Podcast episode
April 7, 2022
Episode 138: The Great Theurgy Debate: Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo, Iamblichus’ Response, and the Question(s) of Ritual
We introduce the book known as De mysteriis, Iamblichus’ reply to Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo. But is it by Iamblichus at all? We discuss manuscript traditions, questions of authorship, the ‘Egyptian fiction’, and other boring but useful fundamentals.
There are, however, many digressions – to eleventh-century Constantinople, fifteenth-century Florence, and beyond – which open up some vistas into the broader history of western esotericism and hopefully makes things a bit less boring. Plus we meet up with Hermes Trismegistus, whom we haven’t seen for a minute.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
Augustine on Porphyry on theurgia: Porphyry frr. 284-288 Smith.
Iamblichus, mostly from the De mysteriis:
- Pythagoras and Plato learned their theology from Hermetic stelæ: I.1 (5).
- The gods can act throughout the kosmos: I 8 (28).
- ὄχημα: III 4 (109); III 14 (132); V 12 (215).
- Saw the irrational soul and the ochēma as immortal: Procl. in Tim. 311 E, 157 D. Cf. 132, 12: ὄχημα; 312, 9-18: on pneuma.
- The world is full of gods: I 9 (30), recalling Thales as quoted by Aristotle, De anima 411a8 and Plato, Laws 899b9.
- Symbola: I 2 (37); I 21 (65); II 11 (96); IV 2 (184); VI 6(247); VII 2 (250).
- Divine possession: III 7(114), citing Pl. Ion 536c.
- Three types of prayer: V 26 (237-240).
Plotinus: ‘Often, awakening to myself …’: Enn. IV.8[31]1.1-11. Cf. V.3[49]6.13-18.
Porphyry: The longest citation from the Letter to Anebo seems to be Euseb. Præp. Ev. V 10 1-11, p. 242 .15-244.16. Asks about the different bodies of the gods: De myst. I.8 (23), I.20 (61).
Proclus on Iamblichus’ authorship of the De mysteriis: In Tim. 386.9-13.
Secondary:
- E.C. Clarke, J.M. Dillon, and J.P. Hershbell, editors. Iamblichus on The Mysteries. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, 2003.
- Philippe Derchain. Pseudo-Jamblique ou Abammôn? Quelques observations sur l’egyptianisme du De Mysteriis. Chronique d’Égypte, 38(76):220–26, 1963.
- H.D. Saffrey and A.-P. Segonds, editors. Porphyre: Lettre à Anébon l’Égyptien. Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2012.
- Idem, editors. Jamblique: Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis). Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2018.
- Angelo Raffaele Sodano, 1958 (see below).
- Jean Trouillard. Théologie negative et autoconstitution psychique chez les néoplatoniciens. In Savoir, faire, espérer: les limites de la raison, volume 1, pages 307–321. Facultés Universitaires St.-Louis, Brussels, 1976, we cite p. 313: ‘Chez les néoplatoniciens, la transcendance n’est pas extériorité ni absence. Immanance et transcendance sont non en raison inverse, mais en raison directe.’
Recommended Reading:
The first modern critical edition is Gustavus Parthey, editor. Iamblichi de mysteriis liber. F. Nicolai, Berlin, 1857. Those interested in the textual history in all its glory will want to consult Martin Sicherl. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen von Iamblichos De Mysteriis: Eine kritisch-historische Studie. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1957.
General:
- Crystal Addey. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Ashgate, Dorchester, 2014.
- David Hernandez De la Fuente. Neuplatonische Mystik und Magie als Modernisierung des traditionellen Paganismus im Imperium Romanum. Usuteaduslik Ajakiri, 74(1):2846, 2019.
- Hans Lewy. Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Études Augustiniennes, Paris, 1978.
- Joachim Friedrich Quack. (H)abammons Stimme? Zum ägyptischen Hintergrund der Jamblich zugeschreiben Schrift De mysteriis. In Michael Erler and Martin Andreas Stadler, editors, Platonismus und spätägyptische Religion: Plutarch und die ägypten- rezeption in der römischen Kaiserzeit, pages 149–74. De Gruyter, Berlin, 2017.
- Gregory Shaw. Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. Traditio, 41:1–28, 1985.
- Angelo Raffaele Sodano, editor. Lettera ad Anebo. L’Arte tipographica, Naples, 1958.
- Idem. Giamblico, I misteri egiziani: Abammone, Lettera a Porfirio. Introduzione, traduzione, apparati, appendici critiche e indici. Milano, 1984.
- Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler. Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, Germany, 2013.
- Carine van Liefferinge. La théurgie: Des “Oracles chaldaïques” à Proclus. Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique, Liège, Belgium, 1999.
On the meaning and history of the terms theurgia/theourgos:
- Henry J. Blumenthal. From ku-ru-so-wo-ko to Theourgos: Word to Ritual. In H.D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt, editors, Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, Founder and Editor of Liverpool Classical Monthly, volume 6 of Liverpool Classical Papers, pages 1–7. Liverpool, 1993.
- H. Lewy, ‘The Meaning and the History of the terms ‘Theurgist” and “Theurgy”‘, Excursus IV in Oracles, pp. 461-66. Cf. however F. Cremer. Die chaldaikhen Orakel pp. 19-36.
Themes
Addressative Ritual, Divination, Hermes, Hermetica, Iamblichus, Marsilio Ficino, Michael Psellos, Platonist Orientalism, Plotinus, Porphyry, Subtle Body, Sympathy, Theurgy
Saeeduddin Ahmed
April 14, 2022
Earl
So for the main text the Clark, Hershbell and Dillon translation seems to be the one to go with (89 page online preview here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/De_Mysteriis/UJuDa8G7RikC?hl=en)
But it doesn’t seem to have the “Letter to Anebo”, which is available in the Taylor translation
http://www.platonic-philosophy.org/files/Iamblichus%20-%20On%20the%20Mysteries.pdf
and the Wilder translation
http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm
Do you know if there is a good English translation of the letter?
Thanks
Saeed
Earl Fontainelle
April 26, 2022
Dear Saeed,
Actually, the Letter to Anebo in English remains a desideratum to my knowledge! In French there is Saffrey-Segonds (Paris: Les Belles Lettres 2012). As you say, though, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell’s De mysteriis contains most of what remains of the Letter, to which you need to add a major passage from Eusebius and one from Augustine, and you more or less have the whole thing such as it survives.
Saeeduddin Ahmed
April 14, 2022
Minute 53
Transcendence and immanence in direct relationship
Not
Inversely related
Nice close.
Looking forward to the next episodes which will continue to pay off, as we move further into recreating this 1500 year old debate
Btw:
AI kept converting “transcendence” to “trance dance” for me. I thought that was interesting
Lb Behrendt
August 15, 2023
even though we can’t be heroes, I’m delighted to learn that we can still be….. (wait for it)….. spheroes.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
July 3, 2024
Hey Earl, sorry if this goes slightly beyond the particular subject of this episode, but it’s a topic that has been bugging me lately. Michael Chase makes in his introduction to I. Hadot’s “Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato” a claim for the Hermetica being actually studied in both Athens and Alexandria akin to the Orphica and Chaldean Oracles. He bases this on of course Iamblichus and the Phaedrus commentary of Hermias, but also on apparent evidence regarding Theon of Alexandria, Hypatia and Synesius being familiar with Hermetic writings and the figure of Hermes.
I however am unconvinced, and would probably take the polar opposite stance of “the Hermetica had no real function in either Athenian or Alexandrian schools’ teaching context”. Basically I’d distance it far and away from the reception that the Orphica and Chaldean Oracles enjoyed. I just think that the circumstantial evidence for the Hermetica having a part in the teaching activities of those schools is fairly weak and that there are some powerful (albeit by nature dodgy) arguments from silence to be made against it.
At the very least I’d say that Hermias’ remarks about Hermes only point to him having a small interest in the thrice-great (just enough to make small mention of him) and that no one else from Syrianus onward really cared about the Hermetica.
I’d be more than willing to be showed to be wrong on this though, as the simple thought of these awesome platonists studying the Hermetica is a very cool idea, and thus I’d ask if you maybe had a horse in this race and if perhaps the podcast listener could expect to hear more about the relation between the Hermetica and the late antique Alexandrian – Athenian platonist teaching activities. It may be because I’ve not read all there is to be read about it but that relation feels somewhat understudied in scholarship.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
July 3, 2024
As a note, I am caught up with the podcast and thus aware of further platonic-hermetic discussions in subsequent episodes (ala Synesius). My question regarding future episodes should apply to episodes coming after the Proclus-treatment, just to clear that up.
Earl Fontainelle
July 3, 2024
Eemil,
It is an interesting and vexing question. You are right about the lack of evidence (though I must confess myself ignorant of Hermias’ commentaries in extenso, so maybe there’s something there). I think Chase is maybe allowing doctrines which seem ‘Hermetic’ in some vague way to influence his thinking here; I know work has been done trying to shew Hermetic elements in Plotinus’ thought, for example, and nothing much came of it as far as I’m aware; sure there are things in the CH that remind us of Plotty and vice versa, but that’s what you expect when you hold two Platonist(ic) world-views next to each other; similarities show up. The exception seems to be Iamblichus: he, in his mode as Egyptian priest, is writing a Hermeticum in the form of the De mysteriis, and Book 8 really does have what seem to be doctrines originating in Hermetic texts (though, again, which texts specifically? Not, seemingly, ones which survive). Aside from this, though, the tendency among school Platonists seems to have been to go to the Oracles for ancient wisdom and among Christians to reach for the Hermetica.
Why this should have been the case is another story, and I don’t know of any evidence-based answers: maybe it was as simple as, after a certain point, the Oracles got the reputation for being the polytheist one, and the Hermetica for being something Christians used, such that, as the two camps coalesced and people picked sides, they were also handed a book of sacred wisdom as part of the package. Pure speculation, however, and not that plausible.
Incidentally, since we are discussing awkward silences from which we are not permitted to deduce anything, what the heck are we to make of the deafening silence about Hermes from Clement and Origen, both living in Hermes’ hometown of Alexandria? As discussed in our episode with David Litwa, this really is a weird omission on the part of those two ….
Still, I will read Chase’s intro to Hadot and maybe return to this if I am speaking too rashly ….
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
July 3, 2024
Well regarding Clement there is reference to Hermes in the Stromateis, as is actually specified in a corrigenda to that Litwa episode. Origen remains strangely elusive regarding this though, and with him I’m not even able to speculate what his relationship with the Hermetica might have been…
With the Platonists I do have a guess though, I think they might be disregarding Hermetic literature on the grounds of them being pseudonymous writings. This won’t disregard their interest in Hermes Trismegistus the sage though as the figure of Hermes is again of some interest for Hermias at least…
They must be aware of the pseudonymous nature of the Hermetica since Iamblichus testifies to it at the very start of the De Mysteriis. We also know that they do place importance on the authenticity of texts, as is I think apparent from the attention given to discussing the authenticity of any given Aristotelian text that the Platonists are writing commentaries to. This leads me to think that they could consider Hermetic writings to be unattractive in that regard, not being truly from the pen of an ancient sage but meager attributions by later authors (so to speak). A comparison could be drawn with the Orphica in my opinion, there we have at least Proclus speaking of the texts as if they really came from Orpheus’ pen. The Hermetica – Hermes relation doesn’t come off as being like that.
Fairly irresponsible speculation, but plausible I’d say.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
July 3, 2024
Additionally Porphyry’s criticism of the dating of the Book of Daniel could be added as an example of late platonists having focus on the authenticity of texts, as is also the case with the similar case of a book of Zoroaster mentioned in the Life of Plotinus.
Earl Fontainelle
July 3, 2024
Agreed that a lot of later Platonists shew a concern for authenticity. There might well be something in what you are saying: perhaps they were lumping Hermetica in with the pseudo-Zoroastrian apocalypses and other spurious writings. People like Proclus had a very good ear for this sort of thing, with due allowance for his total credulity when it came to Orpheus.
The Clement reference to Hermes, just to reiterate here, is a generic reference to ‘books of Hermes’, most likely technical literature rather than theosophical speculations, but what we are mainly talking about, I think, is the kind of religio-philosophical work we find in the CH and similar collections. It’s worth pointing out that Platonists who engage with astrology — which is all of them from Plotinus onward, to some degree or other — are in fact engaging with the technical Hermetic tradition, inasmuch as at least one foundational document of Hellenistic astrology was by Hermes.
But, again, where is the Commentary on the Hermetic Poimandres in Eighteen Books? I’d settle for a lost commentary, just give us a hint! But nothing.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
July 3, 2024
Commentary on the Hermetic Poimandres in Eighteen Books
On Hermetic Theology in Twenty-Two Books
On the Harmony of Hermes, Orpheus, Pythagoras and Plato with the Oracles
etc
Many works that should exist but just sadly don’t 🙁