘭𝘰 𝘥𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘤𝘢, 211.24-5: καὶ ἐσμὲν εἰκόνες μὲν τῶν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν, ἀγάλματα τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγνώστων συνθημάτων].”

   Finally, the third and final meaning of ‘telestic’ in Proclus according to Tanaseanu-Döbler is (3) the consecratiion special sacred spaces, such as oracle sanctuaries or cities.”

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Earl Fontainelle
     March 23, 2024

     Thanks for the Proclean citations, Stephen! All legit stuff. Maybe that intuition about there being a parallelism between the statues/human practitioner dichotomy had more to it than I thought. Marinus does compare Proclus to a divine statue, after all! (citation forthcoming when I find it in the Life of Proclus)

     Log in to Reply
2. 

   Cam Larios
   March 23, 2024

   For anyone who, like me, was tempted by the mystery of the red mullet, “The Red Mullet in Rome” in James Grout’s “Encyclopedia Romana” (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/mullus.html) may be useful. There are lots of historical tidbits here about the red mullet as a high-status luxury good with more than a hint of tulipomania. I enjoyed Varro’s griping about the orator Hortensius’s fussiness with his pet mullets. Though I wondered what a Platonizing natural philosopher might make of the red mullet’s color change upon death, I’ve come across nothing about that except some excited gastronomizing.

   So far, so good: mullet as a symbol of dissipated wealth and luxury, right? Makes sense. But then Grout trots out this quotation from Plutarch of Chaeronea:

   The fish also was venerated by those initiated into the Eleusian mysteries, “For surmullets are particularly good at killing and eating the sea-hare [sea slug], which is lethal to man. It is for this reason that surmullets possess this immunity, as being friendly and life-saving creatures” (Plutarch, De sollertia animalium, 983f).

   Plutarch has a good deal more to say about Pythagoreans and fish generally:
   http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0312%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D8

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Earl Fontainelle
     March 23, 2024

     Thanks for the Pythagorean fish. That Plutarch passage is also a classic piece of Pythagorean philosophic silence.

     Log in to Reply