lewelyn, el - the theurgy of iamblichus

E.L. Lewelyn Dissertation: The Theurgy of Iamblichus

1

The Theurgy of Iamblichus The concept of theurgy or “god-working” as described by Iamblichus was not

a new concept to the ancient world, but was one that Iamblichus placed firmly at the centre of the Neoplatonic tradition of philosophical Greece. Theurgy, a system of ritualistic and, arguably “magical” practice, as described by Iamblichus, had the highest aims of uniting man with the very gods. I will show how theurgy did not stand in opposition to the more strictly rationalistic Platonic tradition, but was in fact, an extension and development of the tradition’s essential intelligible tenets. In the course of this essay, I will discuss some of the fundamental characteristics by which Iamblichus defined theurgy, looking specifically at the chief work where theurgy is discussed, De Mysteriis, a dialogue created by what is now generally believed to be Iamblichus, but under a pseudo-identity of an Egyptian priest answering questions raised against theurgy by Iamblichus’ fellow contemporary and Platonist, Porphyry. It is my aim not so much to attempt to say what has not been said before about Iamblichean theurgy, but, rather to look the past research as well as the De Mysteriis text itself and attempt to place Iamblichean theurgy into perspective as a respectable and sensible development of the Platonic and Neoplatonic world-view.

------------------------- Theurgy, from the Greek theorgia, means literally “god-working” or “divine

working”1 and was a ritualistic method advocated by Iamblichus for the purpose of invoking the gods with a view to attaining the power of a god and of harmonizing the soul to both the natural world and a higher spiritual order. Put another way, the goal of theurgy was self-salvation. Self-salvation in the sense that the theurgist would bring about his or her salvation by means of their own efforts, yet with the qualification that the gods themselves would very much assist in the process.

Although there is no agreement among scholars as to who first used the term theurgy (or theorgia) it is generally consented that Iamblichus was not the first to use the term, but that he was the first to stress its importance as a systematic means of philosophical2 development and self-perfection. There is currently some disagreement on the exact origins of the term theurgy. Gregory Shaw points out in Theurgy and the Soul (p. 5):

1 theos = god, ergon = work 2 That is: “philosophical” in the true etymological sense of the word, not as a mere exercise in discursive thought, but as pertaining to that which is conducive to the production of wisdom (including that kind of wisdom that lies beyond discursive thought).


2

Although the term theorgia originated with second century Platonists to describe the deifying power of Chaldean rituals…it was Iamblichus who provided a philosophical rationale for the performance of these rites and ensured that theurgy would become an integral part of Platonic vocabulary. Porphyry in the third century also recommended it, albeit only in certain

circumstances, not as a practice for the philosopher.3 On the other hand, Neoplatonist scholar, R. T. Wallis also gives this description of the origin of theurgy:

The term theurgy with its etymological connotation of “divine work” seems to have been coined by the younger Julian, in deliberate contrast to theology which only talks about the gods; by the Neoplatonists it is also contrasted with theoria, the philosophical contemplation advocated by Plotinus, whose deficiency the theurgists similarly stressed. The methods of theurgy were essentially those of ritual magic, its aim the incarnation of a divine force either in a material object, such as a statue, or in a human being, the result being a state of prophetic trance.4

The Emperor Julian, as a determined exponent of paganism, had wanted

Iamblichus with his theurgy to offer some serious competition to the growing popularity of Christianity. 5

The Egyptian factor The main place where we find a discussion of Iamblichean theurgy is his De

Mysteriis Aegyptiorum6, often referred to simply as De Mysteriis (the original title of this work being The Answer of master Abammon to a letter sent by Porphyry to Anebo and solution of the difficulties which can be found there). The stated author for this was an Egyptian Priest called Abammon. The text itself is presented by the author as an extended reply to the criticisms directed against theurgy by Porphyry to the Egyptian Theurgist Anebo; with Abammon, the Spiritual Teacher of Anebo, replying.

3 “Iamblichus had been led to the higher reaches of Platonism by Porphyry, and although Porphyry also introduced Iamblichus to theurgy it was Iamblichus who discovered its deeper significance. For Porphyry, theurgy functioned as a mere preparation for the philosophic life and was to be left on the periphery of the higher disciplines. Iamblichus, on the other hand, moved theurgy from the periphery to the centre, not only in the life of the philosopher, but for anyone who worshipped the gods.” (Shaw, p. 14). And Wallis, on p.108 (of Neoplatonism), says: “In his [Porphyry’s] view it [theurgy] was an easier first step for those unable to pursue philosophy directly; it was unnecessary to the philosopher and could not by itself lead the soul back to the Intelligible world” (see below for an account of the Intelligible world, the world of nous). 4 Wallis Neoplatonism 1972, p.107 5 Gillian Clark writes: “The emperor Maximin Daia, during the Great Persecution, had decided that what paganism lacked was a visible, integrated, spiritually authoritative priesthood. Julian, in his brief reign (361-3), went further, proposing basic religious teaching and a budget for charitable activities to make the pagan priesthoods an exact parallel to the Christian clergy. As Emperor he could supply the budget: it was the writings of Iamblichus which were to train the priests.” (Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life, pp. xii-xiii) 6 Thomas Taylor gave it the even longer title of On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians. We note, however, that, although the latter two systems are mentioned in the work, the primacy is given to the Egyptians.


3

It has been disputed by some7 whether this work was actually written by Iamblichus (using Abammon merely as a pseudonym) or literally by an Egyptian Priest called Abammon, who was an exponent of theurgy. Some have argued that the literary style of De Mysteriis is not that of Iamblichus as he is known by his other works. Nevertheless, it has been taken even by those arguing thus that it was written by a member of Iamblichus’ school, that is, clearly by an advocate of theurgy, and I believe we can, therefore, take it that the views expressed in the work concord with what Iamblichus himself believed and taught as regards theurgy and the spiritual justification for its use.

I believe it is significant that the Egyptians are mentioned before the Chaldeans and Assyrians in the title of the work, and also that Abammon and Anebo - Teacher and student of Iamblichean theurgy - are themselves Egyptians, for it seems that the Egyptian influence was of central importance in the concept of theurgy. I would argue that it was this Egyptian influence that appeared so alien to the more typically rational-minded Greek Neoplatonists8. By this I mean that the Egyptians were more religious9 than rational in their approach to understanding the universe. And by “religious”, I mean ritualistic and more inclined to ceremony, prayer and invocation of deity, than to rational discourse and philosophical contemplation. 10

And Iamblichus himself in the De Mysteriis, goes as far as to say: Understand that the Egyptians were the first of mankind that were

allotted to communion with the gods; and the gods that are invoked delight in the Egyptian customs. (VII, 15)

This having been said it may also have been the anti-Christian bias of some of

the Neoplatonic philosophers which caused them to view Theurgy with suspicion, seeing in theurgy too much of a likeness to what they saw as the irrational and even superstitious bent of Christianity. Wallis writes: “That Jews and Christians demanded belief in propositions for which they were unable to furnish proof was a commonplace of Platonic criticism…”11 Porphyry in particular had written a treatise called “Against

7 As one website article put it: “The authenticity of the De Mysteriis was without question to the first translators and editors. Only in the 19th century [the distinguished German philologist] Zeller, following others (Meiners, 1781; Harless, 1858) declared himself against the authenticity of the work and attributed it to a disciple of Iamblichus. But in 1911, K. Rasche gave decisive arguments in favor of the attribution to Iamblichus: 1) the testimonies made by Proclus and Damascius, and 2) the comparison between the language used in the De Mysteriis with other works by Iamblichus which authenticity is out of question. After this demonstration, further doubts are rare.” - from: http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Friends/Iamblichus/On_the_Mysteries_x.htm Similarly, Wallis says: “ [De Mysteriis] whose authenticity, doubted during the nineteenth century, seems guaranteed by the testimony of Proclus” (Neoplatonism, p.9) 8 It should be noted that although Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism was, so far as can be established, Egyptian, and was none the less rational for it, but it should be borne in mind that Plotinus was not an exponent of Egyptian religion, and was not at all typically Egyptian. Aside from his birth, Plotinus was in every respect quite Hellenic in his outlook, especially in terms of his support of rational philosophy and choice of a contemplative approach to the divine. 9 Although some six centuries earlier (than Iamblichus), it is interesting to note that Herodotus in his History (Book II) describes the Egyptians as being “religious to excess, like that of no other race.” 10 Shaw says: “Iamblichus was not a proponent of “Hellenic” culture in the manner of his enthusiastic student Julian. Indeed… Iamblichus claimed in the De Mysteriis that “Hellenes” had already abandoned their religious heritage, and he blamed them for the loss of sanctity in his age.” And “Iamblichus similarly praised the Egyptians and explained the power of their hieratic rites”. (Theurgy and the Soul p.3) 11 Neoplatonism, p.101.


4

the Christians” which was subsequently burned by the Church.12 Plotinus before him had raised similar criticisms against the Gnostics13.

Gods, Daemons and Demigods Since theurgy consists of working with the divine, before looking directly at

the nature of Iamblichean theurgy, it would be useful to outline Iamblichus’ view of the divine in general and divine beings in particular. For Iamblichus, like the Chaldean and Assyrian Priests, there is a definite hierarchy of divine beings. Human souls occupied the bottom rung and gods the upper rung of this divine hierarchical ladder, with demigods (or “heroes”) and daemons in the intermediate area. As he says in De Mysteriis:

Such then being the case with the divine races, the first and the last (the gods and souls), let us consider the two races intermediate between these two extremes, namely: 1. That of heroes or half-gods, which not only ranks higher than the order of souls in power and virtue, moral beauty and greatness, and excels it in every good quality which is incident in souls, but is also closely joined to them by the kindred relationship of a similar form of life. 2. The other, the race of dæmons, which is closely allied to the gods, yet is in a certain sense inferior to them, following as though it was not first in rank but

accompanying in subservience to the good pleasure of the gods. (DM I.2)

Although Iamblichus sees the main task of theurgy to ultimately involve

assimilation to, and cooperation with, the gods, this does not mean that theurgy did not also entail working with the daemons as well. Porphyry, in his letter to Anebo asks for a definition of the differences between gods and daemons, demigods and human souls and if it is a "…a classification established by difference of bodies, the gods being distinguished by aetherial bodies, the daemons by aerial bodies, and souls by bodies pertaining to the earth."14 Iamblichus replies that it is not a difference of types of bodies that defines “superior races”15, as they do not possess bodies at all; they are entirely incorporeal. It is rather their functions, power over their environment and levels of perfection that define them. He says: “Further still, the races of Superior beings are not in the bodies, but govern them from outside.” (DM I.3). Iamblichus goes on describing what he means by these differences:

In regard to the extreme races (the gods and souls) the former is chief, superior and perfect; the other is inferior and imperfect. The former can do all things at once uniformly and now; but the other is neither able to do anything completely nor immediately; neither speedily nor individually. The former generates all things and is guardian over them; but the latter has a natural disposition to yield and to turn submissively toward what it generates and has under guardianship. (DM I.3)

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 At the very start of the Epistle (Ch.1). 15 “Superiors races” refers to the various races (groups) of divine beings, one being the race (or group) of gods, another that of daemons, etc.


5

Iamblichus adds into his hierarchy other races of divine beings such as angels16 and archons, but for the sake of our discussion of theurgy, we can confine ourselves to gods and daemons, the two classes of beings that Iamblichus mentions in respect to the theurgist. Before outlining the important distinction between working with a daemon and working with a god, we will first look at what exactly theurgy involves.

Honouring the gods Iamblichus is nowhere specific in any of his extant writings as to what exact

practices constitute his brand of theurgy, but it is obvious from a general reading of his works that he is always talking generally about some sort of ritualistic or ceremonial work, including invocation of deity, purificatory rites17 and sacrifice. And, although we cannot tie him down to specific details as to what these precise rituals might be, we can certainly gain a clear insight into the general nature of the theurgy advocated by Iamblichus. One most important aspect of theurgy is the honouring of the gods:

I think, therefore, that all who delight in the spectacle of Theurgic reality will acknowledge this: that it is not proper to render to the gods partially or imperfectly the devotion which is rendered to them…He, therefore, who does not bestow on all of them what he should, and address every one according to the honour to which he is entitled, is made to go away uninitiated and disappointed of the participation with the gods. But he who propitiates them all, bringing to every one the gifts in his power that are most suitable and acceptable, always remains safe and without blame, having well and most carefully accomplished the reception of the divine chorus. (DM V.13)

The rites of theurgy, therefore, require a “token of devotion”. Only then do

they work as initiatory rites of passage into the mysteries of the divine. What this token of devotion may be is never spelled out by Iamblichus, yet this may be simply because, as it states in the text itself, the form of devotion yielded (or offering given) must be appropriate to the particular deity with whom one is working. Iamblichus stresses the importance of being thorough in one’s theurgy, especially as regards the gods themselves:

They are also aware that the omissions, though few, defeat the whole performance of the Sacred Rite, just as when in a harmony a single chord is broken, the whole becomes out of tune and discordant… As therefore, in the divine descents which are visible there occurs manifest injury to those who leave any of the superior beings unhonored… (Ibid.)

Iamblichus does not state exactly what this “manifest injury” is, nor does he

give any examples of it. Wilder, in an ad loc. note to this section, postulates the following example of what Iamblichus may mean: “Aeneus, the king of Kalydon, it was fabled, once celebrated a sacrifice at which he omitted to honor the goddess

16 Wilder says in an ad loc. note to DM V.13: “The angels are not a common constituent in the Egyptian and Hellenic categories. They were adopted evidently from Judaea or Assyria about the same time”. 17 i.e. rituals of spiritual purification.


6

Artemis. She by way of punishment sent a boar to ravage his dominions.” Iamblichus continues:

He who leaves any of them [the gods] without a gift holds the whole thing fast and destroys the one and entire arrangement. He does not, as some may therefore imagine, make the reception an imperfect one, but, on the other hand, he absolutely overturns the whole purpose of the Sacred Rite. (Ibid.)

Perhaps the “manifest injury” that Iamblichus refers to is simply a destruction

of the effectiveness of the theurgy, and, therefore, of the theurgist who would otherwise benefit from it. Either way, it seems clear that what Iamblichus means is that, for the most favourable of consequences, the theurgy should be performed with thoroughness.

The One and the many To understand Iamblichus’ general worldview, it is perhaps best to look at one

of Iamblichus’ great Neoplatonic predecessor Plotinus who spoke of the One over the many. The One (the Good or, simply “God”), through its own natural superabundance, flows out like a fountain - while paradoxically still not “losing” any part of itself in the flowing or experiencing any diminution of substance - and emanates out a somewhat lower level or hypostasis of being, called Intellect or Mind (nous). Intellect “thinks” the (Platonic) Forms and sustains them, in pure thought, in a timeless, eternal state. This level of reality although composite and not possessing the perfect, unqualified, unity of the first level (the One), still contains a measure of unity albeit of a secondary nature. Intellect then, in turn, emanates yet another hypostasis, called Soul (pusche), and within this level, individual souls (of organic beings) are formed.

For, Plotinus, the moral life consists of what is conducive to a return to the One, involving detaching from material preoccupations (the world of multiplicity), returning back to the Intelligible Principle within (which is independent of the body), becoming again the true divine and perfected self, and then finally attaining unto union with the One itself. Thus, to sum up the overall process that Plotinus describes we might say that it is of two parts: the descent from the One to the many, and a return back to the One from the many. That this view influenced Iamblichus’ thinking – as it did the entire Neoplatonic movement - seems obvious enough from his own writings, however, where Iamblichus differs most from Plotinus is in his adopted methodology as regards the process of returning to the One. For Plotinus, moral virtue, rational philosophy and pure contemplation were the means employed to attain union with the One, but, for Iamblichus, this same goal could be achieved via theurgy. For Iamblichus, there was a supreme One (often described as a supreme deity) that resided over and above the many individual gods and goddesses. He puts it thus:

The system of the Egyptian priests in relation to the First Principles, extending from above to the farthest extremes, begins from the One and passes on to the multitude: the many being guided and directed by the one, and the undefined realm of nature being placed under a defined measure of authority, even of the one Supreme Cause of all things. (DM VIII.16)18

18 MacKenna translation.


7

Iamblichus raises the question in De Mysteriis as to whether or not this supreme deity should not just be invoked directly, as an alternative to invoking the many different aspects of the divine represented by many different gods, since this one supreme god will contain all other principalities (including the various gods) within its all-pervading bosom. His answer is that this type of (what we might call) henotheistic approach, focussing on the supreme deity, is fine for those who are sufficiently spiritually advanced and mature enough to do so, but such people are few and far between, and so, for the vast majority, working directly and immediately with the divine in its totality and unity is “too much” to ask and that, rather, for the vast majority, a more indirect and dispersed form of theurgic beatific beholding of divinity - via the worship of several individual aspects of the supreme (gods) - would be better adapted to their needs and level of attainment:

Does not the highest part of the Sacred Technic recur of itself to the One Supreme above the whole multitude of divinities, and yet at the same time worship in him the many essences and principalities? Certainly, I may be answered, but this takes place at a very late period, and only with the exceedingly few; and if it comes at the very sunset of life, they are content… (DM V.13)

The other reason Iamblichus gives for the multiplicity of rites and the worship

of many gods is that the universe itself is multiform and varied in its manifestation and structure, and so it is only natural that theurgy, whose goal is union with the whole of the universe, should also be of this multifarious nature:

…as the universe is a system from many orders combined into one, so it is proper that the complete ceremonial of the Sacred Rites, unceasing and entire, shall be joined with the whole category of the superior races. Certainly, indeed, if the cosmos is manifold and entire, and is constituted in many orders, it is proper accordingly that the Sacred Performance shall copy its various features, because of all the powers which they present to view. (DM V.13)

Nevertheless, the ultimate goal of theurgy was union with Unity, and this

reflects in Iamblichus’ view that all the gods were related to an underlying divinity common to all:

Inasmuch as the gods are all arranged as absolutely one, the primary and secondary races, even the many that are self-existent with them, preside together over the universe as one, everything in them is one, and the first, the intermediate and lowest races coexist as the One itself. Hence, in respect to these, it is of no use to enquire whence the One is brought into reciprocal relations with them all, for the self-same essence that is indeed in them is the one of their own substance (DM I, 4)

As the One is a totality and perfect cosmic unity, transcending, yet at the same

time, containing, all things, it must be of such a nature that even the various manifest forms arising from It must partake of Its nature, having It for their source and origin. The description here given by Iamblichus of the many gods partaking of the unified essence of the one supreme God (the One itself) is comparable to Plotinus’


8

description of the Forms in the intelligible world (nous) partaking of the essence of the One.19

The (ultimate) goal of theurgy The Iamblichean theurgist seeks to unite with each of the individual deities

and thus to gradually develop the powers of the soul through the ritualistic and ceremonial work, but always with a view to attaining the ultimate goal of merging with the supreme power, the divine creator:

After the theurgic discipline has conjoined the soul individually with the several departments of the universe, and with all the divine powers that pervade it, then it leads the soul to the creator of the world, places it in his charge, and frees it of everything pertaining to the realm of matter…What I am saying is this: That it unites the soul individually to the One, Father of himself, self-moving. He who sustains the universe, spiritual, who arranges all things in order, who leads it to the supreme truth, to the absolute, the efficient, and other creative powers of God: thus establishing the theurgic soul in the energies, the conceptions and creative qualities of those powers. Then it inserts the soul in the entire Demiurgic God. This, with the Egyptian Sages, is the end of the "Return" as taught in the Sacred Records. (DM X.18)

Here, the supreme divine force, is, as in Christianity, compared to a divine

“Father” and “Creator of the world”. And it should be noted that there was no negative view of the creator of the world, the demiurgos, as there was in the prevailing Gnostic sects of the day. The soul of the theurgist is to unite with this power, which is not an enslaving God (as the Gnostics held), but one that “frees the soul’. Here Iamblichus is in agreement with Plotinus who had argued that the Gnostics blamed the creator for the soul’s errors in becoming attached to the corporeal world20.

Beyond discursive intellect Theurgy was not about attaining some sort of (merely) rational perfection, it

aimed to take its practitioner beyond thought and discursive reasoning, not to something inferior to reason, but to something transcendent of and superior to it. It was not, in my opinion, as E.R. Dodds implied, “irrational” as much as trans-rational. The theurgist does not dispense with rationality as such, but maintaining it as a practice it is simply that she goes beyond it:

For it is not the concept that unites the theurgic priests to the gods: else what is there to hinder those who pursue philosophic speculation contemplatively, from having the theurgic union to the gods? Now, however, in actual truth, this is not the case. On the other hand, it is the complete fulfilling of the arcane performances, the carrying of them through in a manner worthy of the gods and surpassing all conception, and likewise the

19 Among many examples, we might, for instance cite the Enneads where it says: “And just as there is, primarily or secondarily, some form or idea from the monad in each of the successive numbers- the later still participating, though unequally, in the unit.” (V.V.5) 20 See: Plotinus Ennead V.8.


9

power of the voiceless symbols which are perceived by the gods alone, that establish the Theurgic Union. Hence we do not effect these things by thinking. (DM II.6)21

Theurgy is not the path of the purely intellectual or contemplative philosopher,

it has to be practised, and if so, leads to a direct, unmitigated perception of reality, and, ultimately, to union with deity or divinity, an experience not akin even to what can be termed “knowledge”(episteme) in any ordinary sense of the word.22

Abammon explains in his reply to Porphyry how “knowledge”, as we normally use the term, is not the true goal of theurgy, for knowledge implies duality – the knower and the thing known, whereas the goal of theurgy is ineffable union with the divine, or if you like, a trans-rational union with the gods:

If, however, we must speak truly, the conjoining to the divine nature is not knowing, for this is kept separate after a manner by an otherness. Prior to this knowing, however, which is as of one individual having knowledge of another, the intimate union as in a single concept is self-originated and indistinguishable. Hence we ought to concede the point as though possibly it might not be granted, not to assume it as a matter of uncertainty, for it always existed simply in energy. Nor is it proper to put it to proof in this way as though we had authority to judge and reject; for we are ourselves encompassed in it, or rather we are filled by it, and the very selfhood which we are we possess in this knowing of the gods. (DM I.2)

In union with the divine, with the gods, there can be no “one thing knowing

another thing”, there is only union – that is, there is only the ineffable and utterly consuming experience of one’s essential Godhood. One no longer knows of it, one is it! This is the goal of the practical philosophy of theurgy - what theoretical philosophy can point to, and direct towards, but can not actually, by itself achieve.

The difference between different “kinds” or “levels” of knowledge and knowing was already in Plato, where a distinction was drawn between discursive reasoning (dianoia) and the dialectical mode of knowing (noesis), a doctrine we see most famously and clearly expounded in the Simile of the Line of the Republic23. Here, the former is a mode of reasoning involving a process of calculation or thinking occurring across time; the latter, however, is an immediate beholding and intelligible grasp of the object of its thought. The former applies to, for example mathematical reasoning, while the latter is the highest form of knowledge, that of the Good (which in Plotinus becomes the One). Theurgy seeks to take us beyond this discursive knowledge to the true noetic experience. 24

The Guardian Daemon One important aspect of theurgy is the invocation of the guardian daemon. The

guardian daemon is at a higher level than the as yet unperfected soul on the divine hierarchy and acts as a protective agent, guide and role model:

21 The italics are mine. 22 Perhaps more gnosis (divine knowledge) than episteme (rational knowledge). 23 509d -510e. 24 See also Plotinus, Enneads V.8.10-11, where the highest type of “knowing” is described in all its awe and beauty - a beatific beholding of the divine.


10

This daemon, therefore, is present as exemplar before the souls descend into the realm of generated existence. As soon as the soul chooses him for leader the daemon immediately comes into charge of the completing of its vital endowments, and when it descends into the body, unites it with the body, and becomes the guardian of its common living principle. He likewise himself directs the private life of the soul, and whatever the conclusions we may arrive at by inference and reasoning, he himself imparts to us the principles. (DM IX.17)

It should be noted that this is a temporary position for the theurgist. Although

the theurgist, until very advanced in theurgy, should expect to work only with a guardian daemon, eventually, when the theurgist progresses to a higher stage of assimilation to the divine, the guardian daemon is exchanged for a guardian deity:

He [the guardian daemon] guides human beings thus continually till through the sacred theurgic discipline we shall obtain a god to be guardian and leader of the soul. For then he gives place to the superior, or delivers over the superintendence, or becomes subject, as a tributary, to him, or in some other way is servant to him as to an Overlord. (Ibid.) Again, this idea is mentioned, before Iamblichus, in Plato. In the Symposium,

the priestess Diotima describes the role of this daemon, in very similar terms to those later used by Iamblichus:

A great Daemon …and every thing daemonical holds an intermediate place between what is divine and what is mortal…He interprets and makes a communication between divine and human things, converting the prayers and sacrifices of men to the Gods, and communicating the commands and directions concerning the mode of worship most pleasing to them, from Gods to men…Through him subsist all divination, and the science of sacred things as it relates to sacrifices, and expiations, and disenchantments, and prophecy, and magic. (202e -203a)25

So, once again, we se Iamblichus building on very firm Platonic foundations. “Even the gods are yielding”?26 Porphyry, in his letter to Anebo, asks the appropriate question, regarding

theurgic invocation: “why then, are many ceremonies performed histrionically in the Sacred Rites, as though the gods were moved by passion?” Here, Porphyry wants to know why superior beings (gods) would be moved by the invocation (calling) of inferior beings (human theurgists), and if they were not so moved, then what was the point of theurgy? It was also perhaps this passion-based nature of the invocation would also have made Porphyry suspicious27. This was an important question for Porphyry, the dedicated disciple of Plotinus, who advocated not ritual invocation or

25 Shelley translation. 26 Quoted from Homer, by Porphyry in his epistle to Anebo in regard to theurgy. The question Porphyry poses in a nutshell is: “Do you really think that the divine powers likely to yield to the whims of mere human beings?” 27 For example in De Abstinentia, I.32 and III.26, where abstinence from or restraining of the passions is inculcated as a means to attain a better grasp on the higher intellible principle.


11

theurgy of any kind, but a simple uniting with the One through philosophic contemplation. The previous Neoplatonist attitude might be summed up thus: why try to make the gods do anything, when you can unite with the very source of the power of all the gods? I think this is a very good question, but I also think Iamblichus gives an equally good answer. The reply given tells us much about the nature of theurgy:

I think that this is said without an intelligent understanding in regard to the Sacerdotal technique of the Mysteries. For of the ceremonies performed from time to time in the Sacred Rites, some have an ineffable cause and a divine principle; others are consecrated to the Superior beings from eternity as symbols are consecrated; others preserve some other image, just as Nature, the Supreme Genetrix also from invisible concepts, molds visible semblances. (DM I.4) Here Iamblichus shows how ritual invocation does not have to be about

humans trying to manipulate or move the gods; quite the contrary, as the cause of the rites, rather than being found in the theurgist, originate in the “ineffable” and “divine principle” – that is, in the gods themselves. The implication here is that when humans performed the true theurgic rites they are fulfilling the will of the gods, not trying to manipulate it. Many such rites are “consecrated”28 by the gods of all eternity, and are designed by the gods themselves as symbols of their divinity. The theurgist then is permitted to get closer to the gods, by working with these symbols via theurgy. Just as Nature, here also viewed as a creator, forms the visible world out of the invisible world of Ideas, so too the gods design the theurgic rites as visible and corporeal signs of their invisible and incorporeal nature. Participation in these theurgic rites is then not an attempt to change the will of the gods, but simply an acceptance of a divine gift – the gift of opportunity, the opportunity to participate in that divine will with full permission. The theurgist is someone who simply allows the divine to work through her/him.29 Iamblichus continues:

[Other ceremonies] are brought forward from some motive of veneration, or they are endeavors at figurative representation, or some concept of a family relationship (Ibid.)30.

In other words, the workings are often devotional in nature, or a means to

establish a relationship and connection with the divine. Presumably, Iamblichus does not mean to try and make the gods be filial with us - as that would contradict his defence of theurgy against the charge levelled at it - but rather to make ourselves amenable to what is our true, divinely ordained, familial state with the gods, a state which we merely need to consent to.

The theurgy can also be a form of ritual purification, as well as the banishing away of negative or destructive influences:

Some [workings] prepare us for something that is useful, or in some way purify and free our human passions, or turn away some of the evils that may be impending over us. (Ibid.)

28 Literally “made sacred”. 29 It has been said (I think in the Christian tradition) that ritual is but the outer expression of an inner grace, and there is an aspect of that in the context of what is being said here in relation to theurgy. 30 Thomas Taylor, in his translation, has it as “or have for their end some kind of similitude, or familiarity and alliance”.


12

The intended purpose of the theurgy is to change us, not to affect the gods. Thus Iamblichus adds:

Yet it may not be admitted that any part of the Holy Observance is performed to the gods or daemons as to impressionable beings. For the essence which is subjectively everlasting and incorporeal is not of a nature to permit any change from the bodies (offered at the Rites.)31

The gods are certainly not “impressionable” and there is no question of

theurgy being an attempt of mortals to manipulate immortals. Iamblichus gives a fairly graphic example of what he means by referring to rites of phallic or generative adoration:

Following every point in its turn, we remark that the planting of "phallic images" is a special representing of the procreative power by conventional symbols, and that we regard this practice as an invocation to the generative energy of the universe. On this account many of these images are consecrated in the spring, when all the world is receiving from the gods the prolific force of the whole creation. (Ibid.)

The use of phallic images in a spring ritual to celebrate procreation does not

invoke the procreative force into the world, but simply allows the ritualist to “tune-in” to the procreative forces already manifest and operative there. The invocation is not that of the god’s energy into nature, but instead is actually the invocation of that energy of nature already present in its substance into the operative sphere of the theurgist.

The cathartic element The theurgic or sacred rites can also be of the nature of dramatic ritual, where

one’s passions or impulses are purged, either (directly) by participation in the rites or (indirectly) by the observance of others doing so. This cathartic and therapeutic method of dealing with potentially troublesome passions is both a practical and safe solution to what might otherwise be dealt with in a less controlled and more dangerous manner:

There is, however, still another reason of analogous character for these customs. The powers of the human passions that are in us, when they are barred on every side, become more vehement: but when they are brought into activity with moderation and reasonable measure, they are sufficiently delighted and satisfied, and becoming pure in consequence, are won over and set at rest. In the same way, likewise, in comedy and tragedy, when we behold the emotions of others, we repress our own, make them more moderate and are purified from them. In the Sacred Rites, also, we are, by certain spectacles and relations of ugly things, delivered from the harm that is likely to befall through the events represented by them. (Ibid.)

It is highly likely that Iamblichus was influenced here in this view by

Aristotle’s writings on catharsis, since the Neoplatonists generally studied Aristotle

31 Ibid.


13

alongside Plato.32 What Aristotle had applied to drama generally in the Poetics – as regards its value as catharsis - Iamblichus here applies to specifically ritual drama, that is, drama enacted as theurgy.

Ultimately, however, the goal of theurgy is a return of the now human soul to its divine source above:

From these Performances it is plain, that what we are now discoursing about is the Safe Return of the Soul, for while contemplating the Blessed Spectacles, the soul reciprocates another life, is linked with another energy, and rightly viewing the matter, it seems to be not even a human, for the most blessed energy of the gods. (Ibid.)

Soul as fully descended

One main difference between Iamblichus and the Plotinian view before him

was as regards the soul. Plotinus had maintained that the soul in “descending” into matter had not entirely descended, but, rather, had left a part of itself in the upper Intelligible region of the pure incorporeal divine. For Plotinus (as for Porphyry) the soul “entering or descending into matter” was a case of the soul acquiring an attachment to something (matter) that, although not an absolute illusion as such, was of a level of reality much “less” than that of it’s own substance (psuche) or that of the Intelligible world above (nous)33, the cure for which was philosophy and contemplation. However, for Iamblichus, the soul - fully and literally - descends into matter and required theurgy in order to return to its Source, that is, to re-ascend back to the One:

For such invocation does not draw down beings that are impassive and pure, to that which is susceptible and impure. On the contrary, it makes us who had become impressionable through the generated life, pure and steadfast. (Ibid.) So, theurgic invocation, as Iamblichus describes it, is not so much men calling

down the gods, it is the gods calling men up, or rather that part of each human (the divine within, the soul) that could allow each human to become more than human. The rites of the theurgist “open the way for an indissoluble communion through the attraction which binds the universe together”34 The theurgist merely opens him or herself to the binding force of the universe that allows the gods to unite him or her to themselves.

Sunthemata Looking more specifically at what theurgic rites involved, we immediately see

the importance of tokens or symbols (sunthemata) in the workings:

32 Wallis, for example, writes: Porphyry wrote a work (now lost) to demonstrate Aristotle’s agreement with Plato…Iamblichus’ attitude seems to have been even more accommodating.” (Neoplatonism, p.24) 33 And certainly less than the One which is beyond all else and is itself the ultimate, or highest form, of reality, what we might call reality in the true sense of the word. 34 Ibid.


14

Hence, both the reverend names of the gods, and the other divine symbols, being of an elevating tendency, are able to connect the invocation with the gods. (DM I.4)

In other words, to invoke Selene, a lunar deity, you would, along with calling

her “reverend name”35, use a theurgical rite involving lunar sunthemata, such as moonstone, moonwort, silver and poppy36. These would then create a vehicle for the theurgist to receive the divine impression of the god and awaken the corresponding sunthemata in the soul of the theurgist:

…the sacerdotal supplications are inspired into human beings as from the gods themselves, that they are symbols or tokens of the very gods, and are recognized by the gods alone, and have likewise after a certain manner the same power with the gods… (DM I.4) The question of sacrifice Iamblichus not only differs from Plotinus and Porphyry as regards his liking

for ritual practices, but also as regards his views on animal sacrifice. As Porphyry clearly and unequivocally shows in his De Abstinentia37, he was vehemently opposed to the killing of animals for food or in sacrificial rites. In his letter to Anebo, he questions the whole idea of animal sacrifice:

The gods also require that the interpreters of the oracles observe strict abstinence from animal substances, in order that they may not be made impure by the fumes from the bodies; yet they themselves are allured most of all by the fumes of the sacrifices of animals. It is also required that the Beholder38 must be pure from the contact of anything dead, and yet the rites employed to bring the gods hither, many of them, are made effective through dead animals.39 Porphyry here draws the reader’s attention to a belief concerning the need for

an interpreter of oracles and divine messages to be pure from contamination of animals, presumably referring to a vegetarian requirement among such interpreters of the signs from the gods. The implication is that death or bloodshed would defile and muddy the clear divining eyes of the soul. On reading Porphyry’s De Abstinentia, it is obvious this was certainly how Porphyry saw the matter. Iamblichus, however, will have none of this. In his reply to Porphyry, he puts forward the opposite notion – that the sacrifice of animals is actually a good and most necessary practice for one who would open himself to the divine:

For if the matter is rightly understood, there is by no means any difficulty like that which suggests itself to thee and about which thou contendest in relation to Abstinence from Animal Food. For they who conduct

35 Which may well be an esoteric one that was taught within the mystery schools. 36 For examples of sunthemata, see, for example, Shaw, p.167-168. 37 Abstinence from Animal Food, a treatise on vegetarianism 38 According to Professor Wilder, in his footnotes on his translation the Beholder here is one admitted to a higher degree of initiation of the Rite. It also surely means the one who beholds the message of the oracle. 39 This is Porphyry’s main method of attack also throughout De Abstinentia where he often draws attention to the many inconsistencies of those who kill animals for food or to please the gods.


15

the worship of the gods do not abstain from animal food in order that the gods may not be defiled by the fumes from the animals. For what exhalation from the bodies will come near the beings who, before anything material reaches them by any possibility, put matter away from touching them? (DM V.11)

Iamblichus thus suggests that Porphyry has misunderstood the nature of ritual

sacrifice. He then says: That, however, which is of the greatest importance should now be

considered. I mean, the efficacy of the Sacrifices, why they effect so much. But for them there would come neither cessations from pestilence, nor from famines, nor from unproductive seasons; neither would there be showers of rain, nor the things which are more precious than these, such as conduce to purification of the soul, or to perfection,4 or to liberation from the conditions of generated existence. (Ibid.) The gods are entirely incorporeal, so why should material fumes of animals

(or anything else corporeal for that matter) possibly bother the gods? Of course, we might be tempted to argue, if such things do not affect the gods, why do we use them to appease the gods. Perhaps the answer has already been given where Iamblichus states that theurgy of any kind is for benefit of the theurgist, not for that of the gods. Yet, as we can see from Porphyry’s comments in De Abstinentia, he did not see the killing of animals as in any way of benefit to anyone, and advocated an offering of a very different nature, that of one’s own better qualities:

To the Gods, indeed, the most excellent offering is a pure intellect and an impassive soul (De Abstinentia II.61)

Although, Porphyry also states that, if material sacrifices are to be used, then

those not involving blood are the best and most pleasing to the gods. He speaks of fruits being offered to the gods in an “age of sanctity” (Ibid. II.26)

Nevertheless, Iamblichus’s argument in favour of animal sacrifice was essentially based on the idea that sacrifice – of any kind - was both a sunthema and an offering to the gods, whose energies one wished to unite oneself to. Thus to “invoke” Ares, one would – on this theory – require a sacrifice of a ram, an animal sacred to that god, and hence – by Iamblichus’ argument - the appropriate sacrificial sunthema in this case.

But Iamblichus was aware of the problem also from another angle – if theurgic sacrifices are material and the gods immaterial, then how can the two in anyway connect? And how can it benefit the theurgist even if the theurgy employed has no connection with the gods? This is not just a question of sacrifice, but of all theurgic working that used material Sunthemata, be it dead animals and blood or incense and roses:

But as a natural cause held fast by matter and physically encompassed by the bodies it is aroused by them, and put to rest again. Indeed, these things are essentials in the region of nature. If, then, anything of such a character is at the Sacred Rites, it accompanies them as a joint cause and as having the consideration of being indispensable, and in this way it is allied to the anterior causes. (DM V.12, first section)

His answer is that this is the role of the Daemons – to occupy this middle

ground between the gods and man:


16

We say that the beings that belong to the realm of nature act in concert together according to convenience, or sympathy, or antipathy; and in other respects are subject and follow and are subservient to the superior being, and cause of the efficacy of sacrifices. (Ibid.)

Before we leave the discussion of sacrifice, we must mention Iamblichus’

view that Sacrifice made use –in its symbolism (or sunthemata) of the all-important aspect of fire; that the sacrificial rite involving a burnt offering, had the added advantage of

…imitating the operation of the divine fire, and destroys everything in the sacrifices that is constituted of matter. It purifies the things that are brought to the fire, releases them from their bonds in matter, and likewise renders them, through its purity of nature, fit for the commonalty of gods. It also, through these changes, releases us from the bonds of generated existence, makes us like the gods, and likewise renders us fit for their friendship, and our material nature near to the non-material essence. (Ibid)

Fire was by its appearance and non-substantial nature very suitable symbol for

the incorporeal essence of the divine itself and hence could also awaken that corresponding sunthema in the soul, so necessary for the theurgists own purification, consecration or “burning away” of obstacles to intelligible progress and ascent to the One.

Theurgy criticized and defended So what are we as students of philosophy to make of theurgy? Dodds claims

that in an age when Christianity was taking over: To the discouraged minds of fourth-century pagans such a message

offered a seductive comfort. The theoretical philosophers had now been arguing for some nine centuries, and what had come of it? Only a visibly declining culture, and the creeping growth of that Christian atheotes40 which was plainly sucking the lifeblood of Hellenism. As vulgar magic is commonly the last resort of the personally desperate, of those whom man and god alike have failed, so theurgy became the refuge of a despairing intelligentsia which already felt la fascination de l’abime.41

There are two claims being made here; on one hand that theurgy was an

irrational attempt to escape the failings of Greek philosophy to solve the problems of life, and, on the other, that it was a means to desperately thwart the onrush of a foreign religion (Christianity). In both cases there is an implication that theurgy was a crude form of blind ritualism. As regards the former point, Shaw also points out that many Greeks of the time saw Christianity’s growing popularity threatening to their own pagan religious beliefs42. The emperor Julian was the classic example of this. He saw in Iamblichus’ theurgy a solution to the problem, and in Iamblichus himself something of a saviour figure for pagan Greece:

40 I have transliterated the Greek term used by Dodds. 41 The Greeks and the Irrational, p.287-288. 42 See Shaw p. 1.


17

The Emperor Julian employed the Platonic and theurgic doctrines of Iamblichus in an attempt to wrest control of the empire away from the “Galileans” and return it to the ancestral practices of the “Hellenes”. In “the divine Iamblichus” Julian saw a philosopher equal to Plato, for Iamblichus’s teachings had led Julian and other pagans to a deeper understanding of their traditional religious practices. (Shaw, p.2) Yet, Shaw continues:

…there is no extant writing of Iamblichus in which he criticizes, or even mentions, Christianity. For Iamblichus the central issue of his age was not the polemic between pagans and Christians but the far more serious conflict between “old ways” and “new ways”, between the ancient traditions inspired by the gods and those recently invented by man” (p.3).

So, as to Dodd’s implication that theurgy was a reaction to Christianity,

although this may apply to the Emperor Julian and others, this does not seem apply to Iamblichus himself. Iamblichus was not just “reacting” to Christianity in advocating theurgy. Nor do his writings reflect any reaction to 900 years of reason-based Greek philosophy. He, of course, is not critical of Plotinus or any of the previous more purely rationalistic philosophers, but is rather more inclined to attempt to see in them a compatibility with the theory that lies behind the religious and ritualistic, and the theory that would indicate the usefulness of theurgy for the philosopher. On the contrary, Iamblichus, as we have seen, was actually looking to the past traditions, not so much of rationalism, but of the non-rational or trans-rational (what Dodds calls “irrational”) well-established religious and ritualistic practices in the most ancient of religious cultures such as the Assyrian and Egyptian. Like Proclus, who came after him (another exponent of theurgy), Iamblichus’s approach always seems to be one more of synthesizing existing traditions, rather than replacement or outright rejection of any.

As to Dodd’s view that “vulgar magic is commonly the last resort of the personally desperate”, with the implication that theurgy can be compared to vulgar magic, firstly, he does not define what for him constitutes “vulgar magic”. We have already seen how theurgy, for Iamblichus was not at all about manipulation of the gods, but was instead an alignment of the theurgist with their divine will. Shaw and others have drawn our attention to how Iamblichus criticised mere idol worship and makers of talismans on the ground that their work was artificial unlike the creations of the divine artificer of the natural world.43 To call theurgy simply “magic” (i.e. without prefix “vulgar”) may not be incorrect, as we might, like the Persian Magi, and the Egyptians (with their “heka44”) view Magic as a Sacerdotal and Hieratic Art, of aligning oneself to the will of the gods. Certainly, I feel that to use the phrase “vulgar magic” is surely misleading and does not do justice to the true spirit of theurgy. Theurgy then is not vulgar magic and is not a mere reaction to Christianity or any other foreign religion45. It is something other than this and cannot, I believe, be so easily dismissed.

Assuming that the Neoplatonists are right in saying that the highest goal for the human being is the return to the divine or “One”, one strong argument that we see

43 See Shaw, p.38 44 Heka is an Egyptian term, normally translated as “magic”. 45 Iamblichus was the exponent of the Egyptian religious system, which was itself, arguably just as foreign to Hellenic society as Christianity.


18

in favour of theurgy as a means to attain this (over and above that of Plotinian contemplation alone) is that, since we are now currently in a material body in a material world, is it not fitting that we make use of that materiality, rather than try to dismiss it? Perhaps philosophical contemplation can liberate man from physical needs in time, but surely this is not likely to happen other than over a considerably extended period of time, involving much practice – as anyone who either practises a form of meditation or asks those who have done so will confirm – and, therefore, in the mean time, would it not be wise to make use of our physicality and material predicament, by using material sunthemata and theurgy? It seems to me, that over and above all other pro-theurgy arguments, the strongest is perhaps this: the belief that we can use fire to fight fire. If the problem lies with matter, then the problem must be solved with matter. This seems to be the theurgist’s view. In the tradition of alchemy, we have a perfect analogy for this in the conceptual symbolism of lead (base or primal matter) being transmuted into the spiritual gold. The theurgist does not attempt to banish matter, but takes matter and transmutes it into what it already in essence is - the rarefied reflection of the incorporeal divine. This is a way to understand Iamblichus’ more positive view of matter, matter not as the enemy of the divine, but as the emanation and expression. Understanding Iamblichus and his more positive view of matter like this is, I believe, the key to understanding theurgy.

As regards the fact that theurgy did not realize Julian’s hope of offering serious competition to Christianity, that in this sense it appears to have not even come close, we must note that it was not the ritualistic or trans-rational nature of theurgy that caused this disappointment, as Christianity was itself guilty of the same “charges”. Wallis writes:

The later Neoplatonists’ failure in competition with Christianity may in fact have been due less to any capitulation to ‘superstition’ on their part than to the fact that too many of the rites were no longer of more than antiquarian interest. Alliance with one of the new saviour cults, such as that of Isis or Mithras, might have produced firmer results. We may concede at last that Porphyry was right in regarding such methods as more immediately helpful to the average man. We may be less inclined to grant Iamblichus’ claim that they have higher value even for the philosopher; yet we should remember that Catholics are advised to attend Mass in preference to studying theology. In this connection we may recall Iamblichus’ argument that man, as a composite being, needs a form of worship involving body as well as soul (Myst46 15-17)47

So, it appears that theurgy with its underlying ritualistic and trans-rational

nature was deemed right, on principle at least, by mankind at large, the same essential, underlying elements being the very things welcomed and fully embraced by mainstream Christians the world throughout. It was only the form of the rites that was rejected. Perhaps it was simply the case that mankind had at last wearied of efforts to appease the many gods of the ancient polytheistic pagan world, and began to hunger for the simplification of worship they saw presenting itself in the relatively neat and novel monotheistic saviour cult of Christianity.

46 De Mysteriis. 47 Wallis Neoplatonism p. 108


19

Philosophical merits of theurgy That the spirit of theurgy lived on amongst such philosophers as Proclus48 in

the 5th century, and later Marsilio Ficino in the 15th century Florentine Platonic Academy49 is some testimony to its philosophical attraction. But what was the main attraction to theurgy for the philosopher? Perhaps, there is something inherent in human nature that, even as philosophers, some of us are never quite content with a purely contemplative approach. Perhaps, too, if we believe in the existence of a divine power or powers, there is a sense that we need to do something very definite, some sort of physical action, as a token of our aspiration, dedication or even devotion to this divine aspect of life. Perhaps it is natural for some of us to feel that to contemplate the mysteries of the divine, or to attempt to “approach” them by means of theoretical philosophy, is, in itself, not enough. But why should Porphyry and Plotinus not be right in their view that the contemplative life of the philosopher is the only means to attain the highest divine of the One? Personally, I agree with Porphyry that the way of philosophy, in the Plotinian sense of the word (as a means to attain onto the One through various stages of intellectual development, mental purification and contemplation) is not for everyone, but not for the same reason, that is, not because some are not capable of it – for I see no reason why even the least intelligent among us could make a start and develop themselves gradually through the various stages, even if it took them longer than most others – but because most people simply do not have the interest, in my experience. How many people do we know in our lives who express an interest in working hard to attain any kind of absolute reality or who even feel any attraction to a concept such as the Plotinian One (even if it was explained to them)? However, for those who are interested in some sort of spiritual attainment, I can see no logical reason why theurgy would necessarily be a better option over a purely contemplative approach. It seems to me that both Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ arguments in favour of the contemplative approach and the theurgical approach respectively are both of equal strength and it seems that both approaches therefore possess equal overall merit. What I believe is most likely to be the deciding factor in any philosopher in deciding between the two is personal temperament. As one prefers the contemplative approach, so another prefers theurgy. Perhaps both are equally valid options and paths to ultimate reality and the attainment of the One.

Iamblichean theurgy could perhaps benefit from adopting some of Porphyry’s approach to animal sacrifice. The sacrifice of animals raises a lot of moral issues. Do we have the right to take the life of another living, sentient being, for any reason whatsoever? Many today would say no. Porphyry and Plotinus (among others) said no. Even those who today are not vegetarian, in this day and age, may still feel uncomfortable with sacrificing an animal a s a form of ritual worship. Personally, I am drawn to theurgy, in the general sense of a ritual drama or physical form of worship, or as a practical way to invoke the divine, but I would never deem it anything but entirely unethical and unspiritual to take the life of an animal, even as part of a sacred ceremony, in fact especially as part of a sacred ceremony, for, I would argue that if the ceremony is intended as a pure and divine act, then the last thing it should involve is bloodshed and the taking of a life, animal or otherwise. So, on the subject of animal sacrifice, I would agree very strongly with Porphyry and against Iamblichus. However, on the subject of the general idea of theurgy as a practical and

48 See, for instance, Proclus, Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science (1996), pp.189-199 49 See, for instance, Wallis, p. 171, or Baigent & Leigh The Elixir and the Stone 1997, p. 115


20

varied ritualistic divine method and means of self-development and spiritual exaltation, I am full agreement with Iamblichus as to its basic merits.

I would finish by saying that in this current age where existing religions are now being more and more questioned and many are looking at alternative forms of spirituality, perhaps the concept of theurgy, as the Neoplatonists understood it, will finally find its true place. In particular, I would think many here in the West who have given up mainstream orthodox religion - due, for example, to disillusionment in the larger religious establishments and wish for a more individualistic path - rather than heading straight to some form of oriental contemplative yoga or meditation, might, had they discovered a modern-day Iamblichus or Proclus, been able to find, in theurgy, a spiritual path much more suited to their needs. There is something inherently Western about a more active form of worship than that very often practiced in the East such as that of certain schools of Vedanta, Buddhism or Taoism. Perhaps, here in the disenchanted modern western world the vehicle of theurgy will finally arrive.

-------------------------------------------- Bibliography Main texts Iamblichus De Mysteriis, of which the main translation used throughout was: Theurgia or the Egyptian Mysteries (translation by Alexander Wilder)

London: William Rider & Son Ltd., 1911. Also consulted was: Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians

(translation by Thomas Taylor) Chiswick: Printed by C. Whittingham for the translator, 1821.

Secondary literature

Blumenthal, H. J. & Clark, E.G. The Divine Iamblichus Bristol: Bristol Classical P., 1993.

Baigent, M. & Leigh, R. The Elixir and the Stone London: Viking (Penguin),

1997 Clark, Gillian On the Pythagorean life Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,

1989.


21

Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational London: University of California Press, 1951.

O’Meara, Dominic J. Plotinus: an introduction to the Enneads Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1995. Plato Republic Middlesex: Penguin, 1987. Plato Symposium (trans. Shelley) Indiana: St. Augustine Press, 2002. Plotinus Enneads (trans. Stephen MacKenna) London: Encyclopaedia

Britannica, 1952. Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food (trans. Thomas Taylor) London:

Centaur Press, 1965. Shaw, Gregory Theurgy and the Soul University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State

University Press, 1995. Siorvanes, Lucas Proclus Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Wallis, R. T. Neoplatonism London: Duckworth, 1972.

lewelyn, el - the theurgy of iamblichus

Documents

term theurgy

goal of theurgy

origin of theurgy

methods of theurgy

iamblichus fellow contemporary

term theorgia

egyptian theurgist anebo

egyptian priest