NeoplatonicDemonsandAngels...StudiesinPlatonism, Neoplatonism,andthePlatonic Tradition Editedby...

Neoplatonic Demons and Angels

Studies in PlatonismNeoplatonism and the Platonic

Tradition

Edited by

Robert M Berchman (Dowling College and Bard College)John Finamore (University of Iowa)

Editorial Board

John Dillon (Trinity College Dublin) ndash Gary Gurtler (Boston College)Jean-Marc Narbonne (Laval University Canada)

volume 20

The titles published in this series are listed at brillcomspnp


Edited by

Luc BrissonSeamus OrsquoNeillAndrei Timotin

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at httpcataloglocgovLC record available at httplccnlocgov2018023165

Typeface for the Latin Greek and Cyrillic scripts ldquoBrillrdquo See and download brillcombrill‑typeface

ISSN 1871-188XISBN 978-90-04-37497-3 (hardback)ISBN 978-90-04-37498-0 (e-book)

Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden The NetherlandsKoninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Brill Hes amp De Graaf Brill Nijhoff Brill RodopiBrill Sense and Hotei PublishingAll rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced translated stored in a retrieval systemor transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanical photocopying recording or otherwisewithout prior written permission from the publisherAuthorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV providedthat the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center 222 Rosewood DriveSuite 910 Danvers MA 01923 USA Fees are subject to change

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner

Contents

List of Contributors vii

Introduction 1

The Daimon and the Choice of Life in Plotinusrsquo Thought 7Thomas Vidart

The Angels in Ancient Gnosis Some Cases 19Madeleine Scopello

Demons and Angels in the Chaldaean Oracles 46Helmut Seng

What is a Daimon for Porphyry 86Luc Brisson

Porphyry of Tyre on the Daimon Birth and the Stars 102Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum

Daimones in PorphyryrsquosOn the Cave of the Nymphs 140Nilufer Akcay

Evil Demons in the DeMysteriisAssessing the Iamblichean Critique of Porphyryrsquos Demonology 160

Seamus OrsquoNeill

Proclusrsquo Critique of Plotinusrsquo Demonology 190Andrei Timotin

The Angels in Proclus Messengers of the Gods 209Luc Brisson

Ontology Henadology AngelologyThe Neoplatonic Roots of Angelic Hierarchy 231

Ghislain Casas

vi contents

Dionysius the Areopagite on AngelsSelf-Constitution versus Constituting Gifts 269

Marilena Vlad

Index 291

List of Contributors

Nilufer AkcayHolds a PhD inClassics from theUniversity of Dublin Trinity College (Novem-ber 2016) Her dissertation is the analysis of Porphyryrsquos On the Cave of theNymphs against the backdrop of his wider philosophical oeuvre She was edu-cated at Istanbul University where she translated Ovidrsquos Heroides into Turkishduring her MA degree Her aim is to continue to work in the field of Neopla-tonism and ancient allegorical interpretation

Luc BrissonDirecteur de Recherche (1e classe) at the Centre National de la Recherche Sci-entifique Paris a member of the Centre Jean Peacutepin (UPR 76 du CNRS) Hisworks include How Philosophers Saved Myths (Chicago 2004) Plato the MythMaker (Chicago 1999) Inventing the Universe with W Meyerstein (New York1995) Sexual Ambivalence Androgyny and Hermaphroditism in Graeco-RomanAntiquity (Berkeley 2002) among others and numerous translations and com-mentaries on the Sophists Plato Plotinus Proclus and Iamblichus including(with APh Segonds) Jamblique Vie de Pythagore (Paris 1996)

Ghislain CasasCurrently lecturer in philosophy at the Sorbonne Paris He completed his PhDat the Eacutecole Pratique des Hautes Eacutetudes and the Eacutecole des Hautes Eacutetudes enSciences Sociales Paris on medieval angelology He has published papers onneoplatonic and medieval philosophy including ldquoLe neacuteoplatonisme sans pla-tonisme du ps-Denys lrsquoAreacuteopagiterdquo in Les chreacutetiens et lrsquohelleacutenisme Identiteacutesreligieuses et culture grecque dans lrsquoAntiquiteacute tardive ed Arnaud Perrot (Paris2012) ldquoLes statues vivent aussi Theacuteorie neacuteoplatonicienne de lrsquoobjet rituelrdquoRevue de lrsquohistoire des religions 2314 (2014) ldquoLanguage without voice locutioangelica as a political issuerdquo in Voice and Voicelessness in Medieval Europe edIR Kleiman (Houndmills 2015)

Dorian Gieseler GreenbaumTutor at the University of Wales Trinity St David Her PhD from the War-burg Institute formed the basis of her book The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrol-ogy Origins and Influence (Brill 2016) She has written articles for BlackwellrsquosEncyclopedia of Ancient History and Springerrsquos Handbook of Archaeoastronomyand Ethnoastronomy and editedco-translated the volume Keplerrsquos Astrology(Lampeter 2010) Recent publications include (with co-editor Charles Burnett)

viii list of contributors

From Māshāʾallāh to Kepler Theory and Practice in Medieval and RenaissanceAstrology (Lampeter 2015) and ldquoEternity in the Astrology of Vettius Valensrdquo inEternity A History ed Yitzhak Melamed (Oxford 2016)

Seamus OrsquoNeillAssociate Professor of Philosophy at The Memorial University of Newfound-land He completed his PhD in Classics at Dalhousie University on St Augus-tinersquos Platonism Recent publications include ldquo lsquoAequales angelis suntrsquo Demon-ology Angelology and the Resurrection of the Body in Augustine and AnselmrdquoThe Saint Anselm Journal 121 (2016) ldquo lsquoHow does the body depart A Neopla-tonic Reading of Dantersquos SuicidesrdquoDante Studies 132 (2014) and ldquoThe DemonicBody Demonic Ontology and the Domicile of the Demons in Apuleius andAugustinerdquo in Philosophical Approaches to Demonology ed R Arp and B Mc-Craw (Routledge 2017) He is currently completing a monograph on St Augus-tinersquos demonology the culmination of a research project entitled Reconstruct-ing theDemonology of St Augustine funded by the Social Sciences andHuman-ities Research Council of Canada

Madeleine ScopelloCorrespondant of the Institut de France (Acadeacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres) Corresponding Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities(FAHA) Directeur de recherche (1st class) at Centre National de la RechercheScientifique Paris (UMR 8167) Paris Directeur drsquoeacutetudes at the Eacutecole Pratiquedes Hautes Eacutetudes Paris (chair of ldquoGnosis and Manichaeismrdquo) Her works in-clude LrsquoExeacutegegravese de lrsquoacircme (Nag Hammadi II 6) introduction traduction com-mentaire (Leiden 1985) Les Gnostiques (Paris 1991 translated in Italian Japa-nese and Corean) LrsquoAllogegravene (Nag Hammadi XI 3) with W-P Funk P-H Poi-rier JD Turner (Queacutebec-Louvain 2004) Femme Gnose et Manicheacuteisme Delrsquo espace mythique au territoire du reacuteel (Leiden 2005) Saint Augustin Sur laGenegravese contre les Manicheacuteens Sur la Genegravese au sens litteacuteral Livre inacheveacute withA-I Bouton M Dulaey P Monat (Paris 2005) and Les Eacutevangiles apocryphes(Paris 2007 and 2016)

Helmut SengAssociate Professor at the Universities of Konstanz and Frankfurt am MainIn 2010 he was also directeur drsquoeacutetudes inviteacute at the Eacutecole Pratique des HautesEacutetudes (Paris) He is also series editor of the Bibliotheca Chaldaica His worksinclude Untersuchungen zum Vokabular und zur Metrik in den Hymnen desSynesios (Frankfurt am Main 1996) Vergils Eklogenbuch Aufbau Chronologieund Zahlenverhaumlltnisse (Hildesheim 1999) ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ ΑΖΩΝΟΙ ΖΩΝΑΙΟΙ Drei

list of contributors ix

Begriffe chaldaeischer Kosmologie und ihr Fortleben (Heidelberg 2009)Un livresacreacute de lrsquoAntiquiteacute tardive LesOracles Chaldaiumlques (Brepols 2016 Meacutedaille LeFegravevre-Deumier dePons 2018 of theAcadeacutemiedes Inscriptions et Belles Lettres)as well as numerous articles mainly on late antique topics in particular on theChaldaean Oracles

Andrei TimotinSenior researcher at theRomanianAcademy (ISEES) Associate Professor at theUniversity of Bucharest PhD in History (Eacutecole des Hautes Eacutetudes en SciencesSociales Paris) PhD inAncient Philosophy (Eacutecole Pratique desHautes EacutetudesParis) His publications on the Platonic tradition include La deacutemonologie pla-tonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōn de Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoni-ciens (Brill 2012 Reinach Prize of the Association des Eacutetudes Grecques Paris)Platonic Theories of Prayer with John Dillon (Brill 2016) and La priegravere dans latradition platonicienne de Platon agrave Proclus (Brepols 2017)

Thomas VidartTeacher of Philosophy in Classes Preacuteparatoires aux Grandes Eacutecoles (Khacircgne)at the Lyceacutee Champollion (Grenoble France) He currently also teaches atthe University of Grenoble He has translated Plotinusrsquo treatise OnWell-BeingPlotin Traiteacute 46 in L Brisson et J-F Pradeau (eds) Plotin Traiteacutes 45ndash50 (Paris2009)

Marilena VladHolds a PhD in sciences religieuses from Eacutecole Pratique des Hautes EacutetudesParis (2011) She coordinates a research project at the Institute for Philos-ophy ldquoAl Dragomirrdquo (Bucharest) is assistant professor at the University ofBucharest and member of the editorial board of Chocircra Revue drsquoeacutetudes anci-ennes et meacutedieacutevales She translated into Romanian the first part of DamasciusrsquoDe principiis and several treatises of Plotinusrsquo Enneads Recent publicationsinclude Damascius et lrsquoaporeacutetique de lrsquo ineffable (Paris forthcoming) ldquoStep-ping into the Void Proclus and Damascius on Approaching the First PrinciplerdquoInternational Journal of the Platonic Tradition 111 (2017) ldquoDenys lrsquoAreacuteopagite etlrsquo image divine symbole empreinte statuerdquo in Lrsquo icocircne dans la penseacutee et danslrsquoart ed by K Mitalaiteacute and A Vasiliu (Brepols 2017) and ldquoDamascius andDionysius on prayer and silencerdquo in Platonic Theories of Prayer ed by J Dillonand A Timotin (Brill 2016)

copy koninklijke brill nv leiden 2018 | doi 1011639789004374980_002

Introduction

According to Sallustius a Roman statesman andNeoplatonic philosopher whocomposed a summary of Neoplatonic thought in the fourth century ldquothe widerthe gap is between our nature and the first God themore powersmust be therebetween us and Himrdquo1 Henri Dominique Saffrey has emphasised that thereare two sides to this propensity in Late Neoplatonism ldquoFirst of all the ten-dency to monotheism which generates a supreme and first God but confinesit as far away as possible from the grasp of intelligence and human knowledgethis is the unknown god Correlatively between this inaccessible God and usthe intermediaries (secondary gods angels demons and heroes) multiply butthese are the agents of an ascension towards the first Godrdquo2 The intermediariesare theoretically necessarywithin theNeoplatonic theological systemand theirraison drsquoecirctre directly ensues from the absolute transcendence of the first prin-ciple A thorough understanding of their nature and function is therefore oneof the major imperatives for the study of Neoplatonic theologyThis book which originates from a panel onDemonology andTheurgy orga-

nized at the annual ISNSmeeting in Lisbon in June 2014 aims to study the placeof angels and demons in Neoplatonic thought3 The topic was chosen not onlybecause their theological significance is undeniable but also because thesebeings are mutually dependent within the various Neoplatonic metaphysicalsystems This book brings together eleven studieswhich examine in chronolog-ical order the place reserved for angels and demons not only by the main Neo-platonic philosophers (Plotinus Porphyry Iamblichus and Proclus) but alsoin Gnosticism the ChaldaeanOraclesmdashan essential though still understudiedingredient in Neoplatonic thoughtmdash Christian Neoplatonism and especiallyby Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite as well as by other important precursorsto Neoplatonic and Christian angelology such as Philo of Alexandria

1 Sallustius On the Gods and the Universe XIII 26 Trans Nock (1926)2 Saffrey (1981) 168 [= (1990) 48] ldquodrsquoabord la tendance au monotheacuteisme qui forge un dieu

suprecircme et premiermais en le recoulant le plus loin possible hors de la prise de lrsquo intelligenceet de la connaissance humaines crsquoest le dieu inconnu Correacutelativement entre ce dieu inac-cessible et nous on multiplie les intermeacutediaires dieux secondaires anges deacutemons et heacuterosmais ceux-lagrave sont les agents drsquoune ascension vers le premierrdquo SeeTrouillard (1957) for Proclusas ldquotheacuteoricien des meacutediationsrdquo

3 We leave aside the Neoplatonic heroes and secondary gods but we maintain that they cer-tainlydeservemore scholarly attention than theyhave received so far Seehowever the secondcontribution of Luc Brisson and the contributions of Helmut Seng and Seamus OrsquoNeill in thisvolume

2 introduction

An important reason for studying the notions of ldquoangelrdquo and ldquodemonrdquo to-gether is that they belong both to religious and philosophical vocabulariesalthough demons admittedly have enjoyed a more prominent philosophicalcareer than have the angels As a general characterization one could say thatldquodemonrdquo (δαίμων) designates in the Greek religion4 a kind of divinity withoutspecific cult andmythology distinct fromthegods and theheroes although δαί-μωνmay be often understood as an equivalent term for θεός5 It can refer to fate(μοῖρα) to revenging spirits (Erinyes) or to the souls of the dead The seman-tic fluidity of the term is one of the reasons why the notion of the ldquodemonrdquobecame an important factor for the philosophical rationalisation of religionespecially in Platorsquos dialogues but already in Pre-Socratic philosophy and inthe Pythagorean and Stoic traditions Plato defined the ldquodemonrdquo as an essen-tially good middle-being between gods and humans (Symposium 202dndash203a)as a personal tutelary being (Republic 617dndashe 620dndashe Phaedo 107d) or as anequivalent to the divine part of human soul the νοῦς (Timaeus 90andashc)6 Platorsquosauthority and influence were enormous in Middle- and Neoplatonism to suchan extent that the philosophical demonologies of Late Antiquity can be anal-ysed as an exegesis of his texts concerning ldquodemonsrdquo7In Neoplatonism with which this volume deals specifically this attempt

to interpret and explain Platorsquos writings about demons is observed first inPlotinusmdashas shown by the study of Thomas Vidartmdash who tries to harmonisenotably in Ennead III 4 [15] a series of Platonic references to the demons (espe-cially Republic 617dndashe and Timaeus 90andashc) with the principles of his own phi-losophy Plotinusrsquo demonology is intertwined with his theory of the soul butVidart shows the limits of Plotinusrsquo interest in demons an attitude significantlydifferent than that of the Later NeoplatonistsPorphyry seems to have been the first Neoplatonic philosopher to assign

demons a specific place within a complex theological system Luc Brissonaccurately defines this place by reconstructing the Porphyrian theology andby highlighting its debt to Plotinus and of course to Plato Porphyry doesnot hesitate to use the demons to criticize popular religion but he tried to

4 See Hild (1881) Gernet (1917) 316ndash321 and 328ndash329 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1931) I 362ndash370 Nilsson (1941) 201ndash206 and (1950) 199ndash207 Franccedilois (1957) Rexine (1985) Suaacuterez de laTorre (2000) Timotin (2012) 13ndash36

5 See especially Franccedilois (1957) 64 n 2 and 336 n 3 for statistical lists6 On Platorsquos views on demons see Robin (1908) [31964] Motte (1989) Timotin (2012) 37ndash847 This is one of the conclusions of themost recent synthesis of Platonic demonology seeTimo-

tin (2012)

introduction 3

make demonology compatible at least in part with philosophical religion Por-phyryrsquos mythological exegesis like that developed in De Antro Nympharumposes nevertheless specific problems regarding the relationship between thedemons and human souls or the gods and this aspect of Porphyryrsquos thoughtis explored by Nilufer Ackay From a different perspective Dorian GieselerGreenbaum highlights the importance of astrology (underestimated so far) inPorphyryrsquos thought Greenbaum shows how Porphyryrsquos astrological concernshave informed a significant part of his approach to different topics like thepersonal demon the incarnation of the soul and its choice of the way oflifeThepolemical functionof demonology inNeoplatonism is particularly note-

worthy in Iamblichus and Proclus as shown by Seamus OrsquoNeill and AndreiTimotin who focus on the criticism respectively of Porphyrian demonologyby Iamblichus and of Plotinian demonology by Proclus In Late Neoplaton-ism demonology is no longer thought of only in relation to the soul and theplace of demons in the kosmos is defined according to a different theologicalbasis Iamblichusrsquo views on demons are not however devoid of ambiguities asOrsquoNeill shows especially concerning the respective descriptions of good andevil demons in the De mysteriis and given that Iamblichus denies some of theontological and psychological grounds to which his predecessors appealed toaccount for how and why demons can be evilBy analysing Proclusrsquo criticism of Plotinian demonology Timotin explains

why Proclus does not refer in this context to the doctrine of the undescendedsoul on which Plotinusrsquo theory relies and which Proclus refuted on variousoccasions Timotin shows that Proclusrsquo strategy is related to the fundamen-tal change in the reading order of Platorsquos dialogues introduced by Iamblichuswhich in turn increased the importance of Symposiumrsquos demonological pas-sage and correspondingly decreased the significance of Timaeusrsquo locus equat-ing daimonwith νοῦςThe new functions that the demons perform in Late Neoplatonism are not

unrelated to the influence of the Chaldaean Oracles the ldquopagan Biblerdquo (theappellation belongs to HD Saffrey) of Late Antiquity Helmut Seng assumesthe arduous task of studying the place of demons in this challenging work Heshows that in the Chaldaean Oracles demons appear as evil beings (related toHecate or to the Moon) which are understood to disturb the theurgical ritu-als and to keep human beings close to material life Seng also highlights themediating function of συνοχεῖς borrowed from the Symposium and raises thequestion of whether these middle-beings are to be regarded as demonsIn Ancient Greece the word ldquoangelrdquo (ἄγγελος which means ldquomessengerrdquo)

designates either a specific function of gods (especially Hermes) and humans

4 introduction

or a specific type of divine being like for instance the psychopomps8 Thenotion had no philosophical career prior to the post-Hellenistic period Thisnew usage begins only when the angels in Jewish thought are equated withPlatonic daimones Philo of Alexandria is probably the first to assimilate thetwo terms and thus he plays an essential role in acclimatizing the notion bor-rowed from the Semitic heritage into Hellenic culture9 The Semitic heritage(especially esoteric Judaism) also inspires the various Gnostic angelologies ofLate Antiquity and to a lesser extent was influenced by Middle- and Neopla-tonism as Madeleine Scopello convincingly showsIn Late Antiquity angels become a religious reality in their own right in the

Greco-Roman world They are distinct from their Jewish and Christian paral-lels though perhaps not always unconnected to them10 During the same timethe philosophical life of the notion continued in the works of authors such asCornelius Labeo Nicomachus of Gerasa Calcidius and in the Chaldaean Ora-cles The presence of angels in the Chaldaean Oracles is studied by Seng whoanalyses their function and their analogical relationship relating to the figureof the theurgist and also questions their relation to the Platonic (good) dai-monesStarting with Iamblichus the angels have a permanent presence in Late

Neoplatonic theology11 Luc Brisson defines their place in Proclusrsquo theologicalsystem and their office on the earth through rituals performed by priests whoplay the role of messengers making the gods appear to human beings andtransmitting the prayers of human beings to the gods Ghislain Casas exam-ines Christian Neoplatonic angelology studying the Neoplatonic heritage inPseudo-Dionysiusrsquo angelology andhighlighting the differences between the lat-ter and the angelology of Philo of Alexandria A comprehensive study of theplace of angels in Pseudo-Dionysiusrsquo theology is offered by Marilena VladThis book aims to encompass and address a wide spectrum of problems

raised by the place of angels and demons in the various Neoplatonic theologi-cal systems and in related works such as the Gnostic texts and the ChaldaeanOracles Without pretending to have exhausted such a wide and complex sub-

8 See Michl (1962)9 On Philorsquos angelology see Dillon (1983) 187ndash206 Calabi (2004) Timotin (2012) 100ndash112

and Ghislain Casasrsquo article in this volume10 On angels in Late Antique pagan milieus see Cumont (1915) Guarducci (1939) Pippidi

(1949) Michl (1962) 53ndash60 Sokolowski (1960) Sheppard (19801981) Belayche (2010)Cline (2011)

11 The classical study of Cumont (1915) still remains themain reference for the philosophicalangelology of Late Antiquity

introduction 5

ject we hope that significant progress has been made towards understandingthis essential aspect of Neoplatonic metaphysical and religious thought Wewould like to extend our thanks to the General Editors Robert Berchman andJohn Finamore for accepting this volume into the seriesWe would also like tothank the anonymous referee for his or her insightful and helpful commentswhich served to improve scholarly quality of the volume

The Editors

Bibliography

Belayche Nicole (2010) ldquoAngeloi in Religious Practices of the Imperial Roman EastrdquoHenoch 32 [= Ancient Judaism and Christianity in Their Graeco-Roman ContextFrench Perspectives] 44ndash65

Calabi Francesca (2004) ldquoRuoli e figure di mediazione in Filone di Alessandriardquo Ada-mantius 10 89ndash99

Cumont Franz (1915) ldquoLes anges dupaganismerdquo Revuede lrsquohistoire des religions 36 159ndash182

Cline Robert (2011) Ancient Angels Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman EmpireLeidenmdashBoston

Dillon John (1983) ldquoPhilorsquos Doctrine of Angelsrdquo dans D Winston J Dillon Two trea-tises of Philo of Alexandria A Commentary on the De gigantibus and Quod Deus sitimmutabilis Chico (Calif) 197ndash206

FranccediloisGilbert (1957) Lepolytheacuteismeet lrsquo emploi au singulierdesmots θεός δαίμωνdansla litteacuterature grecque drsquoHomegravere jusqursquoagrave Platon Paris

Gernet Louis (1917) Recherches sur le deacuteveloppement de la penseacutee juridique etmorale enGregravece Eacutetude seacutemantique Paris

Guarducci M (1939) ldquoAngelosrdquo Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 15 78ndash88Hild Joseph-Antoine (1881) Eacutetude sur les deacutemons dans la litteacuterature et la religion desGrecs Paris

Nilsson Martin P (1941) (1950) Geschichte der griechischen Religion I Bis zur griechis-chenWeltherrschaft II Die hellenistische und roumlmische Zeit Muumlnchen

Michl J (1962) ldquoEngel (heidnisch juumldisch christlich)rdquo in Reallexicon fuumlr Antike undChristentum ed Theodor Klauser Bd V Stuttgart 53ndash200

Motte Andreacute (1989) ldquoLa cateacutegorie platonicienne du deacutemoniquerdquo in J Ries (ed) Angeset deacutemons Actes du colloque de Liegravege et de Louvain-la-Neuve (25ndash26 novembre1987) Louvain 205ndash221

Nock Arthur D (1926) Sallustius Concerning the Gods and the Universe Edited andtranslated by Cambridge

6 introduction

Pippidi DionisieM (1949) ldquoSur un ange gardienrdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 51 68ndash82Rexine John E (1985) ldquoDaimon in Classical Greek Literaturerdquo Platocircn 37 29ndash52Robin Leacuteon (1908) La theacuteorie platonicienne de lrsquoamour Paris [31964]Saffrey Henri Dominique (1981) ldquoLa theacuteurgie comme peacuteneacutetration drsquoeacuteleacutements extra-rationnels dans la philosophie grecque tardiverdquo inWissenschaftliche und auszligerwis-senschaftliche Rationalitaumlt Referate undTexte des 4 InternationalenHumanistischenSymposiums 1978 Athens 153ndash169 (reprint in HD Saffrey Recherches sur le neacuteopla-tonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 1990 33ndash49)

Sheppard ARR (19801981) ldquoPagan Cult of Angels in Roman Asia Minorrdquo Talanta 12ndash13 77ndash101

Sokolowski F (1960) ldquoSur le culte drsquoangelosdans le paganismegrec et romainrdquoHarvardTheological Review 53 225ndash229

Suaacuterez de la Torre E (2000) ldquoLa nociacuteon de daimon en la literatura de la Grecia arcaicaet claacutesicardquo in A Peacuterez Jimeacutenez G Cruz Andreotti (ed) Seres intermedios Aacutengelesdemonios y genios en el mundo mediterraacuteneo MadridmdashMaacutelaga 47ndash87

Timotin Andrei (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens (Philosophia Antiqua 128) LeidenmdashBoston

Trouillard Jean (1957) ldquoLe sens des meacutediations proclusiennesrdquo Revue philosophique deLouvain 55 331ndash342

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1931) Der Glaube der Hellenen 2 vols Berlin


The Daimon and the Choice of Life in PlotinusrsquoThought

Thomas Vidart

A whole treatise is devoted by Plotinus to the nature of the daimon it is thefifteenth treatise in the chronological order entitled On our Allotted DaimonThis treatise has to do with a very particular demonology which is developedout of exegetical concerns Plotinus aims to account for the different passagesthat deal with the daimon in Platorsquos work In particular according to the mythof Er the soul has to choose before incarnation a daimon which will guideit during its existence it does not change its demon during its incarnate lifeThis would imply if we follow Plotinusrsquo understanding of the nature of thedaimon that one has to let the same power prevail in onersquos soul throughoutonersquos entire existence How could one keep onersquos daimon during onersquos entirelife if this means that one is deprived of the possibility of moral improvementThe aim of this paper is to show that Platorsquos statement cannot be accepted byPlotinus because of its consequences For instance one could not becomewisebecause becoming wise means making the intellect be dominant in the soulthereby changing onersquos daimon Thus we have to inquire into how it is possiblethat the soul makes a choice in the course of life itself

The Nature of the daimon according to Plotinus

We first have to explain what the daimon is in Plotinusrsquo thought In a gen-eral manner the daimones are characterized by their intermediary situationbetween the place where men are and the realm of gods This way of describ-ing the daimones is in particular inherited from the Symposium (202dndash203a)in which Plato maintains that Eros and the other demons are intermediariesbetween human beings and gods When he evokes the influence of magicalincantations in the Treatise On Difficulties about the Soul II Plotinus explainsthat the daimones arewont to pay attention to prayersmade by people living in

I would like to thank very much Seamus OrsquoNeill who accepted to read over this study and tocorrect its English

8 vidart

the sensible world1 It is tempting to establish a link between this thesis andthe event that Porphyry narrates in his On the Life of Plotinus and the Order ofHis Books He illustrates that Olympius of Alexandria was jealous of Plotinus inan anecdote dealing with the latterrsquos own daimon to explain why the differenthostile practices of Olympius of Alexandria failed Porphyry underlines the factthat Plotinusrsquo soul was outstandingly powerful In this way he relates that anEgyptian priest invited Plotinus to come to the Iseion a temple devoted to Isisin Rome and succeeded in making Plotinusrsquo daimon appear The latter was infact a god

When the daimon was summoned to appear a god came and not a beingof the daimon order and the Egyptian said lsquoBlessed are you who have agod for your daimon and not a companion of the subordinate orderrsquo2

This anecdote suggests that the power of onersquos soul is the result of the rank ofonersquos daimon According to Porphyry this event is important since it highlightsthe reason why Plotinus was interested in the question of the daimones andmore precisely in the hierarchy between them He explains that the fact thatPlotinusrsquo soul was directed towards his own daimon which was actually a godmay account for his writing the Treatise On our Allotted Daimon

So the companion of Plotinus was a daimon of the more god-like kindand he continually kept the divine eye of his soul fixed on this compan-ion It was a reason of this kind that led him to write the treatise lsquoOn OurAllotted Daimonrsquo in which he sets out to explain the differences betweendaimon-companions3

There is a contrast between this anecdote and the ideas that Plotinus developsin the treatise On our Allotted Deamon4We thus have to be cautious when we

1 See Plotinus IV 4 [28] 43 12ndash162 Porphyry On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books 10 21ndash25 I use here as for Ploti-

nusrsquo treatises AH Armstrongrsquos translation but I render the word δαίμων as ldquodaimonrdquo in orderto harmonize the study (the title of Treatise 15 which is On our Allotted Guardian Spirit inAH Armstrongrsquos translation thus becomes On our Allotted Daimon)We can find On the Lifeof Plotinus and the Order of His Bookswritten by Porphyry in the first volume

3 Ibid 10 28ndash334 See on this point Guyot (2003) 335 ldquoOutre que pour des raisons chronologiques Porphyre

nrsquoa pu assister agrave cette seacuteance il srsquoavegravere difficile drsquoaccorder beaucoup de creacutedit agrave ce reacutecit dansla mesure ougrave lrsquoanecdote proposeacutee pour rendre compte du traiteacute 15 est contredite dans sa

the daimon and the choice of life in plotinusrsquo thought 9

study the way in which Plotinus considers the manifestation of daimones thathe is interested in the effects of magical incantations does not thereby meanthat according to him demons manifest outside the soul as a result of spells5Plotinus does not discuss daimones from the perspective of theurgy that is

to say the ritual practices that reveal the presence of deities in the world inwhich human beings live and enable the latter to unite with those deities6 Heputs the emphasis on the fact that the daimon is to be found within the soulitself More precisely the daimon is defined in chapter 3 of the Treatise On ourAllotted Daimon as the part of the soul that is above the one that is active inthe human soul

Who then becomes a daimonHewhowas one here too Andwho a godCertainly hewhowas one here Forwhatworked in aman leads him [afterdeath] since it was his ruler and guide here too Is this then lsquothe dai-mon to whomhewas allottedwhile he livedrsquo No but that which is beforethe working principle for this presides inactive over the man but thatwhich comes after it acts If the working principle is that by which wehave sense-perception the daimon is the rational principle but if we liveby the rational principle the daimon is what is above this presiding inac-tive and giving its consent to the principlewhichworks So it is rightly saidthat lsquowe shall choosersquo For we choose the principle which stands above usaccording to our choice of life7

We have to notice a shift in this text the first question concerns the kind ofbeings who can become daimones through reincarnation andwhen he definesthe demon that is mentioned in the Phaedo (107d6ndash7) Plotinus refers to theone that each human being has The daimon is not a particular power of thesoul its identity depends on the power of the soul that is the most active8

possibiliteacute mecircme par les thegraveses de ce traiteacuterdquo He shows in particular that the daimon is con-sidered to be a part of the soul which means that it cannot appear and that the daimon ofthe wise man which is the One itself cannot be seen in a sensible way at all

5 See Brisson (1993) and (2009)6 We have in this way to underline the difference between Plotinus and Iamblichus (see the De

mysteriis)7 Plotinus III 4 [15] 3 1ndash108 Timotin (2012) 295 underlines this point ldquoDans cette perspective la notion de δαίμων ne

deacutesigne plus une reacutealiteacute speacutecifique mais un rapport de subordination elle est une notionrelative sans contenu preacuteeacutetablirdquo

10 vidart

According to Plotinus a hierarchy between the different kinds of life corre-sponds to the hierarchy between the different parts of the soul Indeed thekind of life that one has depends on the part of the soul that dominates andtherefore on the position of the daimon in the soulThe daimon thus appears as a psychological function it is described as a

power of the soul which stands just above the active power in the soul It isnot itself active but it is dominating the power that is active There is indeeda hierarchy between the different powers of the soul the rational principle isfor instance above sense-perceptionWhat is the role of the daimon if it is notactive It is the guide of our existence it agrees with the power that we havechosen but it also shows the way that has to be followed Indeed it leads us toadopt the kind of life that is just above the kind of life adopted at the presenttimeIn the following lines of chapter 3 Plotinus opposes the wicked man to the

onewho is good The latter is able to coincidewith the life of the daimonwhichis located above the active part of his soul

But if a man is able to follow the daimonwhich is above him he comes tobe himself above living that daimonrsquos life and giving the pre-eminence tothat better part of himself to which he is being led and after that daimonhe rises to another until he reaches the heights9

The goodman thus does not keep the same daimon he has in fact successivelyseveral ones Plotinus insists that the soulrsquos many different powers account forthe different ways of life that people adopt To make a choice means that thesoul pays attention either to the sensible world or to the intelligible one sincethe human being holds a position intermediate between them In this way thedaimon is not allotted to the soul from the outside its allotment depends onthe world which is chosen by each soul10 This conception holds human beingsliable for the choices that they make

9 Plotinus III 4 [15] 3 18ndash2010 We have to point out the contrast between the title of Treatise 15 (On ourAllottedDaimon

Plotinus uses a similar expression in chapter 3 3ndash4) which comes from a way of speak-ing that we find in the Phaedo (107d6ndash7) and the idea of a choice made by the soul itappears that the attribution of a daimon is not imposed since the soul itself chooses itsdaimon


The Responsibility of Each Soul for Its Choice of Life

The choice of a kind of life implies the responsibility of the one who choosesAccording to the myth of Er which can be found in book X of the Republicthe different souls choose before their reincarnation the new kind of life theyare going to experience The myth sets out what Er has observed concerningthe path followed by souls separated from the bodies after death As he himselfdied in the battle Er could accompany the souls of the dead but he has beenallowed to come back to lifeWhat interests us in this myth deals with the stepthat precedes the reincarnationof the soul Plato underscores the fact that eachsoul has to choose a daimon which will accompany it during its new life untilits next reincarnation one thousand and one hundred years later There aremore precisely two different stages first each soul receives a lot which givesit a rank to make the choice and next the soul has to make the choice itselfPlato thus stresses that each soul chooses its kind of existence and therefore isresponsible for the life it will have as we can see when we read the speech ofthe one who is presented as a kind of interpreter of the Fates

The word of the maiden Lachesis daughter of Necessity Souls of a daythis is the beginning of another round of mortal kind that ends in deathNo daimon will select you by lot but you will be the one to choose a dai-mon Let the one who draws the first lot be the first to choose a life towhich he will adhere of necessity But virtue has no master by honoringor dishonoring it eachwill have a greater or lesser share of it The respon-sibility is the chooserrsquos god is not to be blamed11

The daimon is chosen and its assignment is not the result of fate12 It is eventhe case for the soul that chooses last it has the opportunity to make a choicewhich will be advantageous for it since there are more samples of lives thansouls Among the different samples of lives one can find lives of human beings

11 Plato Republic X 617d6ndashe5 I render δαίμων as ldquodaimonrdquo instead of ldquodivine spiritrdquo12 This conception of the daimon contrasts with the previous representation of it See on

this subject the study of Aubry (2008) who maintains that the idea of an inner daimonis to be found before Plotinusrsquo treatises and highlights how it evolved She underlines thechange that occurs with the myth of Er ldquoPlaton ici inverse la signification cosmologiquedu deacutemon Car celui-ci est choisi et le texte est insistant lsquola responsabiliteacute revient agravequi choisit le dieu lui nrsquoest pas responsablersquo (617e5) Le deacutemon degraves lors nrsquoest plus enlrsquo individu la part subie le lot heacuteriteacute lrsquo inteacuterioriteacute comme contrainte mais au contrairelrsquoobjet du choixrdquo (262)

12 vidart

and lives of animals After the choice of a kind of life each soul is allotted a dai-mon whichwill guide it during thenew life As a result whenone chooses a lifeone chooses a daimon When the souls choose their future life they are super-vised by the Fates and especially by Lachesis But the latter does not impose thedifferent daimones on the souls that are present She only grants to each soulthe daimon that it has chosen

So when all the souls had chosen their lives according to the draw theyapproachedLachesis in order and she gave each thedaimon they had cho-sen to escort them as protector through their lives and as fulfiller of theirchoices13

The daimon appears in this way as a guide and associate of a soul14 The choicethat each soul makes is in tune with the kind of life that has been experi-encedduring theprevious existence But according to themythof Er the choiceis made only once and it determines the whole life We have to notice thatthe choice made by the soul can lead it to become more virtuous or less soits moral characteristics depend on the sample of life that has been chosenMoreover the one who succeeds in being virtuous is happy In agreement withPlatorsquos description of the conditions of reincarnation in book X of the Repub-lic (617dndashe) Plotinus underlines that the soul chooses its daimon and thusits kind of life Moreover he agrees with the idea that virtue has no master15When he discusses the change of daimon that occurs when one dies he alsoseems to consider that the same demon accompanies the soul during its entirelife

It is not possible for the principle which led the man in life to lead [afterdeath] but only before when the man lived when he ceases to live theprinciple must hand over its activity to another since he has died in thelife which corresponded to that daimonrsquos activity16

But in order to be more or less virtuous one has to change onersquos daimon themoral change implies the possibility of changing onersquos demon In this respect

13 Plato Republic X 620d6ndashe1 I use the word ldquodaimonrdquo instead of ldquospiritrdquo14 The view that the god has allotted to everyone a daimon is defended by Plato in the

Timaeus (90a)15 Plotinus quotes the statement of the Republic (X 617e3) in IV 4 [28] 39 2 VI 8 [39] 5 31

and II 3 [52] 9 1716 Plotinus III 4 [15] 3 10ndash13


there seems to be a conflict between Plotinusrsquo conception and the myth of Eraccording to themyth the choicemadeby the soul determines the entire futureexistence Plotinus understands Platorsquos thought in this way since he maintainsin chapter 5 of the treatiseOn our Allotted Daimon that according to Plato thesoul keeps the same daimon

But if the soulrsquos purpose is decisive and that part of it dominates whichlies ready to hand as the result of its previous lives the body is no longerresponsible for any evil which may affect the man For if the soulrsquos char-acter exists before the body and has what it chose and Plato says doesnot change its daimon then the good man does not come into existencehere below and neither does the worthless one17

The thesis that the daimon does not change during life which is defended byPlato makes moral change impossible according to Plotinus

The Change of the Individual Daimon Appears to beMoralNecessity

The choice that the soul makes has two different aspects which are stronglyconnected with each other we choose at the same time our daimon and ourlife or rather we choose our daimon because we choose our life It has to benoticed that the platonic idea of a choice made by the soul is deeply modi-fied There is indeed a choice but this choice is not made by the soul before itsreincarnation it is made in our life itself when we let one of the powers of oursoul be active For instance if wemake the rational principle active we chooseour life which is the rational one and therefore we choose the daimon since itstands above the active power But this is a choice that comes second and notfirst in so far as we choose what power is active in the soul and not the onewhich stands above Plotinusrsquo interpretation of themyth of Er puts the empha-sis on the preliminary choice (προαίρεσις) in chapter 5 of Treatise 15 the choice(αἵρεσις) evoked in themyth of Er is defined by Plotinus as a preliminary choice(προαίρεσις)18 We have perhaps to understand that this choice is made before

17 Plotinus III 4 [15] 5 4ndash918 See Plotinus III 4 [15] 5 2ndash4Ἢ καὶ ἡ αἵρεσις ἐκεῖ ἡ λεγομένη τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς προαίρεσιν καὶ

διάθεσιν καθόλου καὶ πανταχοῦ αἰνίττεται AH Armstrong translates this passage in thiswayldquoThe choice in the other world which Plato speaks of is really a riddling representation of

14 vidart

theother ones butmost importantly thisword refers to amoral tradition Ploti-nus borrows the termπροαίρεσις fromAristotle and from the Stoics19 Accordingto the latter the preliminary choice is the tendency that precedes the differentactions and gives them their moral signification In order to havemoral signifi-cation our actions thus have to be explained by a preliminary choice and notby a lot that is imposed Things depending on chance do not have any influenceon preliminary choice If one is to be responsible for onersquos life one has tomakea preliminary choice of onersquos life One must therefore have the opportunity tofollow one daimon and then another one in order to get wiser One has indeedto change onersquos life as explained in the treatise OnVirtues

Perhaps the possessor of the virtues will know them and how much hecan get from them and will act according to some of them as circum-stances require Butwhenhe reaches higher principles anddifferentmea-sures he will act according to these For instance he will not make self-control consist in that former observance of measure and limit but willaltogether separate himself as far as possible from his lower nature andwill not live the life of the good man which civic virtue requires He willleave that behind and choose another the life of the gods for it is to themnot to goodmen that we are to bemade like Likeness to goodmen is the

the soulrsquos universal and permanent purpose and dispositionrdquo As Plotinus seems to evokethe soul in a general manner and not only the soul of the world I consider καθόλου andπανταχοῦ to be adverbswhich apply to the verb αἰνίττεται That iswhy I propose the follow-ing translation ldquoOtherwisewhat is called the choicemade there refers in riddles generallyand absolutely to the preliminary choice and to the disposition of the soulrdquo We have tonotice that the word ἐκεῖ (ldquothererdquo) which we can find both in the question and in theanswer does not refer as it often does in Plotinusrsquo work to the intelligible world but tothe place where the different souls choose their lot according to the myth of Er

19 This notion plays a very important role in the Nicomachean Ethics (book III) of Aristotlehe distinguishes in particular the preliminary choice (προαίρεσις) that concerns themeansand the wish (βούλησις) which is directed at the aim (see chapter 4) Epictetus also oftenrefers to the preliminary choice in the Discourses for instance he grounds freedom in thepreliminary choice (see Discourses I 12 9ndash10) On the meaning of the preliminary choicein the works of the Neoplatonists and also in those of Aristotle and the Stoics (especiallyEpictetus) see Rist (1975) The difference between Aristotlersquos conception and Epictetusrsquo ispresented in this way ldquoIn Aristotle a prohairesis is an act of choosing while in Epictetus itis the state of having chosen in themoral area that is of having becomemoral or immoralrdquo(106) On Plotinusrsquo understanding of the preliminary choice with regard to Aristotle andto the Stoics see in particular 107ndash109


likeness of two pictures of the same subject to each other but likeness tothe gods is likeness to themodel a being of a different kind to ourselves20

Plotinus highlights in this text the way the wise man (σπουδαῖος) lives Even ifthose who have the civic virtues become similar to gods the latter are them-selves beyond these civic virtues The wiseman has therefore to reach a kind oflife that is higher He does not only have to improve his life he has to change hislife that is to say to leave the life that he has and to adopt a new one the life ofgods themselves which is above the life corresponding to the civic virtues Thisimplies that the soul has to adopt a new life the life of the Intellect In this wayPlotinus appropriates the precept presented by Plato in the Theaetetus (176andashb) according to which one has to escape and to be similar to the godThere must be a mobility in existence that enables the human being to

favour a specific part of his soul and therefore a particular kind of life The soulhas to be able tomake a choice in the course of life itself Plotinus seems to pre-serve the power of the soul to choose its kind of life and therefore to change itsdaimon which is underlined in chapter 7 of the treatiseOnLoveWe can find inthis chapter and the following ones Plotinusrsquos reading of themyth dealing withthe birth of Eros that can be found in the Symposium (203andash204c) When hestudies the link between Eros and the other daimones Plotinus underlines thefact that the characteristics of Eros and especially the insatiable desire enableus to conceive the identity of the demons

But one must consider that the whole race of daimones is like this andcomes from parents of this kind for every daimon is able to provide him-self with that to which he is ordered and impelled by desire for it andakin to Love in this way too and is like him too in not being satisfied butimpelled by desire for one of the partial things which he regards as goodsFor this reason we must consider too that the love which good men inthis world have is a love for that which is simply and really good not justany kind of love but that thosewho are ordered under other daimones areordered under different ones at different times leaving their love of thesimply good inoperative but acting under the control of other daimoneswhom they chose according to the corresponding part of that which isactive in them the soul21

20 Plotinus I 2 [19] 7 19ndash3021 Plotinus III 5 [50] 7 26ndash36

16 vidart

Plenty and Poverty are the parents of Love and the other daimones Thisparentage accounts for the fact that the daimones are as is Eros himself atthe same time ingenious and deficient We can find in this text an oppositionbetween good men who love the good itself and people who follow one dai-mon and then another one good men act in agreement with Eros whereas theothers do not follow only one demon22 They choose their daimon we can findhere the idea of choice which comes from the myth of Er but Plotinus appro-priates this idea since the choice depends on the part of the soul that is activeHow can we explain that good men only follow one daimon It is implicit thatchange is not necessary since onehas reachedone of the highest levels Accord-ing to Plotinus love and true things are indeed linked since the object of loveis the intelligible realm ldquohence our love is of simple realities for so are ourthoughtsrdquo23 The other people follow one daimon and then another becausethey only desire particular things Good men do not have to be guided by var-ious daimones because the change has been made before they have indeedchosen to live the life of the IntellectThe soulrsquos choice of one life rather than another is not only according to

Plotinus the stage that precedes its reincarnation but it is also the conditionthat enables it to become moral In particular this choice is necessary for theone who wants to reach happiness since Plotinus maintains in the treatise OnWell-Being that the latter consists in adopting the life of the Intellect which ischaracterized by its perfection

If thenman can have the perfect life the man who has this life is well offIf not one would have to attribute well-being to the gods if among themalone this kind of life is to be found But since wemaintain that this well-being is to be found among men we must consider how it is so What Imean is this it is obvious from what has been said elsewhere that manhas perfect life by having not only sense-life but reasoning and true intel-ligence24

22 We do not have to do with people who have evil desires since they are discussed in thefollowing lines ldquoBut those who are impelled by desire for evil things have fettered all theloves in themwith the evil passions that have grown up in their souls just as they have fet-tered their right reason which is inborn in them with the evil opinions which have grownupon themrdquo (lines 36ndash39)

23 Plotinus III 5 [50] 7 55ndash5624 Plotinus I 4 [46] 4 1ndash8


Plotinus explains that a hierarchy has to be found between the differentkinds of life and the perfect life is described as a life characterized by its bright-ness One adopts the perfect life which is the life of the Intellect or rather onebecomes this life itself in so far as onersquos own intellect is not separate from theIntellect as principle Such a thesis implies that onersquos life does not coincide atonce with the perfect life of the Intellect and therefore that the daimon is notfrom the beginning of existence situated above the Intellect Only the soul ofthe wise man possesses this configurationIndeed he is characterized by his ability to make the intellect dominate his

entire soul In the last chapter of the Treatise On our Allotted Daimon Plotinusunderlines the fact that in order to be wise one has to make the best part ofonersquos soul that is to say the intellect be active If the intellect is active the dai-mon necessarily is to be found at the level of the One But how can the daimonstand at the level of the first principle which is simple in an absolute mannerThe answer consists in maintaining that the daimon is not different from theOne the intellect the rational principle and so on hellip In other words the dai-mon is not located at the level of the power that is above the active power inthe soul rather it is the power that is above the active power in the soulThis leads us to conclude that Plotinus does not seem to give great impor-

tance to the existence of the daimon he only tries to harmonize his own doc-trine with the myth of Er and other passages of Platorsquos work dealing with thedemons But he has then to face a problem if the daimon is chosen once beforeincarnation moral improvement is not possible since the demon is in his doc-trine the power of the soul that is above the one which is active The daimonis only a psychological function As a result it cannot move from a power toanother one and the soul has to change the daimon it follows The thesis thatthe daimon changes during life is deeply called into question by Proclus In hisCommentary on the First Alcibiades (75ndash76) he criticizes the identification ofthe daimonwith the principle that directs in the soul or with the aspect of thesoul that dominates the active power in the soul In this last option we recog-nize the thesis defended by Plotinus25 According to Proclus this idea has tobe dismissed because its consequences are absurd a change in the soul wouldimply a change of the daimon itself Proclus does not accept that the activityof a new faculty in the soul could lead a new daimon to take the place of thepresent one He maintains indeed that only one daimon is allotted to a personduring his entire existence

25 See Andrei Timotinrsquos contribution in this volume

18 vidart

Bibliography

Primary SourcesArmstrong AH (trans) (1966ndash1988) Plotinus Enneads 7 volumes Loeb ClassicalLibrary Cambridge (Mass)

Emlyn-Jones C and Preddy W (eds and trans) (2013) Plato Republic Vol 2 Books6ndash10 Loeb Classical Library Cambridge (Mass)

Guyot M (trans) (2003) Plotin Traiteacute 15 in L Brisson and J-F Pradeau (eds) PlotinTraiteacutes 7ndash21 Paris

Secondary LiteratureAubry G (2008) ldquoDeacutemon et inteacuterioriteacute drsquoHomegravere agrave Plotin esquisse drsquoune histoirerdquo inG Aubry and F Ildefonse (eds) Le moi et lrsquo inteacuterioriteacute Paris 255ndash268

Brisson L (1992) ldquoPlotin et lamagierdquo in L Brisson et al (eds) Porphyre La vie de PlotinII Paris 465ndash475

Brisson L (2009) ldquoThe Philosopher and the Magician (Porphyry Vita Plotini 101ndash13)Magic and Sympathyrdquo in C Walde and U Dill (eds) Antike Mythen Medien Trans-formationen und Konstruktionen BerlinmdashNew-York 189ndash202

Rist JM (1975) ldquoPreliminary choice Proclus Plotinus et aliirdquo in H Doumlrrie (ed) DeJamblique agrave Proclus FondationHardt Entretiens sur lrsquoantiquiteacute classique tome XXIVandœuvresmdashGenegraveve 103ndash122

Timotin A (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōn dePlaton aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens (Philosophia antiqua 128) LeidenmdashBoston


The Angels in Ancient Gnosis Some Cases

Madeleine Scopello

Ancient Gnosis has given much attention to angels as evidenced by both theexcerpts transmitted by the heresiologists and the first-hand sources preservedin Coptic In my opinion Gnostic angelology constitutes a sort of canvas onwhichmetaphysical cosmological and anthropogonic themes have been graft-ed The reflection on the angels is closely intertwinedwith the founding themeof Gnosis which dissociates an inferior creator and enemy of mankind from aperfectly good and transcendent god who is the source of knowledge Both areaccompanied by angels evil angels surround the creator and good angels thetranscendent GodThe creator the demiurge identified in several systems with the god of the

Bible shapes the cosmos in order to imprison man and make him his slavedepriving him of the spark of knowledge which the transcendent God hadprovided him In his creative act this ignorant and incapable god is assistedby entities often qualified in the texts by the term ldquoangelrdquo In several Gnosticsystems creation is also attributed to angels acting collectively These angelswho are co-responsible or even responsible for creation can also be charac-terized by the term ldquodemonrdquo (δαίμων) or by the more technical Gnostic termldquoarchonrdquo (Greek ἄρχων Latin princeps Coptic ⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ) These (bad) angels alsoproduce the body of man likened to a dark jail wherein the spark of light thathe possesses is stifled and extinguished Other functions are exercised by theassociate angels of the demiurge they govern the cosmos and are the merci-less guardians of the spheres who strive to block the Gnostic on the road to hisheavenly abodeAs for the transcendent God the Unknowable towards whom those who

have revived in themselves the cognitive spark try to return he is also sur-rounded by angels They form his heavenly court and honour him with aperpetual worship But the angels can also act as intermediaries to lead theman who aspires to knowledge to the One they instruct and support himin mystical experiences most often throughout his journey to heaven theyare the agents of revelation In addition the enunciation and invocation ofangelic names foster mystical experience and help to attain the celestial mys-teriesWithin the limits of this article I will provide an overviewof Gnostic angelol-

ogy using both the heresiological sources and the first-hand documentationpreserved in Coptic We shall first examine the function of the angels in their

20 scopello

relation to a defective demiurgy and in a second stage the various roles of theangels in the wake of the transcendent GodLet us remind that the texts preserved in the codices found in Egyptmdashthe

codex Askew1 the codex Bruce2 the Berlin codex3 the NagHammadi codices4and the codex Tchacos5mdashwere translated from Greek into Coptic towards themiddle of the 4th century The lost Greek texts had been composed by anony-mous Gnostic authors between themiddle of the 2nd and the beginning of the3rd century which situates them at about the same period as the refutations ofthe Fathers of the Church The only treatises thatwere probablywritten later inGreek at the end of the 3rd or even the beginning of the 4th century andwhichare therefore closer in time to their Coptic translation are those transmittedby the codex Bruce and the codex Askew

1 This codex on parchment was bought by Antoninus Askew in London from an antiquedealer in 1750 It is preserved in the British Museum (British Library Additional 5114) It con-tains a treatise of 178 leaves (356 pages) usually designated by the (modern) title of PistisSophia See SchmidtmdashMacDermot 1978a

2 This codex on papyrus (in total 78 leaves = 156 pages) was purchased by the Scottish travellerJames Bruce in 1773 near Thebes It is kept at the Bodleian Library (BruceMss 96) It containstwo esoteric treatises the two Books of Jeu which form a single set and a treatise commonlycalled the Untitled Text See Ameacutelineau 1882 SchmidtmdashMacDermot 1978b new edition byCreacutegheur 2018 See also Evans 2015

3 Purchased in 1896 in Ahmim from an antique dealer by the German philologist Carl Rein-hardt and subsequently identified as Gnostic by the coptologist Carl Schmidt this codexwasacquired by the Berlin Museum of Egyptology (Berolinensis 8502) It contains four treatisesthe Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) the Apocryphon of John The Sophia of Jesus Christ and theAct of Peter See Tardieu 1984

4 A complete translation of the first-hand Gnostic Coptic texts discovered in 1945 in UpperEgypt at Nag Hammadi was established by RobinsonmdashSmith 1988 See also Robinson 2000and the new translation by Meyer 2007 In French we refer to the work of the French-Canadian team working on the texts of Nag Hammadi (Universiteacute Laval) Bibliothegraveque coptede Nag Hammadi Section ldquoTextesrdquo Queacutebec (36 volumes published in the series Textesbetween 1977 and 2017 8 volumes published in the series Eacutetudes and 7 in the series Con-cordances) MaheacutemdashPoirier 2007 (22012) with the contribution of the members of the teamBibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadi In German see Schenke Bethge Kaiser 2001 2003

5 This codex found in 1980 in the region of al-Minya wasmade available to specialists in 2006See Kasser et al 2007

the angels in ancient gnosis some cases 21

The Angels in the Sphere of Demiurgy

To illustrate this fundamental theme of the Gnostic doctrine I will present byway of example the theories of some teachers and Gnostic groups mentionedby the heresiologist Irenaeligus of Lyons6 and by the primary documentationnotably the Nag Hammadi texts

The Angels in the Gnostic Systems Known by HeresiologyThe theme of the activity of the angels in demiurgy is well illustrated by threeteacherswhomIrenaeus of Lyons considers tobe the first representatives of theGnostic doctrine in his work Against Heresies Detection and Refutation of theSo-Called Gnosis7 composed about 180 These teachers are Simon of SamariaMenander also a Samaritan and Saturnine of AntiochBefore considering their systems it is worth recalling how Irenaeus con-

structed his work The Bishop of Lyons first gives a general overview of themost well-known Gnostic teachers taking as his point of departure those whowere his contemporariesmdashnotably the Valentiniansmdashand then goes back tothe origins of the doctrine He thereby sets up a kind of heresiological geneal-ogy albeit an artificial one in order to emphasize on the one hand the lackof originality of thinkers who are only deemed to repeat the theories of theirpredecessors by making some ldquoinnovationsrdquo and on the other hand to putthis heretical path in opposition to the apostolic succession the sole deposi-tory of truth one Creator God Incarnate Son Holy Spirit8 Simon Menan-der and Saturnine are all of Jewish origin and have in common an extremelypolemical exegetical reading of the Bible and in particular of the Genesis nar-rative

6 Letusmention for the record theothermainheresiologicalworks the Elenchosof thepseudo-Hippolytus (beginning of the 3rd century) the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (315ndash403)various treatises of Tertullian of Carthage (160ndash220) concerning especially theValentiniansthe numerous excerpts of Gnostic teachers refuted by Clement of Alexandria (150ndash216) therefutation by Origen (185ndash254) of a part of the commentary of the Gnostic Heracleon on theGospel of John

7 RousseaumdashDoutreleau 1979 (book IndashII) 1965 (book IV) 1969 (book V) Cf Rousseau 1984Irenaeligus of Lyons 2010 I use the abbreviation AdvHaer (Adversus Haereses)

8 This is what Irenaeus calls the ldquoRule of truthrdquo which the Gnostics do not respect ldquoFor uswe keep the rule of truth according to which there exists one Almighty God who createdeverything by his Word has organized everything and has made all things so that they arerdquo(AdvHaer I 22 1) Cf ibid I 9 4

22 scopello

In the section dedicated to Simon of Samaria the so-called Magician9 wholived in the time of the Apostles10 Irenaeus relates that Simon identified him-self with the supremePower Having rescued inTyros in Phoenicia a prostitutenamed Helen he claimed that she was his first Thought (Ennoia) the motherof all things from whom he originally got the idea to make the angels andarchangels (angelos et archangelos) Now Ennoia had descended to the lowerplaces and had given birth to the angels and powers (angelos et potestates) wholater created theworld But these entities were jealous of theirmother and sub-jected her to all kinds of outrages so that she would not go back to her FatherThey also enclosed her in a female body and subdued her to the cycle of trans-migrations11 Simon then intervened to deliver her and to provide humanswithknowledge of himself His purpose was to correct things the angels were badlygoverning the world for each of them wanted full command over it12 Here wefind a trace of the Jewish conception of the angels of the Nations God had keptIsrael for himself and gave a nation to each angelManlio Simonetti underlinedthe Jewish origin of this theme (cf for instance Daniel 1013ss Jubilees 15 31ssand 1Enoch 89 51ss) which Gnostic thinkers resume by charging it with amorenegative tonality13 The theme of the angels of the Nations is also to be foundin Basilides Simon further asserts that these angels who created the world hadalso inspired the Prophets The humans weremade slaves by the observance ofthe precepts established by the angels14In the few lines that Irenaeus dedicates to Menander (c 80CE)15 presented

as Simonrsquos successor the emphasis is also on the role played by angels in cre-ation Being amagician like his teacherMenander posits the existence of a firstPower (Virtus) unknown to all and presents himself as the Saviour sent fromthe invisible places for the salvation of humans The angels he says createdthe world after being emanated by Thought (ab Ennoia emissos) Through themagic he practiced Menander asserted that he communicated a knowledgecapable of defeating the demiurgical angelsIrenaeus then presents Saturnine16 and puts him in the wake of Simon and

Menander Originally from Antioch Saturnine founded a school of thought

9 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 23 1ndash310 Cf Acts of the Apostles 811 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 23 212 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 23 313 Simonetti 1970 p 7 note 8 See also Danieacutelou 195114 Ibid15 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 23 516 Ibid I 24 1ndash2


in the first half of the 2nd century The place of angels in creation is the leit-motiv of his doctrine According to Saturnine the unknowable Father madeangels archangels virtues and powers (angelos archangelos virtutes potes-tates) The world and all that it contains were made by seven of these angelsand man is also factura angelorum Saturnine develops an exegesis of Gene-sis 126 which highlights the incapability of the angels a resplendent imageof the supreme Power appeared to them but they could not hold it backfor this image had immediately ascended to the heights The angels exhortedone another saying ldquoLet us make a man according to the image and to thelikenessrdquo (Genesis 126) But because of their incapability (imbecillitas) thework they had shaped (plasma) could not stand up but it squirmed like aworm Moved by pity the Power from above sent a spark of life that raisedman and made it alive After death this spark of life ascends alone to thatto which it is akin while the rest from which man was made dissolves17This polemical explanation of the Genesis narrative is a leitmotiv of Gnos-tic thought and appears in several sources under much amplified and elabo-rated forms Saturnine also maintains that the god of the Jews is one of theangels18At this stage of the doctrine creation is still the collective work of the

angels19 and the figure of the demiurge the biblical god is not clearly dis-tinguishable as the main artisan of creation It is in the presentation of thedoctrine of Basilides that the character of a single creator begins to appearMoreover the terms ldquoangelrdquo and ldquoarchonrdquo are almost interchangeable Let usalso note that with Basilides the founder of a school in Alexandria and activebetween 120 and 150CE20 we leave the territory of the very first thinkersanchored in Samaritan Judaism (Simon and Menander) and Antioch (Satur-nine) to penetrate into multicultural Egypt where Gnosis had developed andflourished Basilides proclaimed that his doctrine came from a secret traditiondating back to the apostle Matthias21

17 Ibid I 24 118 Ibid I 24 219 The Gnostics could find in Judaism elements about the demiurgical angels which they

reinterpreted in apolemicalway See Simonetti 1970 9 note 15 quoting the article of Grant1967

20 This information comes from Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII 106 4) according towhomBasilides taught in Alexandria in the time of Hadrian (117ndash138) andAntoninus Pius(138ndash161)

21 Cf Hippolytus Elenchos VII 20 1ndash5

24 scopello

If one keeps to the report of Irenaeus22 the presence of the angels in thesystemof Basilides is of foremost importance Virtues archons and angels (vir-tutes principesangelos) are bornof theunionbetweenPower andWisdomandare called ldquothe first onesrdquo because theymade the first heaven From these otherangels came into existence by way of emanation who made a second heavensimilar to the first and so on down to the constitutionmdashthrough a process ofdegradation (ab derivatione)mdashof successive series of archons and angels and365 heavens23 At the end of the section devoted to Basilides24 Irenaeus men-tions that ldquothe Basilidians determine the position of the heavens in the sameway as the astrologers by borrowing their principles they adapt them to theproper character of their doctrinerdquo Here we find a recurring motif in Irenaeusand more generally among heresiologists who accuse the Gnostics of takingup in various fieldsmdashfrom the Bible to philosophy or astrologymdashalready exist-ing theories which they shamelessly adapt to their needs Irenaeus in this pas-sage adds that ldquothe chief of heaven is Abrasax and that is why he possesses thenumber 365rdquo25 The name Abrasax (or Abraxas) whose secret numerical valueis the number 365 also appears in some treatises of NagHammadi26 and in themagical literature27Basilides also asserts that ldquothe angels who occupy the lower heaven which

we see have done all that is in the world and have divided between them theearth and the nations that are in itrdquo28 It is at this point in the mythical narra-tion that the presence of a chief of the angels is mentioned ldquoTheir leader ishe who passes for being the god of the Jewsrdquo29 As he had wished to subduethe other nations to his own people (the Jews) the other nations and otherarchons stood up and waged war against him Faced with this situation andseeing the perversity of the archons the unbegotten Father sent the Intellecthis first-born Son Christ to release those who believed in him from the powerof the creators of the world Basilides further maintains that the propheciesof the Old Testament originate from the worldrsquos archons but that it is fromtheir leader that the Law comes30 According to the testimony of Irenaeus the

22 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 24 3ndash723 Ibid I 24 324 Ibid I 24 725 Ibid26 See the Index (by E Creacutegheur) at ldquoAbrasaxrdquo in MaheacutemdashPoirier 2007 (22012)27 Barb 195728 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 24 429 Ibid30 Ibid I 24 5


disciples of Basilides perpetuate their teacherrsquos interest in angels In fact theyinvent names which they claim to be those of the angels by classifying themheavenbyheaven ldquothey endeavour to present the names of the archons angelsand virtues of their so-called 365 heavensrdquo31 According to them the knowl-edge of the angels and their primary causes would enable those who possessthis Gnosis to make themselves invisible and elusive before angels and pow-ersIrenaeus later examines the theories of Carpocrates32 who taught in Alexan-

dria during the first half of the 2nd century His teaching reached Rome car-ried there by his disciple Marcellina33 at the time of Anicet (about 154) Thestarting point of the doctrine of Carpocrates is also constituted by the demi-urgical activity of the angels largely inferior to the ungenerated Father theycreated the world and what it contains These κοσμοποιοί who are also definedby the term lsquoarchonrsquo hinder the rise of Jesus to the Father as well as that ofsouls34 But souls can redeem themselves if they despise these entities TheCarpocratians claim that they can already dominate the archons and the cre-ators of the world by magic techniques35 As for the devil the Adversary heis one of the angels in the world36 He was created to lead the souls of thedying towards the Archon who is the first author of the world This archondelivers the souls to another angel who is the guardian of the sky that he mayshut them up in other bodies for according to the Carpocratians the body is aprisonWhile nothing is said about angels or archons in the passages that Irenaeus

devotes to Cerinthus the Ebionites the Nicolaites Cerdon and Marcion37such is not the case for the sectae which Irenaeus examines later The Barbe-loites38 affirm that the First archon39 author of the universe having carried apart of the power of his motherWisdom and having moved to inferior places

31 Ibid32 Ibid I 25 1ndash6 and also Hippolytus Elenchos VII 32 a faithful reprise of the text of Ire-

naeus in its Greek original form AdvHaer I 1ndash2 presents the theories of Carpocrates thenext part concerns his followers

33 OnMarcellina cf Scopello 2015 218ndash22134 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 25 1ndash235 Ibid I 25 336 Ibid I 25 437 Ibid I 26ndash2738 Ibid I 29 1ndash4 In this system there are also angels in bonam partem39 The acts and gestures of the Protarchon are described in AdvHaer I 29 4

26 scopello

made the firmament in which he lives Being himself Ignorance hemade pow-ers and angels as well as firmaments and earthly things and in joining withPresumption (Authadia) he also produced negative entitiesWickedness Jeal-ousy Envy Discord and Desire (Zelum Phthonum Erin and Epithymian)When his mother finally departed from him saddened by his sonrsquos actions theFirst Archon saw himself as the only God which is why he said ldquoI am a jealousGod and apart fromme it is not Godrdquo (Exodus 205 Isaiah 455ndash6 469)40 Thisexpression has often been interpreted in Gnostic milieus41 in contexts char-acterised by a very negative image of the creator identified with the biblicalGodAs for the Ophites to whom Irenaeus devotes a long section42 the terms

of lsquoangelrsquo lsquoheavenrsquo lsquopowerrsquo and lsquocreatorrsquo are allotted to the seven sons of theMother43 The first of them is called Yaldabaoth44 This name also appears inthe primary sources in which the character enjoyed some popularity The ety-mology of Yaldabaoth is uncertain the meanings ldquobegetter of powersrdquo (Hebyāld + (s)abaʾoth)45 and ldquoson of shamerdquo (Heb Behūthā)46 have been proposedYaldabaoth is surrounded by a hebdomade that governs the things of heavenand earth Likewise angels archangels virtues powers and dominions weremadebyYaldabaoth But as soonas these entities came into existence they roseagainst their creator claiming the first place47Themyth continueswith a seriesof episodes Let us mention the episode based on Exodus 20548 where Yald-abaoth proclaims his authority and encourages the powers collectively to cre-ate the FirstMan ldquoCome let usmake aman according to the imagerdquo (cfGenesis126) Thus six powers convened and shaped a man of prodigious length andbreadthwho howeverwriggles like aworm(scarizanteautemeo tantum)Onlyan intervention from above can straighten it out49 This last themewas alreadypresent in Saturnine In this passageone could find the echoof the speculations

40 The theme of the blasphemy of the archon was dealt with by Johnston 201041 For the attestations of these quotations in the texts of NagHammadi see EvansmdashWebbmdash

Wiebe 199342 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 30 1ndash1443 Ibid I 30 444 Ibid I 30 545 Cf Scholem 197446 Black 1983 On these etymologies see Poirier 2006 257ndash25947 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 30 548 Ibid I 30 649 Ibid


of mystical Judaism on the cosmic size of the First Man50 which are grafted onthoseof the incommensurable dimensions of God (ShiurʾQomah ldquothemeasureof staturerdquo)

Angels and Demiurge in NagHammadi TextsThe theme of the role of angels in malam partem in demiurgy is also widelydiscussed in the writings of Nag Hammadi where a number of mythic large-scale frescoes depicting creation have been preserved the Apocryphon of John(NH II 1 III 1 IV 1 BG 2) the Hypostasis of the Archons (NH II 4)51 and thetreatise On the Origins of theWorld (II 5)52We will take as an example the case of the Apocryphon of John Let us first

mention that the term ldquoangelrdquo is present about 150 times in the collection ofNag Hammadi and that it appears in 23 treatises (the collection contains 53)It is renderedwithout exception by theGreek ἄγγελος transcribed inCoptic Asin the Gnostic excerpts preserved by heresiologists the term ldquoangelrdquo is appliedeither to the evil entities associated with the act of creation or to the positiveentities of the higher world In the narratives of creation the terms ldquoangelrdquo andldquoarchonrdquo are interchangeable53

The Apocryphon of JohnThe Apocryphon of John54 is one of the treatises of the Nag Hammadi collec-tion in which the work of revision and interpretation by the Gnostic exegetesof the Scriptures is particularly perceptible55 Originally composed in Greek inthe second half of the 2nd century it has been preserved in four copies three inNagHammadi and one in the Berlin codex There are two versions two are long(NagHammadi codex II 1 and IV 1) and two are short (NagHammadi codex III1 and Berlin Codex [BG 2]) The short versions are older Irenaeus of Lyonsmostprobably used a Greek version of the short text which he summarizes in orderto construct his account of the Barbeloites56

50 On this theme see Stroumsa 1992 especially 75 Mopsik 1989 208ndash211 See also Barc 197551 See Layton 1989 200052 See Tardieu 1974 See also Layton 1989 2000 Painchaud 199553 ldquoWhen the seven archons were thrown down from their skies on the earth they made for

them angels in great number that is demons for their servicerdquo (II 5 124 1ndash8)54 See Giversen 1963 Tardieu 1984 WaldsteinmdashWisse 1995 (22000) MaheacutemdashPoirier 2007

(22012) 217ndash295 (Livre des secrets de Jean by B Barc)55 Luttikhuizen 200656 Irenaeus AdvHaer I 29 1ndash4 Irenaeus summarizes here the content of the first part of The

28 scopello

The Apocryphon of John is a discourse of revelation delivered to John by therisen Jesus whose starting point is the account of Genesis which the anony-mous author of this text reinterprets in the light of the Gnostic myth in orderto answer the questions about the origin of evil and human destiny This veryrich and complex presentation has been called the ldquoGnostic Biblerdquo by MichelTardieu since it deals with the history of origins ldquountil nowrdquo according to thewords of its authorThe central character of the treatise is the evil creator the archon Yalda-

baoth the bestial abortion born of Sophia Following the version of Nag Ham-madi Codex II we will consider the episodes in which Yaldabaoth builds hisangelic court then with its help shapes the first man Yaldabaoth the firstarchon (ἄρχων) having retained a part of the power of his mother Sophiafirst creates his own aeon and copulating with Ignorance generates Author-ities (ἐξουσίαι) whose names are indicated (II 10 22ndash11 4) He also establishedseven kings for the seven heavens and five kings of chaos to reign there (II 114ndash7) Yaldabaoth actually has three names Yaldabaoth Saklas and SamaelHe is arrogant and impious and claims to be the only god (II 11 7ndash22) Sevenpowers (ϭⲟⲙ the Coptic equivalent of δύναμις) constitute the hebdomad Eachpossesses aname and together they create 365 angels (II 11 23ndash35)Havingpro-claimed himself god Yaldabaoth unites to the powers (ϭⲟⲙ) which are withhim 7 authorities (ἐξουσίαι) by giving a name to each of them (II 12 10ndash135)Seeing the creation that surrounds him and the crowd of angels (ἄγγελοι)

stemming fromhimYaldabaoth affirms that he is a jealous god and that there isno other god apart from him (II 13 5ndash13)57 Contemplating the figure of the pri-mordial man reflected in the water Yaldabaoth urges his acolytes to reproduceit ldquoCome on Let usmake aman in the image of God and in our likeness so thathis image becomes for us lightrdquo (cf Genesis 126)58 It is first of all the psychicbody of Adam59 which is shaped by the seven powers (δύναμις) (II 15 13ndash29)This body ismade up of a bone-soul a sinew-soul a flesh-soul amarrow-soul ablood-soul a skin-soul and a hair-soul Then the authorities (ἐξουσίαι) whosenames are provided undertake the task of creating the different parts of hisbody from the head to the toenails (II 15 29ndash17 32)

Secret Book of John but it is not possible to detect any precise parallels with any of thepreserved versions

57 Cf Exodus 205 Deuteronomy 59 LXX See Johnston 201058 ApJohn NH II 15 1ndash659 See Van den Broek 1996


The nomina barbara attributed to the entities mentioned in these sectionswere mainly studied by Soumlren Giversen60 and Michel Tardieu61 Interpretingthese names is often extremely difficult As Michel Tardieu says ldquoQuant agrave lafabrication de noms barbares ils sont composeacutes la plupart du temps par jeuxdemeacutetathegraveses sur des racines seacutemitiques ou sur des noms grecs deacuteformeacutes deacutesi-gnant les fonctions attribueacutees aux deacutemons par le folklorerdquo62The names of the 5 governors of the sensitive soul (II 17 32ndash18 2) of the

demons (δαίμονες) that govern the body (II 18 2ndash14) as well as those of theleaders of the passions (II 18 15ndash19 1) are also mentioned in the next part ofthe Apocryphon of John The angelic account concludes with an indication ofthe number of angels (II 19 2ndash10) totalizing 365 The author refers here to theldquoBook of Zoroasterrdquo for further information This book according to MichelTardieu could be part of the ldquoopuscules astrologico-apocalyptiques des lsquonou-veaux Chaldeacuteensrsquo de langue grecquerdquo63 The purpose of this construction bothdetailed and complex is to enclose Adam in a material body which will be histomb (II 21 10ndash14) ldquoThis is the tomb (σπήλαιον) of the body (σῶμα) with whichthe robbers (λῃσταί) have clothed the man the fetter of forgetfulness And hebecame a mortal manrdquo64The rest of the narrative indicates that the psychic body of Adam created

by angels and demons remains inactive and motionless for a long time (II 1911ndash14) Through a trick Sophia leads Yaldabaoth to blow on Adamrsquos face thearchon loses some of the power that he possessed which penetrates throughthe breath into the psychic body of Adam Adam is vivified begins tomove andbecomes luminous and intelligent Afterwards Yaldabaothrsquos acolytes devouredby envy deliver Adam intomatter and shape him a body from earth water fireand breath in order to deprive him of his superiority

The Angels of the Spheres

In addition to their cosmogonic role the angels who accompany the demi-urge also have other functions including guarding the spheres They try toprevent the return of souls to their heavenly homeland they question themand demand answers or passwords to let them cross the heaven over which

60 Giversen 196361 Tardieu 198462 Ibid 31063 Ibid 300ndash30164 Translation byWaldsteinmdashWisse 1995 (22000) 123

30 scopello

they preside In the First Apocalypse of James65 preserved in two very close ver-sions at Nag Hammadi (codex V 3) and in the codex Tchacos (treatise 2) Jesusreveals to James the answers that he must pronounce to escape the guardiansof the spheres when he faces them These guardians are called ldquotoll collectorsrdquo(τελῶναι) The content of Jamesrsquo answers represents ldquoredemptionrdquo ldquoThe Lord[said] to [him] [James] behold I shall reveal to you your redemption When[you] are seized and you undergo these sufferings a multitude will arm them-selves against you that they may seize you And in particular three of themwill seize youmdashthey who sit as toll-collectors Not only do they demand tollbut they also take away souls by theftWhen you come into their power one ofthem who is their guard will say to you lsquoWho are you or where are you fromrsquoYou are to say to him lsquoI am a son and I am from the Fatherrsquo He will say to youlsquoWhat sort of son are you and to what father do you belongrsquo You are to sayto him lsquoI am from the Pre-[existent] Father and a son in the Preexistent Onersquo rdquo(V 32 28ndash33 24)66 And further ldquo[Why have you come]rdquo (33 25)67 And finallylater in the text ldquo lsquoWhere will you gorsquo you are to say to him lsquoTo the place fromwhich I have come there shall I returnrsquo And if you say these things you willescape their attacks (V 34 16ndash20)rdquoIn this passage we can recognize the echo of the existential interrogations

expressed in the Excerpta ex Theodoto (78 2) transmitted by Clement of Alex-andria68 ldquoWho were we What have we become Where were we Whitherhave we been castWhither do we hasten From what have we been set freerdquoThis striking formula which the Gnostics probably pronounced appears withvariations and additions in several writings69 As in the case of the First Apoc-alypse of James this formula is often inserted in a dialogue articulated in ques-tions and answers between the toll collectors and the soul at the end of itslife In the First Apocalypse of James the answers that James must providereveal the privileged relationship between James who symbolizes every souland the pre-existing Father as well as his connection to the supra-celestialworld outside of the grasp of the archons This same dialogue occurs in the

65 Schoedel 1979 (22000) Veilleux 1986 See the commentary of Veilleux 1986 85ndash9266 Text translated by Schoedel 2000 87ndash8967 This reconstruction has been made possible thanks to the lines of James of codex Tcha-

cos which are in a better condition and has been adopted inMaheacutemdashPoirier 2007 (22012)752

68 Sagnard 1970 201ndash20369 SeeDeConick 1996 48 note 14 according toDeConick the origin of these existential ques-

tions may come from Iran following Widengren 1952 103ndash104 An Egyptian backgroundis also possible


writing entitled James fromCodexTchacos (T 20 2ndash22 3)70 which is very closeto the Hammadi text This passage from the Apocalypse of James has parallelsin Irenaeusrsquo section on theMarcosians in which are cited the ritual words theypronounce when they are going to die71The motif of the guardian entities of the spheres also appears in the Apoca-

lypse of Paul (Nag Hammadi V 2)72 During his journey through the skies Paulsees the punishment of a soul at the door of the fourth heaven angels whipthe soul and a toll collector interrogates it before it is rushed to earth into abody (20 5ndash21 20) In the fifth heaven Paul sees ldquoa great angel holding an ironrod in his hands and three other angels with a whip in their hands rivallingeach other they are goading the souls on to the judgmentrdquo (21 26ndash22 12) Atthe sixth heaven Paul directly confronts a toll collector and tells him ldquoOpen tome and the [holy] spirit who is before merdquo The toll collector obeys and Paulwith his companion ascends to the seventh heaven (22 19ndash24) Paul converseshere with a character called the Ancient a version of the figure of the Ancientof Days familiar in apocalyptic Judaism We find in this passage the Gnosticquestioning concerning the origin and the end73 To the question ldquoWhere areyou going Paulrdquo Paul answers ldquoI amgoing to theplace fromwhich I camerdquoTheidentification between the place of origin and the place of destiny deserves tobe underlined This knowledge constitutes the central point of both the Apoca-lypse of James and the Apocalypse of Paul and of many other Gnostic writingsI shall not deal here with the angelic categories mentioned in the Nag Ham-

madi collection having already done so elsewhere74 These categories comefrom the Bible but also from the Old Testament pseudepigrapha an impor-tant stream of Second Temple Jewish literature Some of these angelic classes

70 The questions are the following ldquoWho are you and where are you fromrdquo (T 20 10ndash11)ldquoWhat son and what fatherrdquo (20 14ndash15) ldquoWhere have you come fromrdquo (20 19ndash20) ldquoWhyhave you comerdquo (20 22) ldquoAnd where will you go nowrdquo (21 16)

71 AdvHaer I 21 5 See the commentary of Veilleux 1986 86ndash8872 MurdockmdashMacRae 2000 47ndash63 (I quote their translation) RosenstiehlmdashKaler 2005 (see

especially 62ndash66 for a commentary on this passage)73 Apassage fromPuech 1978 96 illuminates this tensionbetweenbeginning andend ldquoReacuteveacute-

lant agrave lrsquohomme qui il est pourquoi il est venu en ce monde et comment il lui est donneacutedrsquoen sortir la connaissance est instrument de salut ou plutocirct sauve par elle-mecircme Elledeacutevoile les lsquomystegraveresrsquo livre le secret des eacutenigmes rend accessibles et transparentes lesreacutealiteacutes les plus cacheacutees les plus insaisissables Elle est deacutecouverte du lsquoRoyaumersquo crsquoest-agrave-dire du Pleacuterocircme de lrsquoEcirctremdashet de notre ecirctremdashen sa pleacutenituderdquo

74 DogniezmdashScopello 2006 (CDogniez ldquoLes emplois drsquoaggelosdans la LXXrdquo 179ndash195M Sco-pello ldquoLa bibliothegraveque de Nag Hammadi et ses angesrdquo 196ndash225)

32 scopello

which intervene in the world of the demiurge as well as in that of the transcen-dent God have a clear Gnostic origin75The negative angelology developed in these texts is part of a program of

critical interpretation of the Bible carried out by Gnostic authors who had adeep knowledge of the Scriptures and skilfully used allegorical exegesis Never-theless in several writings there is also a positive repurposing of angelic mate-rial from Judaism Inmy opinion Gnostic authors drew several motifs from therich angelic heritage of Jewish pseudepigrapha to elaborate a reflexion aboutthe angels of the transcendentGodThese borrowings arenevertheless adaptedto Gnostic thought and to its fundamental opposition between the creator andthe superior god

The Transcendent God andHis AngelsThe Angelus Paedagogus

The figure of an angel having the function of an instructor appears in Gnosticnarratives relating the journey of a seer to heaven during which the secrets ofthe higherworlds and their entities are revealed to himTheGnostics borrowedthe theme of the journey to heaven from a formof marginal Judaism exhibitingmystical and apocalyptic tendencies This esoteric literature paid close atten-tion to the celestial adventures of Enoch (I and II Enoch) who during hisjourney receives revelations from an angel and experiences ecstatic visions76Nevertheless the heroes of these heavenly journeys also include other impor-tant characters such as Abraham (Apocalypse of Abraham) Baruch (SyriacApocalypse of Baruch Greek Apocalypse of Baruch) Ezra (Apocalypse of Ezra)and Jacob (The Ladder of Jacob)Several Gnostic texts have taken up the theme of the journey to heaven

and among them are some treatises having a strong philosophical contentinspired byMiddle-Platonismand in some cases byNeoplatonismThesewrit-ings combine in an original way a philosophical perspectivewith the traditionsof esoteric Judaism In several of my works77 I have highlighted this aspectwhich had been neglected in the research which had mostly emphasized thecontribution of philosophy to these Gnostic treatises Let us note that in com-parison with the Jewish texts in three treatises from Nag Hammadimdashnamely

75 DogniezmdashScopello 200676 The theme of the heavenly journey in Judaism has given rise to an abundant literature

We mention here only Collins 1979 Yarbro Collins 1986 Himmelfarb 1993 Comparisonswith Gnostic sources have very rarely been addressed in these works

77 I mention them hereafter in relation to the texts I am examining in this article


Zostrianos (VIII 1)Marsanes (X 1) and Allogenes (XI 3)mdashthis ascent gets inte-riorised and becomes an ascent through the levels of the intellect to the OneThese esoteric Jewish traditionsmdashsome of which include speculations on

the divine throne and chariot (the Merkabah)78mdashhave been skilfully revisitedin light of Gnostic doctrine The elements that in the Jewish texts illustratedthe glory (kavod) of a unique god are now applied to the ἄγνοστος opposed tothe lower demiurgeAs in the Jewish esoteric texts the Gnostic angelus paedagogus suggests to

the seer how to behave before the mystery strengthens him in the difficultmoments during his rise supports him in ecstasy and reveals to him the hid-den meaning of what he hears or sees Indeed this journey is also dangerousbecause the seer couldbe lost in the infinity of the intelligible the angel teacheshim the best attitude to adopt to stand still to withdraw to pronounce a hymnor an invocation in silence for exampleThe pattern of the angelus paedagoguswas already partially sketched in the

Bible In Ezekiel 403 a man whose appearance was like bronze (who is notidentified as anangel) instructs theprophet about the rebuildingof theTemplein Zechariah 1919 (cf 41ndash6 64ndash5) an angel explains the visions the prophethad received in Daniel 815ndash17 ldquoa vision of manrdquo that is an angel interprets themeaning of a vision toDaniel and in 92 the angel Gabriel gives him instructionconcerning the future79But theGnostics drew their inspirationmainly from Jewish apocalypticwrit-

ings having strong mystical features The numerous literary relations betweenthe treatises of Nag Hammadi and these Jewish texts suggest that some Gnos-tic authors had a first-hand knowledge of this literature and used it to fuel theirnarrative

The Case of the Treatise Allogenes (Nag Hammadi XI 3)As a case study I choose the Nag Hammadi treatise entitled Allogenes80 Thistreatise strongly coloured by Middle-Platonic elements also contains Neopla-tonic concepts This suggests that Allogenes in its lost Greek version is to be

78 Thebibliography on theMerkabah is immense since the indispensableworks of GershomScholem Let us refer to the article by Pierluigi Piovanelli which presents the essentialpoints of the history of research (Piovanelli 2016)

79 These references come from the study of Ceacutecile Dogniez inDogniezmdashScopello 2006 192ndash193

80 FunkmdashPoiriermdashScopellomdashTurner 2004 (personal contribution French translation ofthe Coptic text 189ndash239) I quote in this article my own translation See also MadeleineScopello LrsquoAllogegravene in MaheacutemdashPoirier 2007 (22012) 1544ndash1546 (ldquoAllogegravene et la tradition

34 scopello

placed at a date later than most of Nag Hammadi writings probably in thesecond half of the 3rd century The Coptic translation of this treatise dateshowever from themiddle of the 4th century In its Greek original this text hada certain diffusion as the philosopher Porphyry testifies81 The studies on Allo-genes rightly emphasize its philosophical content82 but it seems to me thatother traditions had played an important part in its compositionThis treatise is an account of a journey to heaven that a seer who bears

the symbolic name of Allogenes the Stranger gives to his disciple and spiri-tual son Messos83 after he returns to earth In fact Allogenes makes thistrip both inside himself and in the celestial spheres to the threshold of theOne During this journey Allogenes receives five secret teachings deliveredby an angelic entity bearing the name of Youel ldquoshe-of-all-the-Gloriesrdquo Of theseven instructions that Allogenes receives during his itinerary five84 are actu-ally transmitted by this angel while the last two85 are communicated to himby entities called the Luminaries of Barbelo Salamex Semen and Armecirc86The first revelation of Youel deals with the aeon of Barbelo and the TriplePowered One (XI 3 45 6ndash49 38) The content of this revelation arouses inAllogenes a feeling of terror to such an extent that he is tempted to turn tothe ldquocrowdrdquo that is to the world of matter The second part of Youelrsquos teach-ing concerns Barbelo again (51 1ndash38) The angel states that this is a revela-tion that ldquonobody can hear except the great Powersrdquo (50 22ndash24) Youel alsorecalls that the power that inhabits Allogenes allows him to escape going upto his origins (50 33ndash34)mdashthe theme of the return to the heavenly homelandis frequent in Gnostic literature The third revelation of Youel is preceded byAllogenesrsquo mystical experience he suffers a loss of consciousness and falls intoan ecstasy during which he becomes god (52 7ndash13) Youel puts an end to this

juiverdquo) and the translation of this treatise (1551ndash1574) Cf also Clark Wire (Introduction)Turner and Wintermute (Transcription and Translation notes by Turner) 1990 (22000)173ndash267 King 1995

81 Porphyry Life of Plotinus 16 Cf Brisson et al 1992 (especially Michel Tardieu ldquoLes gnos-tiques dans la Vie de Plotin Analyse du chapitre 16rdquo 503ndash563) TardieumdashHadot 1996PoiriermdashSchmidt 2010

82 In the commentary to Allogenes that I prepared for the Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Ham-madi I also took into account the contribution of the Platonic tradition

83 The name Messos always quoted as ldquomy son Messosrdquo is mentioned in Allog 4939ndash405018 6828 6835ndash69 114ndash16 It is probably a symbolic name like that of his master Allo-genes the Stranger

84 These teachings begin in Allog 1 45 6 and end in 57 2385 Cf Allog 598ndash60 12 and 6124ndash67 3886 These names are provided in Allog 5624ndash25


ecstatic state by touching Allogenes and bringing him back to consciousness(52 14ndash15)87 Now Allogenes can listen to Youelrsquos third teaching on the TriplePowered One The angel instructs the seer to keep this teaching secret andin silence because only those who are worthy can hear it (52 16ndash28) ThenYouel invokes angelic powers probably of a higher degree than his own (546ndash37) Having listened to the names of these angels Allogenes has a vision (5511ndash16) that introduces the fourth part of Youelrsquos teaching on the Triple Pow-ered One (55 17ndash30) The fifth and final part of the revelation concerns theTriple Male Youel announces to Allogenes that after a hundred years of medi-tation a teaching will be provided by the Luminaries of Barbelo (55 33ndash5723) Then Youel leaves the scene and departs At the end of the treatise Allo-genes states that he has beenordered to record in a book the secrets he receivedfrom Youel and the Luminaries88 He also instructs his spiritual son Messos tocommunicate the contents of this book to those who will be worthy to hearthem89The name of Youel had aroused my curiosity90 It was indeed astonishingly

close to the name of the angel Yaoel which appears in some Jewish mysticaltexts The Hebraic name of Yaoel because of the lack of vocalization couldhave become Youel in the Greek and Coptic transcriptionsBut the presence of a similar name was not enough to support a compari-

son It had also to be determined whether the angel Yaoel from Judaism hada role analogous to that of the angel Youel from Nag Hammadi I found aninteresting track to explore in the Apocalypse of Abraham91 This apocalypsepreserved in Slavonic consists of two parts the first one (IndashVIII) relates thecalling of Abraham and the destruction of the idols made by Terah the second(IXndashXXXI) narrates Abrahamrsquos sacrifice but especially his journey to heavenunder the guidance of the angel Yaoel and the ecstatic vision he experiencesThis second part as first noted by George H Box bears the mark of Chariot

87 On this gesture cf Daniel 1010ndash11 where during the vision the Angelrsquos hand touchesDaniel and puts him on his knees and palms

88 One of the Luminaries of Barbelo says to Allogenes (68 16ndash23) ldquoWrit[e] [wh]at I shall[te]ll you and that I shall remind you for those who will be worthy after you and you willplace this book upon amountain and youwill invoke the guardian lsquoCome dreadful Onersquordquo

89 Allog 6915ndash1690 Scopello 1981 2008a91 This text was translated by Box 1918 See also The Apocalypse of Abraham translated

by R Rubinkiewicz revised with notes by HG Lunt in Charlesworth 1983 687ndash705B Philonenko-Sayar and M Philonenko LrsquoApocalypse drsquoAbraham in Dupont-SommermdashPhilonenko 1987 1697ndash1730 (translation presentation and notes)

36 scopello

mysticism the Merkabah The two texts could therefore be compared for theangel Yaoel of the Apocalypse of Abraham has the same function of accompa-nying the heavenly traveller and revealing secrets to him thatwe find in theNagHammadi tractate AllogenesIn the Apocalypse of Abraham Yaoel is an angel of ineffable beauty andbears

royal attributes purple and sceptre (XI) For forty days and forty nights Yaoeland Abraham travel together to the mountain of Horeb The angel instructsAbraham on the sacrifice that God has commanded him to perform (XII)and tells him how to escape from the unclean angel Azazel (XIIIndashXIV) ThenYaoel and Abraham ascend to heaven the angel on the left wing of a turtle-dove and Abraham on the right wing of a pigeon (XV) Abraham has a visionthat makes him feel completely lost (XVI ldquoand the place of highness on whichwe were standing now stopped on high now rolled down lowrdquo)92 The angeladvisesAbrahamto recite ahymnwithhim (XVII) and then the ineffable visionof the heavenly throne the Merkabah opens to Abraham and to his guide(XVIII)Let us first say aword about thenameof Yaoelwhosemeaning is given in the

Apocalypse of Abraham Yaoel is the angel of the Tetragrammaton The nameYaoel is formed out of two letters drawn from theTetragrammaton towhich areadded two letters of the name Elohim (or of ldquoElrdquo which represents its abbre-viation) Exodus 23 20ndash21 is the point of departure of this theme ldquoSee I amsending an angel before you to keep you on your way and to be your guide intothe place which I have made ready for you Give attention to him and give earto his voice do not go against him for your wrongdoing will not be overlookedby him because my Name is in himrdquoWe read in the Apocalypse of Abraham (X 4) (words of God) ldquoGo Yaoel

you who bears My name through My ineffable name helliprdquo and in X 8 (wordsof Yaoel) ldquoI am Yaoel and I was called so by Him who causes those with me onthe seventh expanse on the firmament to shake a power through themediumof his ineffable name in merdquo Finally we read in XVII 13ndash14 in the hymn thatAbraham sings with Yaoel before having the vision of the throne ldquoEli eternalmighty one holy Sabaoth most glorious El El El El Yaoelrdquo The angel Yaoelis also associated with the Tetragrammaton in 3Enoch where he is identifiedwith Metatron93

92 I quote for this passage and the following ones the translation of R Rubinkiewicz inCharlesworth 1983 696ndash697

93 3Enoch 48D ldquoMetatron has seventy names The first of his names is Yaoel Yah Yaoelrdquo SeeMopsik 1989 followed by the study of Mocheacute Idel ldquoHeacutenoch crsquoest Meacutetatronrdquo (ibid 381ndash406) See also Odeberg 1973 Ph Alexander 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of ) Enoch in Charles-


The treatise Allogenes does not bear any indication of the identification ofthe name of Youel with the Tetragrammaton This identification is neverthe-less present in another Nag Hammadi text the Book of the Great Invisible Spirit(codex III 2) wherein it is stated that Yoel94 is the ldquoangel who presides over theName of him (hellip) the incorruptible onerdquo (65 23ndash26)But we could go further in this comparison In Allogenes 52 7ndash15 the pro-

tagonistrsquos fright and weakening at the threshold of ecstasy are described interms very close towhat one finds in the Apocalypse of Abraham X 1ndash5We readin Allogenes 52 7ndash15 ldquo[My s]oul [became] weak and [I] esca[ped I was] very[distur]bed [and I] turned to my-se[lf] I saw the light [that] was[ar]ound meand the good that was in me I became god Then Youel she of all the Gloriestouchedme and gaveme strength backrdquoWe read in the Apocalypse of AbrahamX 1ndash5

I heard the voice telling suchwords tomeand I lookedhere and thereAndbehold there was no human breath and my spirit was filled with terrorMy soul escaped from me And I became like a stone and fell face downupon the earth for there was no longer strength in me to stand upon theearth And while I was still face down on the ground I heard the voice ofthe Saint speaking lsquoGo Yaoel who bears my name through my ineffablename put hismanonhis feet and strengthenhim dispelling his fearrsquo Andthe angel who he had sent to me came to me in the likeness of a man hetook me by my right hand and put me on my feet95

Let us note that the expression ldquomy soul escaped from merdquo in the Apocalypseof Abraham X 3 is very similar to the phrase used in Allogenes ldquo[My s]oul[became] weak and [I] esca[pedrdquo (52 8) Let us also observe the link estab-lished by the author of this apocalypse between the moment when the soulescapesmdashwhen Abraham leaves his psychic statemdashand the moment when he

worth 1983 I 223ndash315 Regarding the first name of Metatron Yaoel the point of view ofGershom Scholem (Scholem 1960 41) should be recalled According to this scholar Yaoelis the equivalent of Metatron in an earlier stage of the speculations on the first angel thereference to Yaoel provides therefore an explanation for the sentence from the Talmudthat claims that Metatron possesses a name which is like that of his Master (Sanhedrin38b) Scholem notes that the name of Metatron would have been created to replace thename of Yaoel as a vox mystica and that it would gradually take its place Scholem 199483 I have dealt more specifically with Youel in Scopello 2007

94 The form ldquoYoelrdquo is given here95 I follow here the translation of Belkis Sayar-Philonenko and Marc Philonenko

38 scopello

falls with his face to the ground this indicates the state of the mystical tor-por (tardema) This self-abandonment is temporary and the angel Yaoel putsan end to it by seizing Abraham by the hand and putting him back on his feet(Apocalypse of Abraham X 5) The same is true for Allogenes whereby the angelYouel with a gesture puts an end to the visionary experience of the initiategiving him his strength back (52 15)But all borrowing involves modifications In Allogenes Youel is a feminized

angel The same is true in Zostrianos and in the Holy Book of the Great InvisibleSpirit96 which reinforce the feminine character of Youel by calling her ldquoMaleVirginrdquo The author of Allogenes thus elaborated or adopted a Gnostic tradi-tion that feminized the angel Yaoel A trace of this tradition also appears insomeManichaean texts mentioning an angel called Ioel who is also defined asldquoMale Virginrdquo and ldquoVirgin of lightrdquo97The complete name of Youel in Allogenes is ldquoYouel she-of-all-the-

Gloriesrdquo (ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲓⲟⲩⲏⲗ)98 The ldquogloriesrdquo have not attracted the atten-tion of scholars either The Coptic word ⲉⲟⲟⲩ used in Allogenes translates theGreek δόξαwhich in turn renders the Hebrew kavod and its synonyms tifearahtehillah hod yadah99 These are the founding terms of a mysticism of Glorybased on the book of Ezekiel and its mysticism of the throneIn Allogenes however the term ldquogloryrdquo is used in the plural which seems

to refer to a category of angelic entities I thought of the angels of Glory orthe Glorious Ones who stand around the throne of Glory The starting pointof this tradition is Exodus 1511 where in the interpretative translation of theLXX the δόξαι of God are quasi-personified entities The Glories also appearin the Testament of Judah XXV 2 (the Powers of Glories) and especially in2Enoch where the Glorious Ones are in charge night and day of the liturgi-cal service of the Lord (XXI 1) Gabriel is one of them (XXI 5)100 The GloriousOnes also grant Enoch permission to ascend into the heavens At the summitof his mystical quest Enoch after having received the attributes of a celestialhigh priest will become like them without difference of aspect (XXII 7) The

96 BoumlhligmdashWisse 197597 Cf Theodoret of Cyrrhus Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium I 26 (PG 83 380) This

angel intervenes in the creation of Eve98 Cf Allog 50 19ndash20 52 13ndash14 55 34 57 25 In 55 18 she is called ldquo[she of the great] Glories

Youelrdquo99 Cf Jarl E Fossum ldquoGloryrdquo in Van der ToornmdashBeckingmdashVan der Horst 1999 348ndash352100 I follow the translation of Andreacute Vaillant and Marc Philonenko II Heacutenoch in Dupont-

SommermdashPhilonenko 1987 1185


Glorious or the Glories would therefore be a particularly high category ofangels101 as is confirmed by 3Enoch 22B6 where ldquo600000 myriads of angelsof Glory carved in flaming fire stand facing the throne of Gloryrdquo The angelsof Glory with the Ophanim and Cherubim pronounce the Qedousha102 TheGlories are mentioned in the New Testament103 and also appear in the Greekmagical papyri104 where they are characterized by the uninterrupted serviceoffered to the Lord an element that was already highlighted in 2Enoch In theUntitled Text chapter 13 myriads of Glories (ⲉⲟⲟⲩ) are given to the Forefatherwith the aeons This one is called ldquoself-glorifiedrdquo (αὐτοδοξαστός) because hereveals himself with the Glories he possesses In chapter 14 the Glories aremembers of a list of categorieswhich also includes angels archangels andmin-istersAllogenes provides an additional clue that makes it possible to consider the

Glories as an angelic category In 49 21ndash25 it is stated that those who truly existldquohave brought nothing beyond themselves neither Power nor Rank nor Glorynor Aeon because they are eternal beingsrdquo The four terms in this list refer inmy opinion to the categories of angels forming the celestial court of the TriplePoweredOne and this interpretationmakes sense in light of comparisonswithJewish angelology

∵Further examples could be provided In the course of my research I have beenable to trace the traditions of esoteric Judaism in several Nag Hammadi writ-ings I provide a few examples here The treatise Zostrianos (VIII 1) includes inthe narrative of the ascent of the seer two quasi-literal quotes from the Book ofthe Secrets of Enoch105These passages dealwith the identification of the vision-ary patriarch with the angels of Glory (2Enoch XXII 7 = Zost 5 15ndash17) and alsothe privilege of knowing secrets that even angels do not know (2Enoch XXIV 3= Zost 128 14ndash18) In addition the language of Zostrianos is entirely woven outof terms characteristic of Jewish mysticismOtherNagHammadi treatises infusedwithmotifs frommystical Judaismare

worthy of further study as it is the casewith Eugnostos106 (Codex III 3 and V 1)

101 So ibid 1185 footnote to XXI 1102 3Enoch 35 36 37103 2Peter 210 Jude 810104 PGM I 199 and IV 1051105 Scopello 1980106 Marvin Meyer and Madeleine Scopello ldquoEugnostos the Blessedrdquo in Meyer 2007 271ndash274

40 scopello

which offers a highly structured angelological system The same is true for theHoly Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (Codex III 2 and IV 2) which describesthe sumptuous hall of the throne of Glory and emphasises the ritual and litur-gical functions of angelsIf we turn to codex Tchacos the Gospel of Judas contains very interest-

ing angelological elements107 For example Judasrsquo vision108 of ldquothe house inthe heightsrdquo of immeasurable dimensions surrounded by ldquogreat menrdquomdashldquomanrdquois a technical term for angels in esoteric Judaismmdashis a motif that appearsboth in the books of Enoch and later in the literature on the divine palaces(Hekhaloth)109But research on angels should also be extended on the one hand to the

Gnostic excerpts preserved in the refutations of the Church Fathers and onthe other to the Bruce Codex rich in mystical theurgical and ritual elementswithout forgetting the codex AskewThis research could be pursued in order to obtain an accurate overview of

the impact of marginal Judaism not only on the theme of angels but also onother esoteric issues Such an enquiry should also permit us to trace contactsbetween mystical Judaism and Gnosis that went beyond a literary level andreached the social fabric of mystical groups

Bibliography

Primary SourcesBox George H Apocalypse of Abraham and Ascension of Isaiah London 1918Boumlhlig Alexander Wisse Frederik (eds) Nag Hammadi Codices III 2 and IV 2 TheGospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) (Nag HammadiStudies IV) Leiden 1975 (reprinted in The Coptic Gnostic Library A Complete Editionof the Nag Hammadi Texts vol 2)

Brisson Luc et al (ed) Porphyre La Vie de Plotin vol 2 (Histoire des doctrines delrsquoAntiquiteacute classique 16) Paris 1992

Charlesworth CH (ed)TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha Apocalyptic LiteratureandTestaments vol I New York 1983

Clark Wire Antoinette Turner John D Wintermute Orval S NHC XI 3 Allogenesin Charles W Hedrick (ed) Nag Hammadi Codices XI XII XIII (Nag Hammadi

107 Scopello 2009 2011108 Gospel of Judas 45 3ndash10109 Scopello 2008b


Studies XXVIII) Leiden 1990 (reprinted in The Coptic Gnostic Library A CompleteEdition of the Nag Hammadi Codices vol 5 Leiden 2000 173ndash267)

Creacutegheur Eric Les laquodeux Livres de Ieacuteouraquo (MS Bruce 96) Les Livres du grand discoursmysteacuteriquemdashLe Livre des connaissances du Dieu invisiblemdashFragment sur le passagede lrsquoacircme Textes eacutetablis traduits et preacutesenteacutes (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadisection Textes) Louvain 2018

Dupont-Sommer Andreacute Philonenko Marc (ed) La Bible Eacutecrits intertestamentaires(Bibliothegraveque de la Pleacuteiade) Paris 1987

FunkWolf-Peter Poirier Paul-Hubert Scopello Madeleine Turner John D LrsquoAllogegravene(NH XI 3) (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadi section Textes 30) QueacutebecmdashLouvain 2004

Giversen Soslashren Apocryphon Johannis The Coptic Text of the Apocryphon Johannis inthe Nag Hammadi Codex II with Translation Introduction and Commentary (ActaTheologica Danica 5) Copenhagen 1963

Irenaeus of LyonsRousseau Adelin Doutreleau Louis Ireacuteneacutee Adversus Haereses IndashII (Sources Chreacute-tiennes 263ndash264) Paris 1979 AdversusHaereses IV 2 vols (Sources Chreacutetiennes 100)Paris 1965 Adversus Haereses V (Sources Chreacutetiennes 152ndash153) Paris 1969

Irenaeligus of Lyons Against Heresies The Complete English Translation from the FirstVolume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers now Presented in a New Edition with Introduc-tion and Notes revised South Bend Indiana 2010

Kasser Rodolphe Marvin Meyer GregorWurst Franccedilois Gaudard The Gospel of JudasTogether with the Letter of Peter to Philip James and a Book of Allogenes from CodexTchacos Critical Edition Washington DC 2007

King Karen L Revelation of the Unknowable God with Text Translation and Notes toNHC XI 3 Allogenes (California Classical Library) Santa Rosa CA 1995

Layton Bentley (ed) Nag Hammadi Codex II 2ndash7 together with XIII 2 Brit Lib Or4926(1) and POXY 1 654 655 2 vols (Nag Hammadi Studies XXndashXXI) Leiden 1989(reprinted in The Coptic Gnostic Library A Complete Edition of the Nag HammadiCodices vol 2 Leiden 2000)

Maheacute Jean-Pierre Poirier Paul-Hubert (dir) Eacutecrits gnostiques La Bibliothegraveque de NagHammadi (Bibliothegraveque de la Pleacuteiade) Paris 2007 (2nd edition 2012)

Meyer Marvin (ed) The International Edition The Nag Hammadi Scriptures San Fran-cisco 2007

Mopsik Charles Le Livre heacutebreu drsquoHeacutenoch Paris 1989Murdock William R MacRae George W The Apocalypse of Paul in Douglas M Par-rot (ed) Nag Hammadi Codices V 2ndash5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 1 and4 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies XI) Leiden 1979 (reprinted in The Cop-tic Gnostic Library A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices vol 3 Leiden2000 47ndash63)

42 scopello

Odeberg Hugo 3Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch 2nd edition New York 1973Painchaud Louis LrsquoEacutecrit sans titre (Bibliothegraveque coptedeNagHammadi sectionTextes21) QueacutebecmdashLouvainmdashParis 1995

Poirier Paul-Hubert La Penseacutee Premiegravere agrave la triple forme (NH XIII 1) Texte eacutetabli et preacute-senteacute (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadi section Textes 32) QueacutebecmdashLouvain2006

Robinson James M (ed) The Coptic Gnostic Library A Complete Edition of the NagHammadi Codices Edited with English Translation Introductions and Notes pub-lished under the Auspices of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 5 volsLeiden 2000

Robinson James M Smith Robert (eds) The Nag Hammadi Library in English ThirdCompletely Revised Edition San Francisco 1988

Rosenstiehl Jean-Marc Kaler Michael LrsquoApocalypse de Paul (NH V 2) (Bibliothegravequecopte de Nag Hammadi section Textes 31) QueacutebecmdashLouvain 2005

Sagnard F Cleacutement drsquoAlexandrie Extraits de Theacuteodote (Sources Chreacutetiennes 23) Paris1970

Schenke Hans-Martin Bethge Hans-Gebhard Kaiser Ursula U (eds) Nag HammadiDeutsch vol I NHC I1ndashV1 vol II NHC V 2-XIII Bg 1 und 4 BerlinmdashNew York 20012003

Schmidt Carl (text edited by) MacDermot Violet (translation and notes) The Booksof Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (Nag Hammadi Studies XIII) Leiden1978

Schmidt Carl (text edited by)MacDermot Violet (translation and notes) Pistis Sophia(Nag Hammadi Studies IX) Leiden 1978

Schoedel William R The (First) Apocalypse of James in Douglas M Parrot (ed) NagHammadi Codices V 2ndash5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 1 and 4 (Nag Ham-madi and Manichaean Studies XI) Leiden 1979 (reprinted in The Coptic GnosticLibrary A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices vol 3 Leiden 2000 65ndash103)

Simonetti Manlio Testi gnostici cristiani Bari 1970Tardieu Michel Codex de Berlin (Sources gnostiques et manicheacuteennes 1) Paris 1984Veilleux A La premiegravere Apocalypse de Jacques (NH V 3) La seconde Apocalypse deJacques (NH V 4) Texte eacutetabli et preacutesenteacute (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadisection Textes 17) Queacutebec 1986

WaldsteinMichaelWisse FrederikTheApocryphonof John Synopsis of NagHammadiCodices II 1 III 1 and IV 1 with BG 8502 2 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Stud-ies XXXIII) Leiden 1995 (reprinted inThe Coptic Gnostic Library A Complete Editionof the Nag Hammadi Codices vol 2 Leiden 2000)


Secondary LiteratureAmeacutelineau Eacutemile (1882) ldquoLe papyrus gnostique de Brucerdquo Comptes rendus de lrsquoAcadeacute-mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 263 220ndash227

Barb AA (1957) ldquoAbrasaxstudienrdquo in Hommages agrave Waldemar Deonna (Latomus 28)Bruxelles 67ndash86

Barc Bernard (1975) ldquoLa taille cosmique drsquoAdam dans la litteacuterature juive rabbiniquedes trois premiers siegravecles apregraves J-Crdquo Revue des Sciences religieuses 49 173ndash185

Black Matthew (1983) ldquoAn Aramaic Etymology for Jaldabaothrdquo in Alistair HB LoganAlexander JM Wedderburn (eds) The New Testament and Gnosis Essays in Honorof Robert McLWilson Edinburgh 69ndash72

Collins John J (ed) (1979) Apocalypse The Morphology of a Genre (= Semeia 14)Danieacutelou Jean (1951) ldquoLes sources juives de la doctrine des Anges des Nations chez Ori-gegravenerdquo Recherches de science religieuse 38 132ndash137

DeConick April (1996) Seek to See Him Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel ofThomas Leiden

Dogniez Ceacutecile Scopello Madeleine (2006) ldquoAutour des anges traditions juives etrelectures gnostiquesrdquo in Louis Painchaud Paul-Hubert Poirier (eds)Coptica-Gnos-tica-Manichaica Meacutelanges Wolf-Peter Funk (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadisection Eacutetudes 7) QueacutebecmdashLouvain 179ndash225

Evans Erin (2015) The Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia as Handbooks to Eternity (NagHammadi and Manichaean Studies LXXXIX) Leiden

Evans Craig A Robert L Webb Richard A Wiebe (eds) (1993) Nag Hammadi Textsand the Bible A Synopsis amp Index (New Testament Tools and Studies) Leiden

Grant Robert M (1967) ldquoLes ecirctres intermeacutediaires dans le judaiumlsme tardifrdquo in Le originidello gnosticismo Colloquio di Messina 13ndash18 aprile 1966 Leiden 141ndash154

Himmelfarb Martha (1993) Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses NewYorkmdashOxford

Johnston Steve (2010) ldquoLemythe gnostique du blasphegravemede lrsquoArchonterdquo in J-PMaheacuteP-H Poirier andM Scopello (eds) Les textes deNagHammadi Histoire des religionset approches contemporaines (Actes du Colloque international tenu agrave lrsquoAcadeacutemiedes Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 11ndash12 deacutecembre 2008) Paris 177ndash201

Luttikhuizen Gerard P (2006) Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Tra-ditions (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies LVIII) Leiden

Piovanelli Pierluigi (2016) ldquoPratiques rituelles ou exeacutegegravese scripturaire Origines etnature de la mystique de la Merkavardquo in Simon Mimouni and Madeleine Scopello(eds) La mystique theacuteoreacutetique et theacuteurgique dans lrsquoAntiquiteacute greacuteco-romaine Ju-daiumlsmes et christianismes Turnhout 281ndash302

Poirier Paul-Hubert Schmidt Thomas S (2010) ldquoChreacutetiens heacutereacutetiques et gnostiqueschez Porphyre Quelques preacutecisions sur la Vie de Plotin 161ndash9rdquo Comptes rendus desseacuteances de lrsquoAcadeacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1542 913ndash942

44 scopello

Puech Henri-Charles (1978) En quecircte de la gnose t II Sur lrsquoEacutevangile selon ThomasParis

Rousseau Adelin (1984) Ireacuteneacutee de Lyon Contre les heacutereacutesies Deacutenonciation et reacutefutationde la gnose au nommenteur Paris

Scholem Gerschom G (1960) Jewish Gnosticism Merkabah and Talmudic TraditionNew York

Scholem Gerschom G (1974) ldquoJaldabaoth Reconsideredrdquo in A Guillaumont E-M La-perrousaz (eds)Meacutelangesdrsquohistoiredes religionsoffertsagraveHenri-CharlesPuech Paris405ndash421

Scholem Gerschom G (1994) Les grandes courants de la mystique juive ParisScopello Madeleine (1980) ldquoThe Apocalypse of Zostrianos and the Book of the Secretsof Enochrdquo Vigiliae Christianae 344 376ndash385

Scopello Madeleine (1981) ldquoYouel et Barbeacutelo dans le traiteacute de lrsquoAllogegravene (NH XI 3)rdquo inBernard Barc (ed) Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (Queacutebec22ndash29 aoucirct 1978) (Bibliothegraveque copte de Nag Hammadi section Eacutetudes 1) Leuven374ndash382 (reprinted in Scopello 2005 49ndash78)

ScopelloMadeleine (2005) FemmeGnose etManicheacuteismeDe lrsquo espacemythique au ter-ritoire du reacuteel (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies LIII) Leiden

Scopello Madeleine (2007) ldquoPortraits drsquoanges agrave Nag Hammadirdquo in Nathalie Bossonand Anne Boudrsquohors (eds) Actes du huitiegraveme Congregraves international drsquoEacutetudes Coptes(Paris 28 juinndash3 juillet 2004) (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 163) vol 2 Louvain879ndash892

ScopelloMadeleine (2008a) ldquoLrsquoacircmeen fuite le traiteacute de lrsquoAllogegravene et lamystique juiverdquoin Jean-Marc Narbonne and Paul-Hubert Poirier (eds) Gnose et philosophie Eacutetudesen hommage agrave Pierre Hadot QueacutebecmdashParis 97ndash119

ScopelloMadeleine (2008b) ldquoTraditions angeacutelologiques etmystique juive dans lrsquoEacutevan-gile de Judasrdquo in Madeleine Scopello (ed) The Gospel of Judas in Context Proceed-ings of the First Conference on the Gospel of Judas held in Paris Sorbonne 27thndash28th October 2006 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies LXII) Leiden 123ndash134

ScopelloMadeleine (2009) ldquoLes anges dans lrsquoEacutevangile de Judas aperccedilupreacuteliminairerdquo inMohammad-Amir Moezzi and Jean-Daniel Dubois (eds) Penseacutee grecque et sagessedrsquoOrient Hommage agraveMichel Tardieu Turnhout 589ndash598

Scopello Madeleine (2011) ldquoLes anges de lrsquoEacutevangile de Judasrdquo in Jacob Albert van denBerg Annemareacute Kotzeacute Tobias Nicklas and Madeleine Scopello (eds) lsquoIn Search ofTruthrsquo Augustine Manichaeism and Other Gnosticism Studies for Johannes van Oortat Sixty (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies LXXIV) Leiden 593ndash610

Stroumsa Gedaliahu Guy (1992) ldquoMeacutetatron et le Christrdquo in Id Savoir et salut Paris65ndash84

TardieuMichel (1974)TroismythesgnostiquesAdamEacuteros et lesanimauxdrsquoEacutegyptedansun eacutecrit de Nag Hammadi (II 5) Paris


Tardieu Michel Hadot Pierre (1996) Recherches sur la formation de lrsquoApocalypse deZostrien et les sources de Marius Victorinus (Res Orientales 9) Bures-sur-Yvette

Van denBroek Roelof (1996) ldquoTheCreation of Adamrsquos Psychic Body in theApocryphonof Johnrdquo in Id Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrinian Christianity (Nag Hammadiand Manichaean Studies XXXIX) Leiden 67ndash85

Van der Toorn Karel Becking Bob Van der Horst PieterW (1999) Dictionary of Deitiesand Demons in the Bible 2nd Edition Extensively Revised Leiden

Widengren G (1952) ldquoDer iranische Hintergrund der Gnosisrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Religions-und Geistesgeschichte 4 97ndash114

Yarbro Collins Adela (ed) (1986) Early Christian Apocalypticism Genre and Social Set-ting (= Semeia 36)


Demons and Angels in the Chaldaean Oracles

Helmut Seng

The word δαίμων covers a broad range of meanings1 While it has referred tothe gods since Homer andHesiod2 it later came to designate those beings whooccupy a middle position between gods and men3 and to whom Plato allots amediating function4 Later certain evil beings are also calleddemons5 InChris-tian literature theword δαίμων can also refer to the devil6Ἄγγελος7 serves firstof all to name a function and thus can be applied to men but also to gods8From the Jewish or general Semitic tradition comes the idea of beings who arenot divine but aremessengers of Godoccupying a separate status betweenhimandmen9 They can therefore be equatedwith the demons or be conceived asa separate class of beings existing beside or above them occasionally ἄγγελοιappear as gods of a lower rank10 Furthermore ἄγγελοι can also refer to beingswho are subordinate to the devil11

1 CfTimotin (2012) 13ndash36 InReallexikon fuumlrAntikeundChristentum the demons are treatedunder the heading ldquoGeisterrdquo

2 Cf ter Vrugt-Lentz (1976) 600ndash602 Timotin (2012) 15ndash193 Cf Zintzen (1976)4 See below pp 62ndash695 Cf terVrugt-Lentz (1976) 600ndash604 who sees such tendencies already in theOdyssey Tim-

otin (2012) 26ndash31 on daimon as ldquoesprit vengeurrdquo Boumlcher (1981) on the New Testament6 Cf Origen Contra Celsum I 31 VI 42 44 and 45 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica V 21 2 also

Kallis (1976) 7017 Cf in general Michl (1976) and Klauser (1976)8 Cf for instance Proclus In Remp II p 25518ndash23 Kroll οἱ γὰρ ἄγγελοι τίνες εἰσὶν ἢ οἱ ἄλλων

λόγους ἐκφαίνοντες τίνες δὲ καὶ οἱ θεῶν μὲν ὑπηρέται δαιμόνων δὲ ἐπίσταται πλὴν τῶν ἀγγέλωνκαὶ οὐ ξενικὸν τὸ ὄνομα καὶ βαρβάρου θεοσοφίας μόνης ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτων ἐν Κρατύλῳ τὸν Ἑρμῆνκαὶ τὴν Ἶριν ἀγγέλους εἶναί φησιν with reference to Plato Cratylos 407e6 and 408b5 (καὶ ἥγε Ἶρις ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴρειν ἔοικεν κεκλημένη ὅτι ἄγγελος ἦν in Duke-Hicken-Nicoll-RobinsonmdashStrachan only in the apparatus)

9 Cumont (1915) von Rad (1933) Kittel (1933) Michl (1962) 60ndash97 Seebaszlig (1982) Groumlzinger(1982) Boumlcher (1982) Sheppard (19801981) Belayche (2001) 96ndash104

10 Cf for instance Cumont (1915) Michl (1962) 58ndash59 Belayche (2010) Cline (2011) 47ndash76Tissi (2013) 51ndash57 (with rich bibliography) case studies in Cline (2011) A much discussedtext isTheosophiα sect13 93ndash108 Erbse = I 2 14ndash29 Beatrice the last three verses of theOraclerun as follows

demons and angels in the chaldaean oracles 47

In the Chaldaean Oracles [= OC] four groups of beings are to be distin-guished which in a narrower or wider sense can be understood as demons orangels even though the term lsquodemonsrsquo is applied only to group 1 in the frag-ments of the OC the term lsquoangelsrsquo only to group 4

1 Evil demons (δαίμονες) also known as dogs (κύνες) appear mainly as dis-ruptive forces in ritual

2 Nature spirits can be conceived as demons but they are not explicitly des-ignated as such

3 Beings that mediate between men and god or gods thus fulfilling at leastthe function allotted to the demons in the Platonic tradition

4 Angels who perform the same task in a different way

The relevant fragments are discussed below12

Evil Demons or ldquoDogsrdquo

Thebasic characteristic of the demons in theOC13 is their connectionwithmat-ter OC 88 states14

αὐτοφυής ἀδίδακτος ἀμήτωρ ἀστυφέλικτοςοὔνομα μηδὲ λόγῳ χωρούμενος ἐν πυρὶ ναίωντοῦτο θεός μικρὰ δὲ θεοῦ μερὶς ἄγγελοι ἡμεῖς

They are slightly different in the oracle of Oinoanda v 1ndash3mdashcf Robert (1971) = (1989)mdashand in Lactantius Institutiones 1 7 1 Cf Seng (2016b) 160ndash163 (with bibliography) Cf alsothe ἄγγελοι in the magical papyri on this Grundmann (1933) 73ndash74

11 Michl (1962) 112 Boumlcher (1982) 59812 One must refer to the commentaries of des Places and Majecik as well as to the respec-

tive discussions in the monographs by Kroll (1894) Lewy (1956 = 2011 especially 259ndash309ldquoChaldaeligan demonologyrdquo) and Seng (2016a) cf further Zintzen (1976) 647ndash652 Mores-chini (1995) 90ndash110 (especially 90ndash96) Cremer (1969) 63ndash86 Geudtner (1971) 56ndash64(with numerous references to Synesius)

13 Regarding the following section cf also Seng (2016a) 109ndash110 as well as Seng (2015) 287ndash289

14 Unmetrical (and unfounded) is the proposal to v 1 in Lewy (1956 = 2011) 263 n 14 ἡ φύσιςπείθει πιστεύειν [εἶναι] τοὺς δαίμονας ἁγνούς

48 seng

Naturepersuades us to believe that the demons are pureand that the offspring of evil matter are good and useful15

In the OC matter is an ambivalent entity16 It is true that like everything itultimately comes from the divine17 Matter is derived from the demiurgicalIntellect who is the ποιητὴς καὶ πατήρ or δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε18 and is therebycalled πατρογενής19 As the substrate underlying the cosmos which is formedthrough divine action by means of Ideas matter can appear in neutral formu-lations20 In most cases however matter is negatively characterized by suchexpressions as κακός (OC 88 2) or πικρός (OC 129) or even by the formula-tion ὕλης σκύβαλον (OC 158 1) insofar as it represents the opposite pole to theintelligible and diverts man from it21 In OC 88 this evaluation is transferredto the demons who are the offspring of matter22 But the deceptive influ-ence of φύσιςmdashalso seen in the OC as a negative power23mdashcreates the oppo-site impression Deception thus belongs to the characteristics associated with

15 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13615ndash16 OrsquoMeara ἡ φύσις πείθει πιστεύειν εἶναι τοὺς δαίμοναςἁγνούς καὶ τὰ κακῆς ὕλης βλαστήματα χρηστὰ καὶ ἐσθλά The translations of the OC includ-ing the respective contexts are those of Majercik (sometimesmodified) unless otherwisestated

16 Cf Seng (2016a) 91ndash93 and (2015)17 OC 7 1 πάντα γὰρ ἐξετέλεσσε πατήρ hellip OC 10 εἰσὶν πάντα ἑνὸς πυρὸς ἐκγεγαῶτα Cf Seng

(2016a) 41ndash42 and (2015) 293ndash30018 As in Plato Timaeus 28c2ndash3 and 41a719 Cf Psellos Scripta minora II p 1301ndash3 Kurtz Πατρογενῆ δὲ τὴν ὕλην ὀνομάζει τὰ λόγια ὡς

ἐκ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστᾶσαν ἄνευ τινὸς μέσης ἀπογεννήσεως (ldquoThe oracles describematter as born of the father because it comes into being from the demiurge as father with-out a process of intermediate filiationrdquo) John Lydus De mensibus II 11 p 323 WuenschIV 159 p 1759Wuensch PsellosOpusc phil II 40 p 1519OrsquoMeara John ItalusQuaestionesQuodlibetales 71 p 12217ndash18 Joannu cf Seng (2015) 294ndash298 (also on John Lydus Demen-sibus II 11 p 323Wuensch = OC 173) However it cannot be completely ruled out that thisepithet which is attested to in the fragments of the OC only for Hecate was transferred tomatter by the Oraclesrsquo exegetes cf Seng (2015) 301ndash302

20 OC 5 1 34 1 Cf also the differentiations in OC 216 (see below pp 58ndash59 with n 83)21 Indirectly OC 134 1Μηδrsquo ἐπὶ μισοφαῆ κόσμον σπεύδειν λάβρον ὕλης (ldquoDo not hasten to the

light-hatingworld boisterous of matterrdquo) fromwhich also OC 180 τῆς ὕλης τὸ λάβρον (ldquotheturbulence of matterrdquo) cf Seng (2016) 38 Cf further Seng (2015) 282ndash283

22 In return matter is certainly demonized23 Seng (2016a) 106ndash107


the demons According to Psellos the Oracle refers to demonic apparitions inthe theurgical ritual preceding the epiphany of φύσις itself24 The role of φύσιςis somewhat forcibly restricted by Psellos to providing when invoked the occa-sion for the onslaughts of demons from all elemental spheres25 These demonsappear in various material forms which are often pleasant and charming Thecorresponding idea that demons appear during ritual so that they might enjoythe worship and sacrifice offered to the gods is widespread26More dynamic than the image invoked in the term βλαστήματα in OC 88 is

the origin of the demons in OC 90

hellip from the hollowsof the earth leap chthonian dogs who never show a truesign to a mortal27

Here demons are depicted as dogs28 that spring from the earth29 an idea thatcomes close to their designation as the offspring of matter by transfering thevegetal metaphor to the animal The designation of demons as dogs30 is also

24 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13617ndash22 OrsquoMeara Generalizing interpretation in Lewy (1956= 2011) 263ndash264

25 See also below pp 60ndash6126 Cf for instance Porphyry De abstinentia II 2 2ndash3 Ad Anebonem fr 62 65 65b 65e 65j

65o 69 SaffreymdashSegonds further Tanaseanu-Doumlbler (2013) 7027 PsellosOpusc phil II 38 p 13826ndash28OrsquoMearahellip ἐκ δrsquo ἄρα κόλπων γαίης θρῴσκουσιν χθόνιοι

κύνες οὔποτrsquo ἀληθὲς σῆμα βροτῷ δεικνύντες28 Cf also Hecatersquos χθόνιοι κύνες in Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica III 1217 which however

are not characterized as demons29 Thus it is assumed that the habitual abode of the demons is subterranean However the

interpretation of OC 170 given by Lewy (1956 = 2011) 259 n 2 remains doubtful ProclusIn Tim I p 12121ndash24 Kroll reads τί δέ εἰ τὰ ὄρη συμπέσοι πνεύματος αὐτὰ ῥήξαντος ἀπὸ τῶνὑπογείων τόπων ὑφrsquo οἵου τὰ λόγια καὶ αὐτάνδρους πόλεις ἀπόλλυσθαί φησιν ἐν οἷς ἡ τῶν νεφῶνσύστασις (ldquoWhat if the mountains against which the clouds gather were to collapse withthat wind by which the Oracle says cities too are destroyed men and all ripping themfrom their ground-level locationsrdquo) the subterranean winds that trigger earthquakes (asoften assumed in ancient times cf for instance Seneca Naturales quaestiones 6 24ndash26 aswell asWilliams (2012) 230ndash251 or Proclus In Tim I p 1881ndash12 Kroll) ambiguously calledπνεῦμα for Lewy would be evil demons (likewise Majercik (1989) 206)

30 Cf also Proclus Scholia adOpera et dies 82 (ad v 152ndash155) τὸ θηροφανὲς τῶν δαιμόνων γένοςοὓς κύνας εἴωθε τὰ λόγια καλεῖν In Remp II p 33717ndash19 Kroll on which Johnston (1990)134 n 1

50 seng

attested to outside the OC31 Again deception ismentioned so it seems reason-able to suppose that OC 88 and OC 90 refer to the same contextThe false signs indicate a demonic apparition occurring in the context of

the theurgical ritual in which the apparitions of the gods and their question-ing play an important role32 The demons try to disturb the cult of mortals andattempt to deceive them Correspondingly OC 149 recommends

When you perceive a demon near the earth approachingoffer themnouziris stone and say hellip33

According to Psellos the sacrifice of the stone34 serves to summon an immate-rial demon more powerful than the one near the earth

This stone has the power to evoke another greater demon whowill invis-ibly approach thematerial demon and proclaim the truth about the ques-tions asked answering the interrogator And he35 utters the evocative

31 Cf Scholz (1937) 28ndash29 Loth (1993) 788 and 822ndash823 Johnston (1990) 140 Seng (1996)154ndash155 (with further details)

32 Cf OC 72 142 and 146ndash148 cf also Saffrey (1999 = 2000) especially 30ndash31 Tanaseanu-Doumlbler (2013) 34ndash38 On the theurgical ritual including the constraint of gods (which isnot found in the OC themselves) cf also OC 223 (δαίμονας in v 5) attributed to the OCby Terzaghi (1904) 189 = (1963) 610 who refers to Nicephore Gregoras not withstandingthat the author explicitly states the opposite and taken by des Places as dubium cf Seng(2016b) 147

33 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 14428ndash29 OrsquoMeara ἡνίκα δrsquo ἐρχόμενον δαίμονα πρόσγειον ἀθρή-σῃς θῦε λίθον μνούζιριν ἐπαυδῶν hellip Cf Kroll (1894) 58 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 289 Seng(2016a) 114 Tardieu (2010) explains the name of the stone (μνούζιριν in the older Psellosmanuscripts which contain the fragment μνίζουριν in the younger) by the port town ofΜούζιρις (now Kodungallur) in Southwestern India and identifies the stone as the Indianagate which according to Pliny (NH 37 142) was used for fumigating (crushed in a com-bustible mixture) What kind of material is involved in the different ldquoagatesrdquo of PlinyNaturales historia 37 139ndash142 is not always clear cf Saint-Denis XXXVII 168 HoweverLewy (1956 = 2011) 289ndash290 thinks of a consecration Cf further Tanaseanu-Doumlbler (2013)26ndash28

34 The ritual use of stones (besides herbs and incantations) for the purification of the soul isalso attested to in Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13212ndash13 OrsquoMeara

35 The formulation λέγει hellip μετὰ τῆς τοῦ λίθου θυσίας transfers the imperative θῦε λίθον hellipἐπαυδῶν into the indicativemode The adverbial phrase cannot be related to the Oracle assubject (as does des Places) but only to the performer of the ritual


name at the same time as the sacrifice of the stone The Chaldean distin-guishes between good and bad demons but our pious doctrine definesthat all are evil36

For such a demonic hierarchy (and rivalry) however there is no indication inthe OC Rather the appearing godsrsquo superiority to the demons is to be under-stood as in Iamblichus who refers to Χαλδαῖοι προφῆται37 saying

When these shine forth that which is evil and demonic disappears andmakes way for superior beings just as darkness before light and does nottrouble the theurgists even occasionally38

TheOC themselves are also regardedasutterencesof the gods never of demonsIt is therefore probable that in Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 1454ndash9 OrsquoMearathe ideas of the Oraclesrsquo exegetes are reflected39 The additional explanationthat the Chaldaean distinguished good and evil demons is evidently not dueto the Neoplatonic tradition40 but is intended for a Christian reader whosenatural assumptions this explanation contradicts Therefore it cannot be con-cluded that such a distinction is made in the OC themselves The invocationof a ldquogreaterrdquo demon seems to be an interpretation of the expression ἐπαυ-δῶν in the sense of ldquocalling invokingrdquo But the meaning ldquoto say in additionrdquois also possible41 The missing hexameter closure apparently contained the

36 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 1454ndash9 OrsquoMeara ὁ δὲ λίθος οὗτος δύναμιν ἔχει προκλητικὴν ἑτέ-ρου μείζονος δαίμονος ὃς δὴ ἀφανῶς τῷ ὑλικῷ δαίμονι προσιὼν προφωνήσει τὴν τῶν ἐρωτωμένωνἀλήθειαν ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἀποκρινεῖται τῷ ἐρωτῶντι λέγει δὲ καὶ ὄνομα προκλητικὸν μετὰ τῆς τοῦλίθου θυσίας καὶ ὁ μὲν Χαλδαῖός τινας μὲν τῶν δαιμόνων ἀγαθούς τινὰς δὲ κακοὺς τίθεται ὁ δὲἡμέτερος εὐσεβὴς λόγος πάντας κακοὺς ὁρίζεται

37 Iamblichus De mysteriis III 31 pp 1763ndash1776 Parthey = p 1323ndash26 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf Cf also Lewy (1956= 2011) 273ndash275 Cremer (1969) 150ndash151Timotin (2012) 225ndash228(with bibliography)

38 Iamblichus De mysteriis III 31 p 1767ndash9 Parthey = p 1327ndash10 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf(trans ClarkemdashDillonmdashHershbell) Τούτων δὲ ἐπιλαμπόντων ἀφανὲς τὸ κακὸν καὶ δαιμόνιονἐξίσταται τοῖς κρείττοσιν ὥσπερ φωτὶ σκότος καὶ οὐδὲ τὸ τυχὸν παρενοχλεῖ τοῖς θεουργοῖς

39 Cf Lewy (1956 = 2011) 289 n 116 ldquoPsellosrsquo interpretation of this fragment is not based onChaldaeligan traditionrdquo

40 Kroll (1894) 45 and Theiler (1942) 36 = (1966) 296 attributed the distinction to the OCthemselves

41 Cf LSJ sv ἐπαυδάω The change of ἐπαυδῶν in ἐπᾴδων proposed in Kroll (1894) 58 is super-fluous

52 seng

formula for repelling a demon42 possibly an ὄνομα βάρβαρον43 There is noneed to interpret it as an ὄνομα προκλητικὸν as does Psellos (which makesthe second demon necessary) much better in this context it can be under-stood as apotropaic44 As further safeguards against demons Psellos identi-fies the diamond the coral the thunderstone and the sword with which aman has been killed (to be put down on the altar)45 To what extent the prac-tices to which Psellos refers reflect ideas already present in the OC remainsunclearA warning which recommends rites of purification with an apotropaic

effect46 can be found in the testimonies concerning OC 13547 First ProclusIn Alc p 402ndash7 CreuzerWesterink48

42 Cf Thillet in des Places (1971) 184 n 343 Cf OC 150 ὀνόματα βάρβαρα μήποτrsquo ἀλλάξῃς see also below n 13844 The affirmation in PsellosOpusc phil I 3 138Duffymdashcf Lewy (1956 = 2011) 288mdashthat the

Chaldeaens venerated subterraneandeitiesmight bebasedon such conjurations Remark-ably similar is Porphyry AdAnebonem fr 10 SaffreymdashSegonds (= Iamblichus Demyst I 9p 2917ndash301 Parthey = p 2217ndash21 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf)

45 Psellos Opusc phil I 19 167ndash171 Duffy Cf Seng (2016a) 114ndash115 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 291and n 124 thinks of ldquobrass instrumentsrdquo referring to the declaration by Proclus (In Crat71 p 352ndash5 Pasquali = OC 210) that the Chaldaeans having learned from the gods desig-nated the bird which is called κύμινδις by the humans as χαλκίς ldquoof courserdquo (according toIliad XIV 291) and that this name is to be attributed to its bronze-like voice But this state-ment does not allow this conclusion moreover Proclus is being somewhat ironic here cfSeng (2018) To what context the amulets mentioned in Suda ι 433 II p 64033ndash34 Adlerbelong is not clear The human figurines (PsellosOpusc phil I 3 150ndash152 Duffy) discussedby Lewy (1956 = 2011) 291ndash292 serve to ward off diseases the statue of Hecatemdashcf alsoTanaseanu-Doumlbler (2016) 186ndash190mdashdoes not belong to a Chaldaean context

46 Since the diversion from the spiritual (that is in the ritual context of the OC from thesacred) is caused precisely by the body (cf Plato Phaedo 64e8ndash67b6 especially 66b1) aspecial protection is required against the demons and thepassions caused (or personified)by them (cf Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13315 OrsquoMeara θελκτηρίοιςhellip πάθεσιν) which arephysical or physically mediated

47 Cf Kroll (1894) 55 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 227 n 1 and 264 n 15 Saffrey (1969) 67ndash68 Seng(1996) 154ndash156 Seng (2016a) 109ndash110

48 Proclus quotes two pieces which are not directly connected separating them by a paren-thesis there is no evidence that the first verse in Proclus forms a continous text with thetwo verses of the Scholion as printed by des Places which is questionable methodologyas is the insertion of the first verse of the Scholion into the Proclus text (before the paren-thesis separating it from the immediately following verse) as does Majercik


Therefore even the gods exhort us not to gaze at these (demons) before-hand until we have been strengthened by the powers from the initiationrites

For you must not gaze at them until you have your body initiated

And for this reason the Oracles add

They enchant souls forever turning them away from the rites49

Second there is a Scholion in Codex Parisinus Graecus 1853 fol 68r

Another (oracle) about maleficent demonsBeing terrestrial these ill-tempered dogs are shamelessand they enchant souls forever turning them away from the rites50

Again the demons show themselves as forces that disturb the ritual by distract-ing men from it51 The old topos associating dogs with shamelessness as in thecase of the associations in Iliad I 158ndash159 and IX 372ndash373 is apparent here aswell52Psellosrsquo explanations are similar

hellip the demons In this class a type has a boniformpower it helps the hier-atic ascents against their opponents the other draws down the souls it is

49 Proclus In Alc p 402ndash7 CreuzerWesterink διὸ καὶ οἱ θεοὶ παρακελεύονται μὴ πρότερον εἰςἐκείνους (sc δαίμονας) βλέπειν πρὶν ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν τελετῶν φραχθῶμεν δυνάμεσιν οὐ γὰρ χρὴκείνους σε βλέπειν πρὶν σῶμα τελεσθῇς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ λόγια προστίθησιν ὅτι τὰς ψυχὰς θέλ-γοντες ἀεὶ [τῶν] τελετῶν ἀπάγουσιν

50 Saffrey (1969) 67 ἄλλο περὶ κακοποιῶν δαιμόνων ὄντες γὰρ χθόνιοι χαλεποὶ κύνες εἰσὶν ἀναι-δεῖς καὶ ψυχὰς θέλγοντες ἀεὶ τελετῶν ἀπάγουσιν

51 Too general Lewy (1956 = 2011) 264 ldquoThemortal who does not constantly perform the pre-scribed lustrations cannot keephimself free from thedelusions that sherdquomdashthepersonifiednature (see above p 49 with n 25)mdashldquoprovokesrdquo (similarly 275ndash276) this does not fit wellwith the idea of an initiation that removes the threat of demons see Lewy (1956 = 2011)266 Overall Lewy attaches to the demons an importance which is hardly reflected in thefragments of the OC An example of cathartic consecration is provided by OC 133 Αὐτὸς δrsquoἐν πρώτοις ἱερεὺς πυρὸς ἔργα κυβερνῶν κύματι ῥαινέσθω παγερῷ βαρυηχέος ἅλμης (ldquoAboveall let the priest himself who governs the works of fire be sprinkled with the coagulatedbillow of the deep-roaring seardquo)

52 Cf Faust (1970) 26ndash27 Loth (1993) 823 and the references in Seng (1996) 155ndash156

54 seng

called the ldquobestial and shamelessrdquo type turned towards nature and serv-ing the gifts of destiny it ldquocharms the soulsrdquo or chastises those who havebeen left devoid of divine light hellip53

It is uncertain whether OC 89 ldquohellip bestial and shameless helliprdquo (hellip θηροπόλον καὶἀναιδέςhellip) can be derived from this It seemsmore appropriate to see in the for-mulations of Psellos on theonehand a testimoniumtoOC 135 2ndash3 (ἀναιδὲς andθέλγον τὰς ψυχάς) and on the other hand to isolate only the hapax legomenonθηροπόλον as an additional expression of the OC54 It is attractive to presumethat the word belongs to a preceding verseRemarkable here is the distinction between two opposing types of demons

It would be the only evidence55 for good demons in the OC who stimulate theascent of the soul thus counteracting the evil demons who want to preventit In this way they are attributed a function which is usually assigned to theangels56 In this respect it seems reasonable to attribute these good demonsnot to the OC themselves but to their exegesisThe treachery of the evil demons entails a positive evaluation of the mate-

rial which implies a detachment not only from the ritual but also from the

53 Psellos Opusc phil II 40 p 15026ndash31 OrsquoMeara hellip τὸ δαιμόνιον οὗ τὸ μὲν δύναμιν ἀγαθο-ειδῆ κέκτηται συλλαμβάνον ταῖς ἱερατικαῖς ἀνόδοις ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους ταύταις τὸ δὲ καθέλκειτὰς ψυχάς ὃ καὶ θηροπόλον καὶ ἀναιδὲς καλεῖται τὴν φύσιν ἐπιστρεφόμενον καὶ ταῖς μοιραίαιςδόσεσιν ὑπηρετοῦν καὶ θέλγον τὰς ψυχὰς ἢ κολάζον τὰς ἐρήμας ἀπολειφθείσας τοῦ θείου φωτόςhellip

54 The exact form of the word does remain unclear also ἀναιδὲς and θέλγον τὰς ψυχάς are fit-ted into the context θηροφανές in Proclus Scholia ad Opera et dies 82 (ad v 152ndash155) maybe a variation (see above n 30) The animals in OC 157 (Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 1388OrsquoMeara σὸν ἀγγεῖον θῆρες χθονὸς οἰκήσουσιν) do not appear to be demonsmdashas claimedby Lewy (1956 = 2011) 265 n 19 Cremer (1969) 79 n 335 and 85 n 414 Geudtner (1971)59mdashbut rather worms feeding on corpses cf Kroll (1894) 61 and Tardieu (1987) 160

55 On Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 1458ndash9 OrsquoMeara (καὶ ὁ μὲν Χαλδαῖός τινας μὲν τῶν δαιμό-νων ἀγαθούς τινὰς δὲ κακοὺς τίθεται ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος εὐσεβὴς λόγος πάντας κακοὺς ὁρίζεται) seeabove pp 50ndash51 with n 36

56 Questionable however is the identificationof angels as gooddemons for instance inKroll(1894) 45 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 260ndash262 Geudtner (1971) 57 n 238 or Majercik (1989) 175cf also Cremer (1969) 68ndash69 and Zintzen (1976) 648 The factual identification of thegood demons here and in Iamblichus with the Iynges (unattested to in the fragments ofthe OC)mdashfor which see Cremer (1969) 69ndash77 Geudtner (1971) 57 n 238 Zintzen (1976)649ndash650 and Moreschini (1995) 93ndash94mdashis unfounded what the Neoplatonic exegesis ofthe OC attributes to them belongs only to later interpretationsmdashcf Seng (2016d) 295ndash301mdashand does not fit Psellosrsquo description


spiritual Correspondingly the demons are associatedwith theπάθη (passions)by which man is endangered in his earthly life57 This is the case in Psellos

Chaldaean Oracle Avengers stranglers of menExplanation The angels of ascension bring souls towards them by

drawing them from becoming But the avengers that is to say the vindic-tive natures of demons and slanderers of human souls chain these intothe passions of matter and it would be said strangle them58

SuchΠοιναί are also attested to in Synesius59 and in Proclusrsquo hymns60 This evi-dence too indicates their associationwithmatter61 The expression ἄγκτειρα isspecifically Chaldean62 Derived from this is the corresponding use of themas-culine ἀγκτήρ63 in Proclus64 It is not clearwhether there is a precise distinctionbetween generally evil and specifically punitive demons65 in the OC and also

57 Similarly in Iamblichus cf Shaw (1988) 48 ldquoIn a theurgical context Iamblichus person-ified the impediments of particular souls as demons invisible entities that draw soulsdown into the material world and hold them thererdquo On the demons in Iamblichus andparallels in the OC cf also Cremer (1969) 78ndash85

58 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13918ndash22 OrsquoMeara [OC 161] Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον ποιναὶ μερό-πων ἄγκτειραι Ἐξήγησις οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι ἀνάγουσι τὰς ψυχὰς ἐφrsquo ἑαυτοὺς ἐκ τῆςγενέσεως ἐφελκόμενοι αἱ δὲ ποιναί ἤτοι αἱ τιμωρητικαὶ τῶν δαιμόνων φύσεις καὶ βάσκανοι τῶνἀνθρωπίνων ψυχῶν ἐνδεσμοῦσι ταύτας τοῖς ὑλικοῖς πάθεσι καὶ οἷον ἀπάγχουσι

59 Synesius Ep 43 p 7718 803 Garzya De insomniis 8 p 16013 Terzaghi De providentia II 3p 12114 Terzaghi Catastasis II 6 p 2933 Terzaghi (possibly to be understood as personifi-cation in some cases)

60 Proclus Hymns 1 37 7 41 singular in 4 12 cf also van den Berg (2001) 180ndash181 as well asποιναῖοι δαίμονες in Proclus In Remp II p 16813ndash14 p 1808 p 29528ndash2962 Kroll

61 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 298 and n 251 suspects that they are demons torturing ldquosinnersrdquo in theunderworld this is clearly proven wrong by Proclus Hymns 4 10ndash12 μὴ κρυερῆς γενέθληςἐνὶ κύμασι πεπτωκυῖαν ψυχὴν οὐκ ἐθέλουσαν ἐμὴν ἐπὶ δηρὸν ἀλᾶσθαι Ποινή τις κρυόεσσα βίουδεσμοῖσι πεδήσῃ [emphasis mine]

62 Attested to only in the quotations of OC 161 in Psellos and Pletho as well as in his com-mentary (p 33 1412ndash13 Tambrun-Krasker) The change proposed by Lewy (1956 = 2011)298 n 151 in ἄγκτηραι does not improve the text ἄγκτειρα relates to ἀγκτήρ as ἐλάτειρα toἐλατήρ or σώτειρα to σωτήρ etc

63 Otherwise in the sense of ldquoinstrument for closing woundsrdquo etc cf LSJ s v ἀγκτήρ64 Cf Proclus In Remp II p 15024ndash25 Kroll τῶν ὑλικῶν καὶ τῶν ποιναίων ἀγκτήρων τῶν εἰς τὸ

σκότος ἀγόντων (however without personification) and In Eucl p 2024ndash25 Friedlein τῶνἐν τούτῳ γενεσιουργῶν δεσμῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγκτήρων τῆς ὕλης (on the cave in Platorsquos parable) InAlc p 421 CreuzerWesterink τῶν ἀγκτήρων τῆς ὕλης

65 In addition to the evidence mentioned in n 60 cf also Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 1391ndash

56 seng

whether the Ποιναί can be regarded as female demons alongside the ldquodogsrdquo asmale demons66 All the more obvious is their common connection to matterand the passions with which they corrupt soulsProclus correspondingly writes of materially oriented people

For they do not differ in great measure from dogs without reasonsays the oracle of those who lead a wicked life67

Demons are however not only presented as generally material or chthonic oras earthly beings There are also air and water spirits as in Damascius

Starting from the spirits of the air irrational demons begin to come intoexistence Therefore the oracle says

Mistress driving dogs of the air earth and water68

The designation as dogs may characterize them as demonic in the negativesense The identity of the ἐλάτειρα κυνῶν remains problematic Traditionallythis expression would suggest Hecate69 as could be substantiated by the fol-lowing text of Porphyry who lists exactly the three elements mentionedabove70

3 OrsquoMeara (commentary to OC 90 quoted above p 49) περὶ δαιμόνων ἐνύλων ὁ λόγος καὶκύνας μὲν τούτους καλεῖ ὡς τιμωροὺς τῶν ψυχῶν χθονίους δὲ ὡς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πεπτηκότας καὶκαλινδουμένους περὶ τὴν γῆν The tripartition into good punishing and evil demons inIamblichus De mysteriismdashcf Cremer (1969) 68ndash86mdashdoes not likely go back to the OCsee above n 56

66 Cf the distinction into male and female demons in Psellos Opusc phil II 40 p 15031ndash32OrsquoMeara sceptical in this respect Kroll (1894) 45 It is questionable whether the passagecould refer to nature spirits like the nymphs mentioned in OC 216 1

67 Proclus In Remp II p 30910ndash11 Kroll [OC 156] Οἵδε γὰρ οὐκ ἀπέχουσι κυνῶν ἀλόγων πολὺμέτρον οἱ ζῶντες πονηρὰν ζωήν φησὶ τὸ λόγιον

68 Damascius In Phaedonem II 96 3ndash5 Westerink [OC 91] ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀερίων ἄρχονται συνυ-φίστασθαι οἱ ἄλογοι δαίμονες διὸ καὶ τὸ λόγιόν φησιν ἠερίων ἐλάτειρα κυνῶν χθονίων τε καὶὑγρῶν

69 Cf for instance her invocation as σκυλακάγεια in PGM IV 2719ndash2720 = LIX 13 7 Heitsch Forthe association of Hecate and dogs cf Scholz (1937) 40ndash42 and Johnston (1990) 134ndash142especially 135ndash136 ample archeological and (only partially relevant) textual evidence inWerth (2006) 173ndash184 especially 173ndash175 See also n 28 above

70 Sarapis portrayed as an underworld god could be regarded as an equivalent to Hades


Perhaps it is over these that Sarapis rules and their symbol is the dogwiththreeheads that is the evil demon in the three elementswater earth andair The god who has them under his hand will bring them to rest Hecatealso rules over them since she holds the sphere of the three elementstogether71

In light of this evidence the semantics of ἐλάτειραmight be elucidated Hecateis here a helpful power whose control over the demons includes her ability toreject them72 However the idea of amistress of the demons does not fit rightlywith what the OC otherwise say about Hecate Where she is mentioned sheappears as a metaphysical figure which can be understood as an intelligibleworld or reservoir of (general) Ideas73 In this respect it seems more reason-able to think of another entity Psellos connects φύσις74 and its epiphany withφυσικῶν δαιμονίων hellip πληθύν and πολύς hellip δαιμόνων χορός (referring to OC 101and 88)75 Hecate is intimately connected to φύσις insofar as she is its origin(OC 54)76 Another possibility would be the moon to which refers the compo-sition of the demons mentioned here ἀπὸ πάντων δὲ τῶν μερῶν τοῦ σεληναίου

whomLewy (1956 = 2011) 279ndash293 regards as the head of the demonswhich is not obviousfrom his evidence cf especially 279ndash282 on Psellos Opusc phil II 39 p 1483ndash7 OrsquoMeara

71 Porphyry De philosophia ex oraculis p 150Wolff [= fr 327F 3ndash7 Smith]Μήποτε οὗτοί εἰσινὧν ἄρχει ὁ Σάραπις καὶ τούτων σύμβολον ὁ τρίκρανος κύων τουτέστιν ὁ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ στοιχείοιςὕδατι γῇ ἀέρι πονηρὸς δαίμων οὓς καταπαύσει ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἔχων ὑπὸ χεῖρα ἄρχει δrsquo αὐτῶν καὶ ἡἙκάτη ὡς συνέχουσα τὸ τρίστοιχον

72 Cf Theocritus id II 12 τᾷ χθονίᾳ Ἑκάτᾳ τὰν καὶ σκύλακες τρομέοντι and the lexicographicentries ἐλάτειραν ἀπελαστικήν (Photius Lexicon ε 557 Suda ε 749 II p 23918 Adler Ps-Zonaras ε p 686 Tittmann) or ἐλάτειραν ἀπελατικήν (Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων versioantiqua ε 274) probably (as the entry in the accusative singular suggests) with referenceto Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite De caelesti hierarchia p 281 Heil πάσης ἀλαμποῦς σκοτο-ποιίας ἐλάτειραν

73 Seng (2016a) 52ndash55 Cf also Johnston (1990) 135 whose characterization of Hecate in theOC is nevertheless different in many respects

74 This is the suggestion of Johnston (1990) 136ndash141 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 269ndash273 conflatesHecate and φύσις

75 PsellosOpusc phil II 38 p 13613 and 18 OrsquoMeara The formulation τὴν φύσιν ἐπιστρεφόμε-νον (referring to δαιμόνιον ὃ καὶ θηροπόλον καὶ ἀναιδὲς καλεῖται) in PsellosOpusc phil II 40p 15029 OrsquoMeara referred to by Johnston (1990) 139 n 23 may perhaps be understoodby analogy to a pack of hounds surrounding a hunter (cf LSJ sv II 2) but the context isprobably too abstract

76 Cf Seng (2016a) 81ndash83

58 seng

κόσμου77 and which Proclus seems to identify as the φύσεως αὔτοπτον ἄγαλμαmentioned in OC 10278 Furthermore Hecatersquos association with the moon isfound in connection with demons79 There are two other arguments in favorof this hypothesis On the one hand the infrequently used word ἐλάτειρα isattested to inNonnus in the formulaic hexameter closure βοῶν ἐλάτειρα Σελήνηwhich can be understood to be a variegated borrowing80 On the other handthe material world and thus the area of air water and earth begins just belowthe moon81 This aspect will be examined in the following section

Nature Spirits

Nature spirits are mentioned in OC 216 (dubium)82 John Lydus who transmitsthe fragment places them directly under the moon

The moon is immediately mounted on the universe of generation and allthe beings in this world are manifestly governed by it as the Oracles say

Nymphs of the springs and all water spiritshollows of earth air and beneath the raysof the moon who mount and ride allmatter heavenly stellar and fathomless83

77 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13620 OrsquoMeara78 Cf the somewhat tortuous formulation in Proclus In Remp II p 13315ndash18 Kroll εἰ δὲ (the

τόπος δαιμόνιος in Plato Republic X 614c1 equated by Proclus with τρίοδος and λειμών inGorgias 524a2) καὶ προσεχῶς εἰς τὴν σεληνιακὴν ἀνήρτηται σφαῖραν ἐν ᾗ τῆς γενέσεως αἰτίαιπάσης καί ὥς φησίν τις ἱερὸς λόγος τὸ αὔτοπτον ἄγαλμα τῆς φύσεως προσλάμπει cf Johnston(1990) 137 n 14

79 Cf ibid 29ndash3880 Nonnus Dionysiaca I 331 V 72 VII 247 XI 186 XII 5 XXIII 309 XLVIII 668 cf also Vian

(1976) 141 and Chuvin (1992) 164 The model for the syntagm βοῶν ἐλάτειρα seems to beColluthus 110 ποιμενίη δrsquo ἀπέκειτο βοῶν ἐλάτειρα καλαῦροψ (the only previous evidencefor ἐλάτειρα seems to be Pindar fr 89a Τί κάλλιον ἀρχομένοισ(ιν) ἢ καταπαυομένοισιν ἢβαθύζωνόν τε Λατώ καὶ θοᾶν ἵππων ἐλάτειραν ἀεῖσαι) A parallel can be found in the adap-tation of ἀμφιφαής (from OC 1 4) which in the Chaldaean tradition is applied to Hecateand to themoon in Nonnus Dionysiaca IV 281 XXII 349 cf Seng (2010) 235ndash244 and 252ndash253

81 Cf Proclus In Remp II p 13311ndash15 Kroll82 Cf the more detailed discussion in Seng (2016c) with further references83 John Lydus Demensibus III 8 p 415ndash424WuenschὍτι ἡ σελήνη προσεχῶς ἐπιβέβηκε τῷ


Whether the fragment is of Chaldaean orOrphic origin cannot be ultimatelydetermined84 Even if specific uncertainties remain the following analysisappears to be the most probable first cosmic (sublunary) regions (κόλποι) aredifferentiated (v 1ndash3a)85 in away that corresponds to the four elements includ-ing the spirits contained therein (explicitly only νύμφαι and πνεύματα)86 Thesecond part (v 3bndash4) reaches beyond and incorporates the spheres of the fixedstars and planets while the sublunary world is summarily designated as ἄβυσ-σοι87 These areas as well as those mentioned above in v 1ndash3a include divinebeings ἐπιβήτορες ἠδrsquo ἐπιβῆται which perform the function of cosmic admin-istration88 It remains unclear whether it is a list in the nominative sense ora series of vocatives to be understood as a hymn or incantation89 It is notice-able that instead of fiery demons ὕπαυγοι μηναῖοι arementioned This confirmsonce again the relation between demons and the moon as suggested in theprevious section On the other hand this specific position of the fiery beingswhich are characterized by their particular proximity to the moon90 would becompatible with the classification of the ἄλογοι δαίμονες among the lower ele-ments91

γεννητῷ παντὶ καὶ πάντα κυβερνᾶται τὰ τῇδε ἐναργῶς ὑπrsquo αὐτῆς ὡς τὰ λόγιά φασι Νύμφαιπηγαῖαι καὶ ἐνύδρια πνεύματα πάντα καὶ χθόνιοι κόλποι ⟨τε⟩ καὶ ἠέριοι καὶ ὕπαυγοι μηναῖοιπάσης ἐπιβήτορες ἠδrsquo ἐπιβῆται ὕλης οὐρανίας τε καὶ ἀστερίας καὶ ἀβύσσων

84 It is aChaldaean fragment according to JohnLydusDemensibus III 8 p 4110ndash13Wuenschcf also II 11 p 321ndash4 Wuensch (evidence for v 4) however Olympiodorus In Alc p 197CreuzerWesterink quotes v 4 as Orphic

85 Intuitively it seems plausible to assume that the pause of sense coincides with the end ofthe verse after ὕπαυγοι In this case μηναῖοι would refer to ἐπιβήτορες ἠδrsquo ἐπιβῆται Theseare however placed above the matter of the sky of the planets and fixed stars which isabove themoon Thus the identification of μηναῖοιwith ἐπιβήτορες ἠδrsquo ἐπιβῆται is unlikely

86 However since water is named first the elements are not listed in the usual order startingfrom the bottom with earth then water air and fire

87 Or the singular ἄβυσσος in Olympiodorus88 The verb ἐπιβαίνω designates the superior rank and effectiveness of one entity over

another cosmologically and ontologically cf for instance ἡ σελήνη προσεχῶς ἐπιβέβηκε τῷγεννητῷ παντί in John Lydus (De mensibus III 8 p 417 Wuensch) in the introduction ofthe quoted fragment Proclus In Tim III p 5931 16510 19522 and 31 19918 Kroll PsellosOpusc phil II 40 p 14918ndash19 OrsquoMeara etc

89 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 266ndash267 suspects it is ldquothe beginning of a conjuring hymnrdquo90 Cf also the idea which goes back to Aristotle that the inhabitants of the fiery zone which

is directly adjacent to themoon are the demons cf also Lameere (1949) Deacutetienne (1963)146ndash154 Timotin (2012) 103ndash105 The location of the demons near the moon is alreadyattested to in Xenocrates cf Brenk (1986) 2088ndash2090 and Timotin (2012) 93ndash99

91 Fire is also associated with the divine

60 seng

OC 92 quoted by Proclus belongs to the same context

Furthermore in the case of things that are divine the word aquatic indi-cates the inseparable superintendence over water which is the reasonwhy the Oracles call these gods lsquothose who walk on waterrsquo92

Here Proclus speaks of gods However he does not only explain that the termsgods and demons can include all the levels of the κρείττω γένη (gods angelsdemons and heroes) but also that identical expressions as in the case of πτη-νός and ἀεροπόρος can refer both to gods in the narrow sense and to gods anddemons generally93 The exact status of the beings designated as ὑδροβατῆρεςin the OC themselves and their relation to the water spirits in OC 216 are impos-sible to identify from this expression alone94In a work attributed to Psellos95 on the activity of demons96 the expression

τὰ τῶν δαιμόνων πολυχεύμονα φῦλα97 immediately precedes a differentiation oftheir (deceptive) nature according to the elements98 It is unclear whether thelast twowords which could form a hexameter closure originate from the OC99In any case they arenot quoted asChaldaean inPseudo-PsellosThe expressionπολυχεύμων first appears in an effusive letter of Basil of Caesarea to Libanius inthe syntagmπηγῆς πολυχεύμονος100Whether it is an adhoc image or representsthe adoption of an earlier formulation is difficult to say The phrase is pickedup and variegated by certain Byzantine authors mainly in the 12th and 13th

92 Proclus InTim III p 1103ndash7 Kroll ἔτι τὸ ἔνυδρον ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν θείων τὴν ἀχώριστον ἐπιστασίανἐνδείκνυται τοῦ ὕδατος διὸ καὶ τὸ λόγιον ὑδροβατῆρας καλεῖ τοὺς θεοὺς τούτους

93 Ibid III p 1091ndash11012 Kroll94 While Festugiegravere (1954) IV 143 n 4 thinks of demons Baltzly 197 n 463 opts for gods95 De operatione daemonum (Boissonade) and De daemonibus (Gautier) On the question of

authorship cf Gautier (1980) 128ndash13196 Ps-Psellos De operatione daemonum p 307ndash8 Boissonade = line 537 Gautier97 Boissonade (1838) 262 n 5 notes the variant πολυχλεύμονα which is not mentioned by

Gautier This word is not otherwise attested and would be a lectio difficilior the meaningldquomaking a lot of funrdquo (cf χλεύη χλευάζω etc) would describe well the deceptive demons

98 Ps-Psellos De operatione daemonum p 308ndash19 Boissonade = lines 537ndash545 Gautier (be-yond the series of elements is named τὸ μισοφαὲςhellip γένος)

99 CfKroll (1894) 46n 1 ldquoHaud scio anhelliprdquomore resoluteLewy (1956=2011) 260andn 4withreference to μισοφαής (Ps-PsellosDeoperatione daemonum p 3012 Boissonade = line 540Gautier) Neither des Placesmdashthere OC 93mdashnor Majercik characterize the expression asdubium

100 Basil the Great Ep 353


centuries πολυχεύμων is a fashionable expression101 but is mostly related towater metaphores The πολυχεύμονα φῦλα do not appear to belong to this con-text This suggests that Pseudo-Psellos draws it from another source possiblyfrom the OC (which Basil might already have used) At least the Chaldaeanexpression μισοφαής102 as well as the more common αὐχμηρός are presentin the same section of Pseudo-Psellos Both words are used in OC 134 Themetaphors of pouring and flowing for the process of formation are familiar inthe OC103 so that the ldquomultiflowing tribesrdquo of demons do not have to be associ-ated with waterIn this respect there is another indication that is particularly important In

his commentary on OC 88 Psellos describes the assault of the demons preceed-ing the apparition of Physis in the following way

Awhole chorus of demons flows in andvariousdemonic apparitions rushforth aroused from all the elements formed and divided from all the sec-tions of the lunar world104

This corresponds approximately to the more detailed account of Pseudo-Psellos in particular the formulation πολὺς ἐπιρρεῖ δαιμόνων χορός seems toparaphrase the expression πολυχεύμονα φῦλα A more similar formula refer-ring to the apparition of evil demons is to be found in Iamblichus ἐπιρρέον τὸ

101 Cf already Leo the Deacon (10th c)Historia p 5121 Hase ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πηγῶν πολυχεύμωντιςἈνέκδοτον ἐγκώμιον εἰς Βασίλειον τον Β᾿ p 42833Συκουτρήςπηγὴπολυχεύμων Among theauthors who display a knowledge of Chaldaean vocabulary are Michael Italikos (cf espe-cially Ep 28) here Ep 14 p 14221 Gautier Ep ad Nicephorum Bryennium 1 p 37120 Gau-tier Gregorios Antiochos (cf Oratio in Sebastocratorem Constantinum Angelum p 40011Bachmann-Doumllger cf Seng (2009) 67) here Epitaphion 5 p 8721 8 p 15619 Sideras fur-ther Gregorios Palamas (cf Seng (2009) 28 (2010) 251) here Ep ad Barlaam I 14 p 23214Meyendorff Contra Nic III 5 p 32411 Χρήστου

102 Ps-Psellos De operatione daemonum p 3012 Boissonade = line 540 Gautier The expres-sion comes from OC 134 1 for which Proclus In Tim III p 32532ndash3261 Kroll [OC 181]provides testimony In Remp II p 1581 Kroll offers another attestation in addition to Psel-los Opusc phil I 3 130 Duffy and II 38 p 14611 OrsquoMeara Afterwards the word is used as asophisticated expression in Michael Choniates I 3 p 8718 Lampros (about Lucifer) Nic-etas Choniates Historia p 26422 van Dieten Ephraem Aenii Historia Chronica v 5087and 5540 Gregorios Palamas Contra Nic I 10 p 23916 Χρήστου (μισοφαεῖ δαίμονι)

103 OC 37 15 56 3 51 2 218 2 (dubium)104 Psellos Opusc phil II 38 p 13618ndash21 OrsquoMeara πολὺς ἐπιρρεῖ δαιμόνων χορός καὶ πολυειδεῖς

προφέρονται μορφαὶ δαιμονιώδεις ἀπὸ πάντων μὲν τῶν στοιχείων ἀνεγειρόμεναι ἀπὸ πάντωνδὲ τῶν μερῶν τοῦ σεληναίου κόσμου συγκείμεναί τε καὶ μεριζόμεναι See also above pp 48ndash49with n 24

62 seng

κακοποιὸν φῦλον105 This does not yet prove whether in its original meaningπολυχεύμονα φῦλα aims to differentiate the demons according to the elements(the paraphrase does not mention them) or whether this understanding of thephrase is attributable to the Neoplatonic exegesis But the assumption that theformulation is a fragment of the OC increases in probabilityThe contingent evidence and ambiguity of the sources allow for only a

very cautious conclusion the OC probably know natural or elementary spir-its which can be interpreted as demons On the one hand we must think ofcosmologically active beings (OC 216 if Chaldaean perhaps OC 92) and on theother hand of evil powers (OC 93 in context)

Intermediate and Connecting

The idea of demons whomediate between gods andmen is formulated promi-nently in Platorsquos Symposium106 inwhich Socrates reports Diotimarsquos doctrine onEros

A great daimon Socrates For all that is lsquodaimonicrsquo is between god andmortalBut what power does it haveIts task is to interpret and convey human things to the gods and divine

things to humansmdashprayers and sacrifices religious ordinances and rit-uals and the exchange of favors Being in the middle the daimonic cansupplement each so that the totality is bound together by it Through thedaimonic comes all mantic and the art of the priests who oversee sacri-fice religious rituals incantations and the whole mantic art as well as

105 IamblichusDemysteriis IV 7 p 19010ndash11 Parthey=p 14220ndash21 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerfCf τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον and especially τὸ τῶν πονηρῶν δαιμόνων φῦλον ibid I 6 and IV 13p 1911 and 1983ndash4 Parthey = p 1418 and 1488ndash9 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf Iamblichusnever quotes the OC literally but refers paraphrastically to them Cf ibid III 28 p 1686Parthey =p 12610 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf II 7 p 847ndash9 Parthey =p 6314ndash17 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf V 18 p 22315ndash17 Parthey = p 16624ndash27 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (cfCremer (1969) 79 n 346) II 4 p 7510ndash14 Parthey = p 5623ndash27 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf(cf Tardieu (2010) 104ndash105) II 7 p 846ndash9 Parthey = p 6313ndash17 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (and n 5) II 7 p 8414ndash17 Parthey = p 6323ndash25 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (cf Seng(2016a) 99 n 14) As for ἐπιρρέον SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (p 142 n 4) suspect a possi-ble allusion to Plato Phaedrus 229d7 the context could also be a model of the Oraclersquosformulation

106 Cf also Timotin (2012) 36ndash52


sorcery God does not mix with men but through the daimonic all asso-ciation and converse comes between gods and men whether sleeping orawake The person wise in these matters is the daimonic man A personwise in other matters such as arts and crafts is really a vulgar type Thesedaimones are in fact very numerous and different and one of them isEros107

From this passage two aspects have emergedwithin the Platonic tradition thatdescribe the nature and activity of demons maintaining the cohesion of thecosmos and mediating (ritual) communication between humans and gods108Both aspects are taken up in the OCOn the one hand the existence of entities whose cohesive effect on the cos-

mos is indicated by their designation as συνοχεῖς is well-attested109 It is notalways clear whether the term denotes a pure function110 or serves as a name-like designation of specific beings The latter case is at any rate attested to inProclus (In Parm p 6476ndash8 Cousin) where the expression is attributed to theAssyrians (equivalent to the Chaldaeans)111 (OC 188)

[hellip] such as the Zones and the Independent of Zones the Sources theImplacables and the Connectors celebrated by the Assyrians112

107 Plato Symposium 202d3ndash203a8 Δαίμων μέγας ὦ Σώκρατες καὶ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦΤίνα ἦν δrsquo ἐγώ δύναμιν ἔχονἙρμηνεῦον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον θεοῖς τὰ παρrsquoἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρὰ θεῶν τῶν μὲν τὰς δεήσεις καὶ θυσίας τῶν δὲ τὰς ἐπιτάξεις τεκαὶ ἀμοιβὰς τῶν θυσιῶν ἐν μέσῳ δὲ ὂν ἀμφοτέρων συμπληροῖ ὥστε τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸ αὑτῷ συνδεδέ-σθαι διὰ τούτου καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ πᾶσα χωρεῖ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερέων τέχνη τῶν τε περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶτελετὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπῳδὰς καὶ τὴν μαντείαν πᾶσαν καὶ γοητείαν θεὸς δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ οὐ μείγνυταιἀλλὰ διὰ τούτου πᾶσά ἐστιν ἡ ὁμιλία καὶ ἡ διάλεκτος θεοῖς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἐγρηγορόσι καὶκαθεύδουσι καὶ ὁ μὲν περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα σοφὸς δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ ὁ δὲ ἄλλο τι σοφὸς ὢν ἢ περὶ τέχναςἢ χειρουργίας τινὰς βάναυσος οὗτοι δὴ οἱ δαίμονες πολλοὶ καὶ παντοδαποί εἰσιν εἷς δὲ τούτωνἐστὶ καὶ ὁ Ἔρως Translation borrowed from Brenk (1986) 2086

108 Cf Timotin (2012) 37ndash46 85ndash161 and 163ndash241109 Cf Seng (2016d) 307ndash313110 This is perhaps the case in Proclus InCrat 107 p 591ndash3 Pasquali [OC 152 207] and inDam-

ascius In Parmenidem I p 951ndash6 [OC 81 OC 80] III p 3117ndash19 WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds

111 Cf Porphyry De philosophia ex oraculis p 141Wolff [= fr 324F 8ndash9 Smith]112 Proclus In Parmenidem p 6476ndash8 Cousin οἷα τὰ τοῖς Ἀσσυρίοις ὑμνημένα Ζῶναι καὶ Ἄζω-

νοι καὶ Πηγαὶ καὶ Ἀμείλικτοι καὶ Συνοχεῖς Cf also Damascius In Parmenidem I p 6719ndash20[OC 83] II p 971ndash984 [OC 82] III p 3120ndash23WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds

64 seng

Moreover there is a passage by Damascius from which the exact wording ofOC 177 is difficult to extract

[hellip] or the Masters of Consecration are according to the Oracle boundtogether with the Connectors113

Proclus In Tim I p 42011ndash16 Kroll can also be mentioned in this respect(OC 32)114

Living-Thing-itself then is the third intelligible triad Of [this triad] theOracles too say that it is lsquoa workerrsquo that it is lsquothe bestower of life-bearingfirersquo that it lsquofills the life-producing womb of Hecatersquo and

pours into the Connectorsthe life-giving might of most puissant fire115

The absolute use of συνοχεῦσιν points to the fact that not only a functionaldescription is given here By receiving the effective power of the life-givingfire116 the συνοχεῖς are characterized as mediating entities They ensure thecohesion of the cosmos by communicating life and intelligible forms ie Ideasinto the material world117 In this respect the two demonic functions speci-fied by Plato are held together but have been applied to cosmology In theirconnecting function the συνοχεῖς act particularly to fulfill the same task asdoes Eros as a power acting universally118 in this respect they are to beregarded as its particular manifestations as ἔρωτες This structuring seems to

113 Damascius De Principiis III p 1179ndash10WesterinkmdashCombegraves ἢ οἱ μὲν τελετάρχαι συνείλην-ται τοῖς συνοχεῦσι κατὰ τὸ λόγιον Des Placesrsquo text reads οἱ μὲν τελετάρχαι τοῖς συνοχεῦσισυνείληνται cf Seng (2016d) 302ndash304

114 Cf also Seng (2016a) 52ndash54 as well as (2016d) 309ndash310 The establishment of two firstverses by des Places is rather experimental but unconvincing OC 32 1ndash2Ἐργάτις ἐκδότιςἐστὶ πυρὸς ζωηφόρου ⟨αὕτη⟩ καὶ τὸν ζῳογόνον πληροῦσrsquoἙκάτης κόλπον

115 Proclus In Tim I p 42011ndash16 Kroll Ἡ τρίτη τοίνυν τριὰς ἡ νοητὴ τὸ αὐτοζῷον περὶ ἧς καὶτὰ λόγιά φησιν ὅτι ἐργάτις ὅτι ἐκδότις ἐστὶ πυρὸς ζωηφόρου ὅτι καὶ τὸν ζῳογόνον πληροῖ τῆςἙκάτης κόλπον καὶ ἐπιρρεῖ τοῖς συνοχεῦσιν ἀλκὴν ζειδώροιο πυρὸς μέγα δυναμένοιο In thelast verse the manuscripts read ζείδωρον

116 On life cf also Proclus Theologia Platonica IV 20 p 591ndash6 SaffreymdashWesterink117 Cf also OC 32 82 2118 OC 39 2 δεσμὸν πυριβριθῆ ἔρωτος 42 1 δεσμῷἜρωτος ἀγητοῦ 46 2ndash3 ἁγνὸν Ἔρωτα συν-

δετικὸν πάντων ἐπιβήτορα σεμνόν


have its origins in the presentation of Eros as a δαίμων μέγας in Plato Howeverthere is no indication that the συνοχεῖς are considered to be or designated asdemonsNor can their relation to the nature spirits discussed above (second section)

be determined Damascius writes (In Parm I p 951ndash6WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds OC 81 and OC 80)

And the Connectors are not three but each one is multiple concerningthe Empyric is said

All things yield to the intellectual lightning-bolts of the intellectual fire

And concerning the Material

But also all those things which serve material connectors119

One observes here the Chaldaean three-world schema which distinguishesbetween (ἐμ)πύριοςαἰθέριος and ὑλαῖος κόσμος120The relational determinationby the adjective raises the question as to whether the συνοχεῖς here represent aseparate class of beings or rather independent entities which act on matteran idea applicable to elemental demons but also to other beings121Apart from the function of connecting the OC adopt from Plato the activ-

ity of mediating between humans and gods and provide a specific adjective inaccordance with διαπορθμεῦον in Symposium 202e3 διαπόρθμιος122 The oracleis quoted by Damascius

119 Damascius In Parmenidem I p 951ndash6 WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds καὶ οἱ συνοχεῖς οὐτρεῖς ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ ἕκαστος περὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ἐμπυρίου λέγεται τοῖς δὲ πυρὸς νοεροῦ νοεροῖςπρηστῆρσιν ἅπαντα εἴκαθε δουλεύοντα Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ὑλαίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑλαίοις ὅσα δουλεύεισυνοχεῦσι

120 Cf for instance Seng (2009) 75ndash79 and (2016a) 84ndash87 In Proclus Damascius and Psellosthis differentiation is related not only to the συνοχεῖς but also to the νοητοὶ ἅμα καὶ νοεροίcollectively (see below p 68)

121 According to Psellos (Opusc phil I 46 43ndash51Duffy) Julian theChaldaean asks the συνοχεὺςτοῦ παντὸς for the soul of an archangel for his son (see below p 75)

122 At least the word is found exclusively in Chaldaean contexts which are discussed belowThe corresponding verb can be applied to angels cf Proclus In Tim I p 31416ndash17 IIp 16524 Kroll

66 seng

Henceforth one could also understand this name [assimilator] from thetruth of themagical art both that which comes from theOracles and thatwhich comes from Persia For the fathers who preside over magic bringforward everything into visibility and conversely they make everythinggo back into the invisible as in order to speak like the Oracle they areldquoestablished as transmitters of messagesrdquo between the Father andmatterfor of the visible things theymake copies of the invisible and they engravethe invisible in the visible production of the world123

The actual Oracle text should be διαπόρθμιοι ἑστηῶτες at least this could bethe second part of a hexameter from the penthemimer onward with bucolicdihaeresis124Unlike in Plato the expression is not related to demons but to οἱ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν

πατέρες The identity and origin of these entities exclusively attested to inDamascius in Chaldaean contexts125 and in Psellos (Ψελλοῦ ὑποτύπωσις κεφα-λαιώδης τῶν παρὰ Χαλδαίοις ἀρχαίων δογμάτων)126 are uncertain127 They maynot be Chaldaean but Persian since the formulation in Damascius referson the one hand to Persia and on the other hand to Chaldaean tradition(ἀπὸ τῶν λογίων) The latter is represented by the quoted λόγιον for the for-mer only the expression οἱ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν πατέρες is suitable corresponding to

123 Damascius In Parmenidem III p 1243ndash10WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegondsἬδη δὲ τοῦτολάβοι τις ἂν καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μαγικῆς ἀληθείας τῆς τε ἀπὸ τῶν λογίων καὶ τῆς ΠερσικῆςΟἱ γὰρ ἐπὶμαγειῶν πατέρες εἴς τε τὸ ἐμφανὲς πάντα προάγουσιν καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἀφανὲς περιάγουσιν ὡςἂν ldquoδιαπόρθμιοι ἑστῶτεςrdquo κατὰ λόγιον φάναι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ τά τε ἐμφανῆ μιμήματατῶν ἀφανῶν ἐργαζόμενοι καὶ τὰ ἀφανῆ εἰς τὴν ἐμφανῆ κοσμοποιΐαν ἐγγράφοντες Kroll emendsκατὰ ⟨τὸ⟩ λόγιον but perhaps the article is intentionally left out because the fragment isnot originally related to οἱ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν πατέρες and only the expression is picked up

124 Cf ἑστηῶτrsquo in OC 146 8 However the quotations from the OC are also grammatically fittedinto their context so that methodical doubts concerning the exact expression persist

125 See below n 130126 Psellos Opusc phil II 40 p 1509ndash10 OrsquoMeara καὶ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν δὲ τρεῖς πατέρες ἀρχικὴν

ἔχουσι τάξιν Cf further Opusc phil II 39 (Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔκθεσις κεφαλαιώδης καὶ σύντομος τῶνπαρὰ Χαλδαίοις δογμάτων) p 14811ndash12 (= Opusc theol I 23 A 56ndash57 Gautier) τοὺς δὲ περὶμαγειῶν λόγους συνιστῶσιν ἀπό τε ἀκροτάτων (μακροτάτωνOpusc theol I 23AGautier) τινῶνδυνάμεων ἀπό τε περιγείων ὑλῶν

127 See below nn 128ndash130 In Damascius (In Parmenidem III p 1294WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds) JulianrsquosὙφηγητικά arementioned in direct connection with τοῖς μαγικοῖς πατρά-σιν but in a new sentence Kroll (1894) 39 concludes that they belong to this writing Lewy(1956 = 2011) 138ndash139 not only equates themwith the ἀρχαί or ἀρχικοὶ πατέρες but also def-initely wrongly with the κοσμαγοί cf Seng (2009) 37ndash74


the Persian μάγοι128 The ontological level which Damascius attributes to themis described by the alternative expressions ἀρχικός ἡγεμονικός ὑπερκόσμιοςand ἀφομοιωτικός129 Their place is directly under the Demiurge whose uni-form activity they continue at a particular level130 and thus clearly above thedemonsThe further attestations of the expression διαπόρθμιος can be found in Pro-

cluswhoattributes it to different entities all of which are abstractOn the samelevel of the hierarchy of Being as οἱ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν πατέρες in Damascius are theforces that are assigned to the ἀφομοιωτικὰ γένη and which work demiurgicallydownward

The liberated leaders therefore being such as we have shown them to belet us survey the multiform orders of them adapted to this order Someof them therefore we call transporters and these are such as unfold tosecondary natures the progressions of the assimilative genera131

128 Evidence however is missing as already stated The reference to the Persian traditionmight point to the cult of Mithras high ranking practicioners of which are repeatedlycalled pater sacrorum (cf the indices in Vermaseren I 352 and II 426 Scholia vetera in The-ocritum on id 2 10a ἐκ θυέων ἐκ τῶν θυσιῶν μαγειῶν θύος γὰρ τὸ θῦμα) and once πατὴρνόμιμος τῶν τελετῶν (I 76 p 74 Vermaseren)

129 Damascius In Parmenidem III p 1237ndash20WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds an instructiveexample of the Neoplatonic synopsis of the traditions cf Saffrey (1992 = 2000) ἀρχικόςaccording to OC (θεία παράδοσις 8 19ndash20 quotation of OC 40) ἡγεμονικός according toIamblichus (9ndash10 with reference 11ndash12 back to Plato Phaedrus 246e4ndash247a3) ὑπερκόσμιος(οἱ δέ 12) ἀφομοιωτικός according to the Orphic tradition (14ndash17 testimonium to Orph fr192 Kern = 286 F (VI) Bernabeacute but cf alsoWesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds (2002) III 123n 6) cf also ibid III 270ndash271

130 Cf Damascius In Parmenidem III p 1237ndash13010 WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds withthe other evidence of the expression fromwhich it also becomes clear that they are threeas in Psellos (ibid III p 1298ndash12 WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds) as well as the vari-ant μαγικοὶ πατέρες (ibid III p 12724ndash1281 p 1291ndash3 WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds)further ἡ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν πηγή with similar characterisation in Damascius De principiis IIIp 319ndash10 and p 388ndash10 WesterinkmdashCombegraves as well as WesterinkmdashCombegraves (1991) III185ndash186 and LecerfmdashSaudelli (2016) 70ndash74 It is especially important to note that Damas-cius reads into the OC and Julianrsquos Ὑφηγητικά propositions about the entities ἐπὶ μαγειῶνusing formulations that reveal his approach This reinforces the doubts about their origi-nal affiliation with the Chaldaean tradition although a reference to Persia in the Ὑφηγη-τικά cannot be excluded cf also LecerfmdashSaudelli (2016) 75ndash77

131 ProclusTheologia Platonica VI 17 p 8216ndash20 SaffreymdashWesterinkΤοιούτων τοίνυν τῶν ἀπο-λύτων ὄντων ἡγεμόνων νοήσωμεν αὐτῶν τὰς πολυειδεῖς δυνάμεις τῇ τάξει ταύτῃ προσηκούσας

68 seng

The reference to an oracle is missing the formulation διαπορθμίους καλέσω-μεν seems almost imperatively to imply that there is no Chaldaean evidenceIn In Remp II p 9228ndash29 Kroll Proclus uses διαπόρθμιος (without reference

to the OC) to designate forces subordinate to the divinities that direct the heav-ens132 The entities with which the expression διαπόρθμιος is otherwise asso-ciated in Proclus are much higher These are ἴυγγες and τελετάρχαι133 whosefunction the philosopher describes as demiurgic and cosmological Obviouslythe expression can be related by the exegetes of the Oracles to different enti-ties with a certain freedom but this does not allow conclusions to be drawnconcerning theOC themselves In theNeoplatonic systemsof Proclus andDam-ascius ἴυγγες συνοχεῖς and τελετάρχαι form the Ennead of the νοητοὶ ἅμα καὶνοεροί the both intelligible and intellectual divinities which collectively have aconnecting andmediating position between the superior Ennead of the intelli-gible entities and the subordinate Hebdomad of the intellectual entities How-ever this metaphysical system belongs not to the OC themselves but to theirexegesis Both the ἴυγγες as a magic wheel134 and the τελετάρχαι as (humandemonic or divine) leaders of the theurgical ritual but probably also οἱ ἐπὶμαγειῶν πατέρες135 in Damascius belong originally to the sphere of the cultIn this respect the expression διαπόρθμιος aligns perfectly with its Platonic ori-ginHowever Proclus obviously avoids applying the term to these entities them-

selves Instead he speaks of δυνάμεις (In Parm p 119936 Cousin)136 or ὄνομα(In Alc p 15012 CreuzerWesterink In Crat 71 p 3314 Pasquali) This could bean indication that OC 78 originally did not refer to the ἴυγγες137 and the τελετάρ-χαιmentioned by Proclus or more precisely not in a context that allows themto be interpreted as metaphysical entities On the other hand ὄνομαmay alsohave a ritual connotation ὀνόματαwith cultic significance are the ὀνόματα βάρ-βαρα which were used as ritual calls for mediation between gods and humans

καὶ τὰς μὲν διαπορθμίους καλέσωμεν ὅσαι τὰς τῶν ἀφομοιωτικῶν γενῶν προόδους ἐκφαίνουσιτοῖς δευτέροις (trans T Taylor)

132 Perhaps theMoirai according to Plato Republic X 617b7ndashd1 cf Festugiegravere (1953) III 33 n 2133 Cf Seng (2016d) 302ndash313134 These are regarded as demons in Zintzen (1976) 649ndash650 but without specific reasons

for the series ldquoangels Iynges evil demonsrdquo he does not offer (648) any evidence135 Cf Lewy (1956 = 2011) 139 and see above n 128136 Likewise in Proclus Theologia Platonica VI 17 p 8217 SaffreymdashWesterink and In Remp II

p 9229 Kroll137 Which is impossible first of all for grammatical reasons cf the masculine ἑστ⟨η⟩ῶτες (but

see above n 124)


in theurgy138 If however the expression διαπόρθμιος does belong to the contextof the cult then the τελετάρχαι are the grammatically appropriate reference139of OC 78 as well as οἱ ἐπὶ μαγειῶν πατέρες in Damascius whose Chaldaean ori-gin however has been shown to be questionable An additional argument forthis hypothesis would be their close association with the συνοχεῖς according toOC 177140 which corresponds to the complementary functions of the demonsaccording to Plato However as in the case of the συνοχεῖς it must remain anopen question whether the τελετάρχαι or other entities which OC 78 origi-nally referred to would have to be classified as demons according to Chaldaeanunderstanding141Proclus more clearly refers to the demons in In Alc p 6915ndash703 Creuzer

Westerink142

Diotima has assigned them this rank that binds together divine andmor-tal transmits the channels from above elevates all secondary beings tothe gods and completes the whole by the continuity of the medium

As a specific deviation fromPlato it is remarkable143 that διαπόρθμιοςhere againdenotes an action from the top downwards while the complementary direc-tion from the bottom upwards is designated by ἀναγωγός Since Proclus refersexplicitly to Plato and not to the OC oncemore a clue to the original referenceof OC 78 is wantingTo sum up although the OC are aware of the idea of beings conceived of

as διαπόρθμιοι ἑστ⟨η⟩ῶτες (OC 78) and συνοχεῖς (OC 188) in accordance with thefunctions attributed to the demons by Plato there is no evidence that theyweredesignated or thought of as demons

138 According to OC 150 (quoted above n 43) cf Zago (2010) as well as Seng (2016a) 115ndash116and (2017) 53ndash59 each with further references

139 But see above p 68140 See above p 64141 Since the τελετάρχαι are subordinated to the συνοχεῖς they could well be priests who com-

municate with them in the ritual142 Proclus InAlc p 6915ndash703 CreuzerWesterinkΔιοτίμα ταύτην αὐτοῖς ἀποδέδωκε τὴν τάξιν

τὴν συνδετικὴν τῶν θείων καὶ τῶν θνητῶν τὴν διαπόρθμιον τῶν ἄνωθεν ὀχετῶν τὴν ἀναγωγὸντῶν δευτέρων ἁπάντων εἰς τοὺς θεούς τὴν συμπληρωτικὴν τῶν ὅλων κατὰ τὴν τῆς μεσότητοςσυνοχήν (Trans Westerink modified)

143 The concept of channels as ameans of communicating the Intelligible and Life and of thesoulrsquos return is also typically Chaldaean cf Seng (2016a) 82 and n 41 In the backgroundseems to be of course Plato Timaeus 43d1

70 seng

Angels

The conjectures on the nature and activities of the angels in the OC144 dependto a very great extent on the conclusions from the Oraclesrsquo exegetical traditionAs we have seen they are anagogic and thus they are opposed to the demonswho bound by their own material orientation bind human souls to matter145Their function in the ascent of the soul is described by Proclus in the ExcerptaChaldaica as follows

How does the order of angels cause the soul to ascend By shining roundabout the soul he says That is illuminating the soul on all sides and fillingit with pure fire which gives it an unswerving order and power throughwhich it does not rush into material disorder but makes contact with thelight of the divine beings and holds it fast in its own place and causes aseparation from matter by lightening it with warm breath and causing arising up through the anagogic life For the warm breath is the sharing oflife146

The text presents some problems especially in the formulation φέγγουσα φησίπερὶ τὴν ψυχήν The text transmitted reads in abbreviated form φέρουσαhellip buta mediopassive would be expected as in the closely related text from Psellos(Opusc phil II 9 p 1719 OrsquoMeara)147 As a conjecture Jahn proposes φαίνουσαwhile Kroll proposes φέγγουσα as well as πυρί for περί For the following para-phrase φέγγω fits perfectly But since it can be used not only transitively butalso intransitively148 the second change does not seem necessary Des Placesrsquo

144 Cf Cremer (1969) 63ndash68145 See above pp 54ndash55 In Iamblichus the angels liberate the souls from the material cf

Cremer (1969) 66 and Finamore (2002) 428146 Proclus ExcerptaChaldaica p 2066ndash15 des Places [= p 13ndash10 Jahn] ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων μερὶς

πῶς ἀνάγει ψυχήν φέγγουσα φησί περὶ τὴν ψυχήν τουτέστι περιλάμπουσα αὐτὴν πανταχόθενκαὶ πλήρη ποιοῦσα τοῦ ἀχράντου πυρὸς ὃ ἐνδίδωσιν αὐτῇ τάξιν ἄκλιτον καὶ δύναμιν διrsquo ἣν οὐκἐκροιζεῖται εἰς τὴν ὑλικὴν ἀταξίαν ἀλλὰ συνάπτεται τῷ φωτὶ τῶν θείων καὶ συνέχει δὲ αὐτὴν ἐνοἰκείῳ τόπῳ καὶ ἀμιγῆ ποιεῖ πρὸς τὴν ὕλην τῷ θερμῷ πνεύματι κουφίζουσα καὶ ποιοῦσα μετέ-ωρον διὰ τῆς ἀναγωγοῦ ζωῆς τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ θερμὸν ζωῆς ἐστι μετάδοσις The text is givenaccording to des Places but without the conjecture πυρί for the transmitted περί p 2067des Places (p 14 Jahn) see below for the discussion on the text

147 While des Places uses Psellosrsquo Opusc phil II 9 as further text evidence OrsquoMeara (2013)shows that Psellos probably worked here and in Opusc phil II 38 with a longer version ofthe Excerpta

148 Cf LSJ


attempt to extract from this text an Oracles fragment (OC 122 τὴν ψυχήν φέγ-γουσα πυρί) is highly doubtful especially given that no oracle seems to be thesubject of φησί149 but rather Proclus is the subject as in Psellos Opusc philII 9 p 1718ndash19 OrsquoMeara Less improbable is to see marks of a Chaldaean for-mulation in the phrase τῷ θερμῷ πνεύματι κουφίζουσα but the version πνεύματιθερμῷ κουφίζουσα (OC 123) proposed by des Places is uncertain150 The signifi-cance of light and fire should be highlighted which are ciphers for the Divine-Intelligible in the OC151 as well as the close connection of the angels to lightand fire apparitions in Iamblichus Demysteriis152A partly similar description (without explicit reference to the OC) can al-

ready be found in Iamblichus153

By means of the godsrsquo good will and the illumination bestowed by theirlight it often goes higher and is elevated to a greater rank even to thatof the angelic order When it no longer abides in the confines of the soulthis totality is perfected in an angelic soul and an immaculate life154

What is particularly noticeable here is the transformation of the ascended soulinto an angelic soul a transformation which consistently performs the trans-position into the rank of angels In Proclus the emphasis is shifted to stressthe place155 For this there is even a Chaldaean expression (OC 138) as appearsfrom Olympiodorus who ascribed already to Plato the following doctrine

149 As des Places translates ldquodit lrsquooraclerdquo correspondingly Majercik 95 and Lanzi 97 GarciacuteaBaźan 153 translates without an explicit subject ldquose refiere tambieacuten al nombre que con-vocardquo

150 By maintaining the word sequence θερμῷ πνεύματι κουφίζουσαwould also be possible151 Evidence in des Placesrsquo and Majercikrsquos indices under πῦρ and compounds φῶς (φάος) and

πρηστήρ cf also Geudtner (1971) 66 and n 277152 Cf Cremer (1969) 65ndash66moreover 67 on the special beauty of the angels for which there

is no direct evidence in the Oraclesrsquo fragments153 Iamblichus Demysteriis II 2 p 698ndash13 Parthey = p 5125ndash526 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf

Cf Cremer (1969) 64ndash65 and Finamore (2002) 429ndash430154 Iamblichus Demysteriis II 2 p 698ndash13 Parthey = p 5125ndash526 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf

hellip διὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν θεῶν βούλησιν ἀγαθὴν καὶ τὴν ἀπrsquo αὐτῶν ἐνδιδομένην φωτὸς ἔλλαμψιν πολλά-κις καὶ ἀνωτέρω χωροῦσα ἐπὶ μείζονά τε τάξιν τὴν ἀγγελικὴν ἀναγομένηὍτε δὴ οὐκέτι τοῖς τῆςψυχῆς ὅροις ἀναμένει τὸ δrsquo ὅλον τοῦτο εἰς ἀγγελικὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἄχραντον τελειοῦται ζωήν

155 Cf also ibid p 831ndash3 Parthey = p 6214ndash15 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf ἥ γε τῶν ψυχῶνθέα τῶν μὲν ἀχράντων καὶ ἐν ἀγγέλων τάξει ἱδρυμένων ἀναγωγός ἐστι (τῶν ψυχῶν is Genitivusobiectivus)

72 seng

On theother hand heholds that even the souls of theurgists donot alwaysremain on the intelligible plane but that they too descend into genesisthose of whom the Oracle says lsquoIn the abode of the angelsrsquo156

According to Proclus and Olympiodorus this area is opposed to the sphere ofγένεσις the sublunar world of becoming and passing away Thus the place ofthe angels belongs to the supralunar celestial sphere This is confirmed by afragment fromPorphyry (Deregressuanimae fr 293F 1ndash6Smith)157wherein theangels are assigned the region of ether158 This should also correspond to a sep-arate rank in the Chaldaean hierarchy of beings In the Chaldaean-Neoplatonicsystems as summarized by Psellos159 the sequence is (godsmdash)angelsmdashde-monsmdashheroes160 The angels are integrated into the older series godsmdashde-monsmdashheroes161 Possibly this extension is due to the influence of the OC162without the series itself having to be Chaldaean163 However angels are alsopresent in the magical papyri (wherein their Jewish origin is obvious)164 andappear as subordinate gods in some pagan sources165

156 Olympiodorus In Phaedonem 10 14 8ndash10Westerink ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τὰς τῶν θεουργῶν ψυχὰςβούλεται μένειν ἀεὶ ἐν τῷ νοητῷ ἀλλὰ καὶ κατιέναι εἰς γένεσιν περὶ ὧν φησιν τὸ λόγιον lsquoἀγγελικῷἐνὶ χώρῳrsquo (Trans Westerink)

157 Augustine De civitate dei X 9 p 4169ndash14 DombartmdashKalb cf Kroll (1894) 45 The formu-lation (loca) aetheria vel empyriamay be deliberately imprecise

158 This corresponds to the τόπος ἀμφιφάων in OC 158 2 cf Seng (2005) 854ndash860 and (2010)244ndash252 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 219 equates the angels themselves with the individual partsof the place (which he identifies with the Paradise mentioned in OC 107 10 his furtherinterpretation 220ndash222 remains doubtful) On OC 107 cf Tardieu (2014) and FernaacutendezFernaacutendez (2014)

159 Psellos Opusc phil II 40 p 15020ndash23 OrsquoMeara cfmdashwithout explicit mention of thegodsmdashII 41 p 1522ndash3 OrsquoMeara and already Olympiodorus In Alc p 222ndash3 CreuzerWes-terink or more profusely Iamblichus De mysteriis I 5 p 166ndash16 Parthey = p 123ndash14SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf and Proclus In Tim III p 1653ndash16731 Kroll Cf also Lewy(1956 = 2011) 161ndash162 n 365 and 261ndash262 n 8 Timotin (2012) 153ndash158

160 Originally Chaldaean according to Cremer (1969) 39 cautiously agreeing Timotin (2012)154ndash155

161 According toPlatoCratylus 397c8ndashe1Republic III 392a3ndash6 Laws IV 717b2ndash4 cf Lewy (1956= 2011) 511 n 9 Cremer (1969) 38 as well as Cumont (1915) 170 and n 5

162 Cf Theiler (1942) 29 [= (1966) 287] Festugiegravere (1953) III 253 Cremer (1969) 39 Timotin(2012) 154ndash155 However it is already attested inOrigenesContra Celsum III 37 and VII 68although with slight modifications (ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες and ἄλλοι δαίμονες)

163 The angels are regarded in this way as the equivalent of good demons whom the evildemons always oppose in the OC see above n 56

164 Exemples are PGM IV 1930ndash1950 and 2695ndash2704165 See above n 10


A complementary function of the angels beside that of supporting theascension of souls is that of messengers of divine revelations as in Porphyry

He even said in fact that there are angels of two kinds those who comedown to earth to make divine pronouncements to theurgists and thosewho live on earth to declare the truth of the Father his height anddepth166

The reference to the theurgists appears to be based on Chaldaean doctrine orpractice167 the angels who are active on earth seem to be the theurgists them-selves in accordance with OlympiodorusIn a more specific context Proclus quotes OC 137 It is a commentary on

Platorsquos Republic X 614d1ndash3 There the Pamphylian Er who has returned fromthe OtherWorld tells of his instruction

When he himself stepped forward they said they wanted him to act as amessenger to mankind to tell them what was going on there They urgedhim to hear and observe everything which happened in that place168

This activity as a messenger or angel is compared by Proclus to the content ofthe theurgical ritual169

166 Porphyry De regressu animae fr 285F 4ndash7 Smith [= Augustine De civitate dei X 26p 44214ndash17 DombartmdashKalb] Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit qui deorsum descendenteshominibus theurgicis divina pronuntient alios autem qui in terra ea quae patris sunt etaltitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent (Translation by Wiesen) Invoking this pas-sage Zintzen (1976) 648 refers OC 18 (οἱ τὸν ὑπέρκοσμον πατρικὸν βυθὸν ἴστε νοοῦντες) tothe theurgists However according to the Neoplatonic evidence the νοεροὶ θεοί are con-cerned cf Proclus InCrat 107 p 5722ndash26 Pasquali Damascius In Parmenidem I p 201ndash2WesterinkmdashCombegravesmdashSegonds De principiis III p 1193ndash6WesterinkmdashCombegraves Cremer(1969) 65 thinks that the secondgroup comprises the archangels alone but thedistinctionbetween deorsum descendentes and in terra needs to be explained

167 The revelatory function of the angels does not seem to suggest any apparition in the wakeof gods as mentioned by Iamblichus cf Cremer (1969) 66

168 Plato Republic X 614d1ndash3 Ἑαυτοῦ δὲ προσελθόντος εἰπεῖν ὅτι δέοι αὐτὸν ἄγγελον ἀνθρώποιςγενέσθαι τῶν ἐκεῖ καὶ διακελεύοιντό οἱ ἀκούειν καὶ θεᾶσθαι πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ (Trans T Grif-fith)

169 The Er story described in the entire section of In Remp II p 1535ndash15518 Kroll is repletewith theurgical imagery Cf BrozemdashVan Liefferinge (2007) especially 329ndash333 for refer-ences to the OC in the context also Toulouse (2001) 182ndash191

74 seng

In this particular case therefore the Universe on the one hand initiatedat the proper times the soul of this Er such a blessed perfection beingrightly due to this soul on the other hand as being initiated into thisview by the Universe his soul was raised to an angelic rank In fact it isto such a class that the telestic experts of this world belong Whoever istruly hieratic ldquoshines like an angel living in powerrdquo says the Oracle Hethus becomes on the one hand the epoptes of invisible things and onthe other the messenger for the visible beings170

This description conforms to an interpretation of the ascent and descent ofsouls as described in Proclus and Olympiodorus as events of the theurgicalritual However the theurgist himself171 appears here as ἄγγελος with empha-sis not only on the ἀγγελικὴ τάξις but also on the functional aspect172However the evidence in Olympiodorus on the descent of the souls of the

theurgists from the place of the angels can also be understood differently asa claim that these souls possess the status of an angel before they descendinto the sublunary world a status which to some extent persists and is notcompletely annihilated by the descent173 The theurgists are not subject toHeimarmene (destiny) which operates below the moon174 as OC 153 makesclear

170 Proclus In Remp II p 15412ndash20 Kroll (with OC 137) καὶ δὴ ⟨καὶ τὴν⟩ τοῦἨρὸς τούτου ψυχὴνἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις ἐτέλει μὲν τὸ πᾶν κατὰ δίκην ὀφειλομένης αὐτῇ τῆς τοιαύτης εὐδαί-μονος τελειότητος ὡς δὲ πρὸς ἐκείνην τὴν ⟨θέαν⟩ ὑπὸ τοῦ παντὸς τελουμένη[ν] εἰς ἀγγελικὴνἀνήγετο τάξιν καὶ γὰρ οἱ τῇδε τελεστικοὶ τάξεώς εἰσι τοιαύτης θέει ἄγγελος ἐν δυνάμει ζῶνφησὶν τὸ λόγιον ὅστις ἐστὶν ὡς ἀληθῶς ἱερατικός γίνεται οὖν ἐπόπτης μὲν τῶν ἀφανῶν ἄγγελοςδὲ τοῖς ἐμφανέσιν ὁ αὐτός ⟨καὶ τὴν⟩ Kroll ⟨θέαν⟩ and τελουμένη[ν] Festugiegravere (1953) III 99n 2

171 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 219ndash220 thinks of the soul of a dead theurgist (ldquodisembodiedrdquo inFinamore (2002) 426) in heaven (which does not fit rightly with Proclus) but postmortalevents and rituals correspond

172 It is therefore unclear in the contextwhether this angel is running (Lewy (1956 = 2011) 223n 194) or shining (Festugiegravere des PlacesMajercik Garciacutea Bazaacuten) θέει canmean both Thelatter corresponds to the description in Excerpta Chaldaica p 2067ndash9 des Places (p 14ndash6Jahn) and the luminous appearances of the angels in Iamblichus (see above n 152) how-ever it cannot be excluded that the ambiguity is intentional

173 Lewy (1956 = 2011) 223ndash224 n 194 identifies the souls of the theurgists with the heroes(which are missing in the fragments of the OC) the evidence quoted (Proclus In Crat117 p 6825ndash26 Pasquali Psellos Opusc phil II p 15025ndash26 OrsquoMeara) however is hardlyconvincing

174 Cf Seng (2016a) 111 n 39 with the bibliography quoted there


For the theurgists do not fall into the herd which is subject to destiny175

Psellos reports the outstanding case of Julian the Theurgist the presumedauthor of the OC

[hellip] the Julians under Marcus Aurelius One was older than the other Asfor the younger if I can afford an excursus there is an anecdote namelythat his father when he was about to beget him asked the Connector oftheUniverse for an archangelic soul to constitute the substance of his sonand that after the birth of the latter he brought him into contact with allthe gods and with the soul of Plato who was in the company of Apolloand Hermes and enjoying epopteia by the means of hieratic art he ques-tioned this soul of Plato about what he wanted176

Here the soul of an angel descends from the heavenly place into the humanbody of a theurgist that is the soul of an archangel into the theurgist κατrsquoἐξοχήν177 Pre- and postmortal events correspond to those of the ritual Thisanecdote does not need to be regarded as historically reliable evidence178 in

175 OC 153 οὐ γὰρ ὑφrsquo εἱμαρτὴν ἀγέλην πίπτουσι θεουργοί176 Psellos Opusc phil I 46 43ndash51 Duffy [hellip] οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μάρκου Ἰουλιανοί ὁ μὲν γάρ τις αὐτῶν

πρεσβύτερος ἦν ὁ δὲ νεώτερος περὶ δὲ τοῦ νεωτέρου ἵνα τι μικρὸν ἐκκόψω τὸν λόγον καὶ τοι-οῦτον ἐπιθρυλλεῖται φλυάρημα ὡς ὁ πατήρ ἐπεὶ γεννῆσαι τοῦτον ἔμελλεν ἀρχαγγελικὴν ᾔτησεψυχὴν τὸν συνοχέα τοῦπαντὸςπρὸς τὴν τούτου ὑπόστασινκαὶ ὅτι γεννηθέντα τοῖς θεοῖς πᾶσι συν-έστησε καὶ τῇ Πλάτωνος ψυχῇ Ἀπόλλωνι συνδιαγούσῃ καὶ τῷ Ἑρμῇ καὶ ὅτι ταύτην ἐποπτεύωνἔκ τινος τέχνης ἱερατικῆς ἐπυνθάνετο περὶ ὧν ἐβούλετο

177 However one cannot conclude from this that in the OC themselves there is a distinctionbetween angels and archangels (aiming at the differentiation between different classes ofbeing or less specifically) as advocated by Majercik (1989) 13 Cf Cremer (1969) 64

178 Rather it has to be seen within the narrower context of the legendary tradition on theIulianoi as first documented by the church historian Sozomen (Historia Ecclesiastica I 186ndash7)mdashcf Seng (2009) 142ndash150 andAthanassiadi (2010) 203ndash208mdash andwithin thewidercontext of the anecdotal tradition on the theurgical activity of Proclus in Marinus or ofother philosophers in Eunapios In this respect there is no reason to see a late inventionin Psellos Opusc phil I 46 43ndash51 Duffy Remarkable is the role of Plato in the text nor-mally it is the gods who are said to reveal the oracles cf Hadot (1987) 27ndash29 = 44ndash46 aswell as Seng (2017) 68ndash69 This point might have been controversial among the exegetesof the OC in antiquity but perhaps the soul of Plato who dwells with the gods could beunderstood to be their mouthpiece vis-agrave-vis the human questioner In any case the ref-erence to Plato has not been introduced by Psellos himself since he states that there isa decided contrast between Graeco-Platonic and Chaldaean teaching cf Psellos Opusctheol I 23 46ndash52 Gautier and Orat for 1 287ndash295 Dennis (almost identical) on which cfSeng (2009) 134ndash135

76 seng

order to appreciate its importance as an illustration of the idea of the angelictheurgist179In summary the sources provide a close link between the angels and theur-

gists180 In the theurgical ritual the angels lead the soul of the theurgist up tothe supralunar sphere where free from every inclination towards the mate-rial world of becoming he contemplates the divine truth which he proclaimsafter his descent Thus he himself becomes an ἄγγελος a messenger that is anangel181 Similarly the soul of an angel can descend from its place and live andoperate through a human body as a theurgist182

Conclusion

The following picture emerges from the fragments of the OC which have comedown to us183 together with the interpretations of their Neoplatonic exegetesThe demons appear in the OC as evil beings who disturb the theurgical rit-

ual and bind human beings to material life They are specially related to theearth and are called dogs This expression is also applied towater and air spiritswhich therefore also seem to be evil and are regarded as ἄλογοι They stand in a(traditionally given) relationship to Hecate or to theMoon which occupies the

179 The role of the younger Julian in these interrogations of the gods has been interpreted tobe that of a spiritual medium by Saffrey (1981 = 1990) 218ndash220 following Dodds (1947) 56and 65ndash69 [= (1957) 284 and 295ndash299] and (1965) 56ndash57 similarly Athanassiadi (1999)151ndash152 and (2006) 48ndash54 The production of the OC could have been staged or imaginedas such a collaboration between father and son

180 Cf Lewy (1956 = 2011) 260ndash262181 Gallavotti (1977) 101 goes certainly too far by supposing that the ἄγγελοι in the oracle of

Oinoanda v 3 (alsoTheosophiαsect13 108Erbse = I 2 29Beatrice andLactantius InstitutionesI 7 1 v 3) are to be understood as Chaldaean theurgists The speaker belongs to the groupof the lower gods who are a subordinate part of God μικρὰ δὲ θεοῦ μερὶς ἄγγελοι ἡμεῖςcf also Pricoco (1987) 21ndash23 The text is not Chaldaean anyway cf Seng (2016b) 160ndash163with further bibliography

182 Whether the theurgical souls are to be assigned the ldquostatusrdquo or ldquosubstancerdquo of an angel(or whether such a distinction exists in the OC) cannot be decided from the existing frag-ments cf Finamore (2002) 427 and 432

183 OC 215 (dubium) mentions two classes of demons which are attributed to man in pairsand dispense good and evil to him in this they can be influenced by human action Thisidea has nothing in common with the evidence that has been analysed Whereas formalaspects do not suggest a Chaldaean origin the quotation as χρησμός and not as λόγιονspeaks strongly against it Cf Seng (2016e)


cosmological rank above themWhether in addition there are good elementalor nature spirits cannot be decided at best this could be applied to the ὕπαυγοιdirectly belonging to themoon whichmay be associated with fire That the OCshould call such beings demons is however improbable given that the mean-ing of the expression is always negative in the testimonies The idea of demonsas mediating beings according to Plato Symposium 202d13ndash203a8 is taken upby the cosmologically effective συνοχεῖς as well as by the adjective διαπόρθμιοςwhose reference however remains unclear Whether these middle-beings aredemons according toChaldaeanunderstanding andparlance is difficult to saybut once again unlikely Angels are closely connected to the ascent of souls aswell as to theurgists who accomplish it rituallyWhether they can be reckonedto be good demons or are explicitly not to be counted as a group of demonsmust remain an open question184

Bibliography

Primary SourcesApollonii Rhodii Argonautica recognovit bevique adnotatione critica instruxit H Fraumln-kel Oxford 1961

Sancti Aurelii Augustini episcopi De civitate dei libri XXII recognoverunt B Dombart etA Kalb Leipzig 41929 (repr Darmstadt 1981)

Saint AugustineThe city of Godagainst the pagans in seven volumes Books VIIIndashXIwithan English translation by DS Wiesen LondonmdashCambridge (Mass) 1968

Saint Basile Lettres texte eacutetabli et traduit par Y Courtonne III Paris 1966Collouthos Lrsquoenlegravevement drsquoHeacutelegravene texte eacutetabli et traduit par P Orsini Paris 22002Damascius Traiteacutes des premiers principes texte eacutetabli par LGWesterink et traduit parJ Combegraves IndashIII Paris 1986ndash1991

Damascius Commentaire du Parmeacutenide de Platon t I texte eacutetabli par LG Westerink(dagger) introduit traduit et annoteacute par J Combegraves Paris 1997 t II texte eacutetabli parLGWesterink (dagger) introduit traduit et annoteacute par J Combegraves Paris 1997 t III texteeacutetabli par LG Westerink introduit traduit et annoteacute par J Combegraves avec la colla-boration deA-P Segonds Paris 2002 t IV texte eacutetabli par LGWesterink introduittraduit et annoteacute par J Combegraves avec la collaboration de A-P Segonds et de C LunaParis 2003

The Greek Commentaries on Platorsquos Phaedo vol II Damascius LG Westerink Amster-dammdashOxfordmdashNew York 1977 (VVAWW Nieuwe Reeks 93)

Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita De coelesti hierarchia De ecclesiastica hierarchia De

184 Translated into English from the German original by Andrei Timotin

78 seng

mystica theologia Epistulae herausgegeben von G Heil dagger und AM Ritter BerlinmdashNew York 1991 (Patristische Texte und Studien 36)

Ephraem Aenii Historia Chronica recensuit O Lampsides Athens 1990Eusegravebe de Ceacutesareacutee Histoire eccleacutesiastique Livres VndashVII texte grec traduction et anno-tation par G Bardy Paris 1955 (SC 41)

Gregorios Antiochos 25 unedierte byzantinische Grabreden herausgegeben von A Si-deras Thessaloniki 1990

Gregorios Palamas Συγγράμματα vol I Λόγοι ἀποδεικτικοί Ἀντεπιγραφαί Ἐπιστολαὶ πρὸςΒαρλάαμ ἐκδίδουν B Bobrinsky Π Παπαευαγγέλου J Meyendorff Π Χρήστου Thes-saloniki 21988 vol IV Δογματικαὶ πραγματεῖαι καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ γραφεῖσαι κατὰ τὰ ἔτη 1348ndash1358 προλογίζει ΠΚ Χρήστου ἐκδίδουν ΠΚ Χρήστου ΒΔ Φανουργάκης ΒΣ Ψευ-τογκάς Thessaloniki 1988

Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der roumlmischen Kaiserzeit gesammelt und heraus-gegeben von E Heitsch Bd I Goumlttingen 21963 (AAWG III 49)

Homeri Ilias edidit TW Allen III Oxford 1931Jamblique Reacuteponse agrave Porphyre (De mysteriis) texte eacutetabli et traduit par HD Saffrey etA-P Segonds dagger avec la collaboration de A Lecerf Paris 2013

Iamblichus On the Mysteries Translated with Introduction and Notes by EC ClarkeJMDillon and JPHershbell Atlanta 2003 (Writings from theGraeco-RomanWorld4)

Joannes ItalosQuaestionesquodlibetales (ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις) editio princeps vonP Joan-nou Ettal 1956 (Studia patristica et Byzantina 4)

Ioannis Lydi Liber de mensibus edidit R Wuensch Leipzig 1898 (repr Stuttgart 1967)Lactantius Divinarum institutionum libri septem Fasciculus 1 Libri I et II edideruntE Heck et AWlosok BerlinmdashNew York 2005

Leonis Diaconi Caloeumlnsis Historiae libri decem et liber de velitatione bellica NicephoriAugusti e recensione CB Hasii addita eiusdem versione atque annotationibus abipso recgnitis Bonn 1828

Συκουτρής Ι (1933) ldquoἈνέκδοτον ἐγκώμιον εἰς Βασίλειον τον Β᾿rdquoἘπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντι-νῶν Σπουδῶν 10 426ndash430

ΜιχαὴλἈκομινάτου τοῦ Χωνιάτου τὰ σωζόμενα τὰ πλεῖστα ἐκδιδόμενα νῦν τὸ πρῶτον κατὰ τοὺςἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ Ὀξωνίῳ Παρισίοις καὶ Βιέννῃ κώδικας ὑπὸ ΣΠ Λαμπροῦ Athens 1879

Michel Italikos Lettres et discours eacutediteacutes par P Gautier Paris 1972 (Archives de lrsquoorientchreacutetien 14)

Niceacutephore Bryennios Histoire introduction texte traduction et notes par P GautierBruxelles 1975

Nicetae Choniatae Historia recensuit IA van Dieten IndashII BerlinmdashNew York 1975Nonni Panopolitani Dionysiaca recognovit A Keydell IndashII Berlin 1959The Greek Commentarys on Platorsquos Phaedo vol I Olympiodorus LG Westerink Am-sterdammdashOxfordmdashNew York 1976 (VVAWW Nieuwe Reeks 92)


Olympiodorus Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato critical text and indices byLGWesterink Amsterdam 1956

Oracles Chaldaiumlques avec un choix de commentaires anciens texte eacutetabli et traduit parEacute des Places troisiegraveme tirage revue et corrigeacute par A-P Segonds Paris 1996 (11971)

The Chaldean Oracles text translation and commentary by R Majercik Leiden 1989(SGRR 5)

Oraacuteculos Caldeos con una seleccioacuten de testimonios de Proclo Pselo y M Italico Numeniode Apamea introducciones traducciones y notas de F Garciacutea Bazaacuten Madrid 1991

Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII edidit M Marcovich LeidenmdashBostonmdashKoumlln 2001(VChr Suppl 54)

Orphicorum fragmenta collegit O Kern Berlin 1922 (21963)Poetae epici Graeci testimonia et fragmenta pars II Orphicorum et Orphicis similiumtestimonia et fragmenta fasciculus 1 edidit A Bernabeacute MuumlnchenmdashLeipzig 2004

Papyri Graecae Magicae Die griechischen Zauberpapyri herausgegeben und uumlbersetztvon K Preisendanz zweite verbesserte Auflage mit Ergaumlnzungen von K Preisen-danz durchgesehen und herausgegeben von A Henrichs Stuttgart 1973

Photii Patriarchae Lexicon edidit C Theodoridis II BerlinmdashNew York 1998Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis Pars II Fragmenta Indices edidit HMaehler Leipzig1989

Plato Opera I recognoverunt brevique adnotatione critica instruxerunt EA DukemdashWF HickenmdashWSM NicollmdashDB RobinsonmdashJCG Strachan Oxford 1995

Plato Opera recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit I Burnet IndashV Oxford1899ndash1907 (repr 1967)

Plato The Republic edited by GRF Ferrari translated by T Griffith Cambridge 2000Pline lrsquoAncien Histoire naturelle Livre XXXVII texte eacutetabli traduit et commenteacute parE de Saint-Denis Paris 1972

Porphyry De lrsquoabstinence t I Introduction par J Bouffartigue et M Patillon Livre Itexte eacutetabli et traduit par J Bouffartigue Paris 1977 t II Livres II et III texte eacutetabliet traduit par J Bouffartigue et M Patillon Paris 1979

Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta edidit A Smith fragmenta Arabica D Wassersteininterpretante StuttgartmdashLeipzig 1993

Porphyry Lettre agrave Aneacutebon lrsquoEacutegyptien texte eacutetabli traduit et commenteacute par HD Saffreyet A-P Segonds Paris 2012

Eclogae e Proclo de philosophia Chaldaica sive de doctrina oraculorum Chaldaicorumnunc primum edidit et commentatus est A Iahnius Halle 1891

PhilosophiaChaldaica ExtraitsducommentairedeProclus sur laphilosophie chaldaiumlqueinOracles Chaldaiumlques avec un choix de commentaires anciens texte eacutetabli et traduitpar Eacute des Places 206ndash212

Procli hymni edidit E Vogt Wiesbaden 1957Proclusrsquo Hymns Essays Translations Commentary by RM van den Berg LeidenmdashBostonmdashKoumlln 2001 (PhA 90)

80 seng

Proclus Sur le premier Alcibiade de Platon texte eacutetabli et traduit par A-P Segonds IndashIIParis 1985ndash1986

ProcliDiadochi inPlatonisCratylumcommentaria ediditG Pasquali Leipzig 1908 (reprStuttgartmdashLeipzig 1994)

Procli in Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria edidit C Steel IndashIII Oxford 2007ndash2009Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam commentarii edidit G Kroll IndashII Leipzig1899ndash1901 (repr Amsterdam 1965)

Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria edidit E Diehl IndashIII Leipzig 1903ndash1906 (repr Amsterdam 1965)

Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Timaeus Volume V Book 4 Proclus on Time and theStars translated with an introduction and notes by D Baltzly Cambridge 2013

Proclus Theacuteologie Platonicienne texte eacutetabli et traduit par HD Saffrey et LG West-erink IndashVI Paris 1968ndash1997

The six books of Proclus the Platonic successor on the theology of Plato translated fromthe Greek by T Taylor London 1816 (repr Proclus The theology of Plato translatedby T Taylor Frome 1999)

Patrizia Marzillo Der Kommentar des Proklos zu Hesiods bdquoWerken und Tagenldquo EditionUumlbersetzung und Erlaumluterung der Fragmente Tuumlbingen 2010

Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora I edidit JM Duffy StuttgartmdashLeipzig 1992 IIedidit DJ OrsquoMeara Leipzig 1989

Michaelis Pselli scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita edidit recognovitqueE Kurtz ex schedis eius relictis in lucem emisit F Drexl II Milano 1941

Michaelis Pselli theologica I edidit P Gautier Leipzig 1989Michaelis Pselli Orationes forenses et acta edidit GT Dennis StuttgartmdashLeipzig 1994Michele PselloOracoli caldaici conappendici su Proclo eMichele Italo a cura di S LanziMilano 2001

Michael Psellus De operatione daemonum cum notis Gaulmini curante JF Boissonadeaccedunt inedita opuscula Pselli Nuumlrnberg 1838

Gautier P (1980) ldquoLe De daemonibus du Pseudo-PsellosrdquoRevue des eacutetudes byzantines38 105ndash194

Scholia in Theocritum vetera recensuit C Wendel Leipzig 1914L Annaei Senecae naturalium quaestionum libros recognovit HM Hine StuttgartmdashLeipzig 1996

Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte herausgegeben von J Bidez (dagger) eingeleitet zumDruckbesorgt undmit Registern versehen von GC Hansen zweite durchgesehene Aufla-ge Berlin 1995 (GCS NF 4)

Suidae Lexicon edidit A Adler IndashV Leipzig 1928ndash1938 (Lexicographi Graeci 1)Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων texts of the original version and of MS B edited by IC Cun-ningham BerlinmdashNew York 2003

Synesii Cyrenensis Opuscula N Terzaghi recensuit Roma 1944


Synesii Cyrenensis Epistolae A Garzya recensuit Roma 1979Theocritus edited with a translation and commentary by ASF Gow IndashII Cambridge21962

Theosophorum Graecorum fragmenta iterum recensuit H Erbse StuttgartmdashLeipzig1995

Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia an Attempt at Reconstruction by P Beatrice Lei-denmdashBostonmdashKoumlln 2001 (VChr Suppl 56)

Iohannis Zonarae lexicon ex tribus codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum edidit obser-vationibus illustravit et indicibus instruxit JAH Tittmann IndashII Leipzig 1808 (reprAmsterdam 1967)

Secondary LiteratureAthanassiadi P (1999) ldquoThe Chaldaean Oracles Theology and Theurgyrdquo in Athanas-siadi P Frede M (ed) PaganMonotheism in Late Antiquity Oxford 149ndash183

Athanassiadi P (2006) La lutte pour lrsquoothodoxie dans le platonisme tardif DeNumeacuteniusagrave Damascius Paris

Athanassiadi P (2010) ldquoJulian the Theurgist Man or Mythrdquo in Seng H TardieuM (ed) Die ChaldaeischenOrakel KontextmdashInterpretationmdashRezeption Heidelberg(Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2) 193ndash208

Belayche N (2001) IudaeamdashPalaestina The pagan cults in RomanPalastine TuumlbingenBelayche N (2010) ldquoAngeloi in Religious Practices of the Imperial RomanEastrdquoHenoch32 44ndash65

Boumlcher O (1981) ldquoDaumlmonen IV Neues Testamentrdquo Theologische Realenzyklopaumldie VIII279ndash286

Boumlcher O (1982) ldquoEngel IV Neues Testamentrdquo Theologische Realenzyklopaumldie IX 596ndash599

Brenk FE (1986) ldquoIn the Light of theMoon Demonology in the Early Imperial PeriodrdquoAufstieg und Niedergang der RoumlmischenWelt II 163 2068ndash2145

Broze M Van Liefferige C (2007) ldquoEr le Pamphylien ange et messager De lrsquoacircmeangeacutelique chez Jamblique et Proclusrdquo Revue des Sciences philosophiques et theacuteolo-giques 91 323ndash334

Busine A (2005) Paroles drsquoApollon Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans lrsquoAntiquiteacutetardive (IIendashVIe siegravecles) LeidenmdashBoston (RGRW 156)

Cline R (2011) AncientAngelsConceptualizingAngeloi in theRomanEmpire LeidenmdashBoston (RGRW 172)

Cremer FW (1969) Die chaldaumlischen Orakel und Jamblich De Mysteriis Meisenheim(BzKPh 26)

Cumont F (1915) ldquoLes anges dupaganismerdquoRevuede lrsquoHistoire desReligions 72 159ndash182Deacutetienne M (1963) De la penseacutee religieuse agrave la penseacutee philosophique La notion de dai-mon dans le pythagorisme ancien Paris

82 seng

Dodds ER (1947) ldquoTheurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonismrdquo JRS 37 55ndash69 [=Dodds ER The Greeks and the irrational Berkeley 1951 284ndash299]

Dodds ER (1965) Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety Some aspects of religiousexperience fromMarcus Aurelius to Constantine Cambridge

Faust M (1970) ldquoDie kuumlnstlerische Verwendung von κύων lsquoHundrsquo in den homerischenEpenrdquo Glotta 48 8ndash31

Fernaacutendez Fernaacutendez A (2014) ldquoEn buacutesqueda del paraiacuteso caldaicordquo rsquoIlu Revista deCiencias de las Religiones 18 57ndash94

Festugiegravere AJ (1953) La reacuteveacutelation drsquoHermegraves Trismeacutegiste III ParisFestugiegravere AJ (1954) La reacuteveacutelation drsquoHermegraves Trismeacutegiste IV ParisFinamore JF (2002) ldquo lsquoIn angelic spacersquo Chaldaean Oracles fr 138 and Iamblichusrdquo inBarbanti M Giardina G Manganaro P (ed) Ἕνωσις καὶ φιλία Unione e amiciziaOmaggio a Francesco Romano Catania 425ndash432

Gallavotti C (1977) ldquoUnrsquoepigrafe teosofica ad Enoanda nel quadro della teurgia cal-daicardquoPhilologus 21 95ndash105

Geudtner O (1971) Die Seelenlehre der chaldaumlischen Orakel Meisenheim (BzKPh 35)Groumlzinger KE (1982) ldquoEngel III Judentumrdquo Theologische Realenzyklopaumldie IX 586ndash596

GrundmannW (1933) ldquoἄγγελος A ἄγγελος im Griechentum und Hellenismusrdquo Theolo-gischesWoumlrterbuch zum Neuen Testament I 72ndash75

Hadot P (1987) ldquoTheacuteologie exeacutegegravese reacuteveacutelation eacutecriture dans la philosophie grecquerdquoin M Tardieu (ed) Les regravegles de lrsquo interpreacutetation Paris 13ndash34 [= Hadot P Eacutetudes dephilosophie ancienne Paris 1998 27ndash58]

Johnston SI (1990) Hekate Soteira A study of Hekatersquos roles in the Chaldean Oraclesand related literature Atlanta (American Classical Studies 21) 134ndash142

Kallis A (1976) ldquoGeister C IIrdquoReallexikon fuumlr Antike und Christentum IX col 700ndash715Kittel G (1933) ldquoἄγγελος C Die Engellehre des Judentums D ἄγγελος im NTrdquo Theologi-schesWoumlrterbuch zum Neuen Testament I 79ndash86

Klauser T (1962) ldquoEngel XrdquoReallexikon fuumlr Antike und Christentum V col 258ndash322Kroll W (1894) De oraculis Chaldaicis Breslau (BphA VII 1) (repr with addendumHildesheim 1962)

LameereW (1949) ldquoAu temps ougrave Franz Cumont srsquo interrogeait sur AristoterdquoLrsquoAntiquiteacuteclassique 18 279ndash324

Lecerf A Saudelli L (2016) ldquo lsquoSourcesrsquo et lsquoprincipesrsquo universaliteacute et particulariteacute danslesOracles Chaldaiumlquesrdquo in Seng H Sfameni Gasparro G (ed)TheologischeOrakelin der Spaumltantike Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5) 47ndash88

Lewy H (1956) Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy Mysticism Magic and Platonism in theLaterRomanEmpire LeCaire (TroisiegravemeeacuteditionparMTardieu avecun suppleacutementlaquoLes Oracles chaldaiumlques 1891ndash2011raquo Paris 2011)

Loth H-J (1993) ldquoHundrdquoReallexikon fuumlr Antike und Christentum XVI col 773ndash828


Michl J (1962) ldquoEngel IndashIXrdquoReallexikon fuumlr Antike und Christentum V col 53ndash258Moreschini C (1995) ldquoIl demone nella cultura pagana dellrsquoetagrave imperialerdquo in Pricoco S(ed) Il demonio e i suoi complici Soveria Mannelli 90ndash110

OrsquoMeara DJ (2013) ldquoPsellosrsquo Commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles and Proclusrsquo lostCommentaryrdquo in Seng H (ed) Platonismus undEsoterik in byzantinischemMittelal-ter und italienischer Renaissance Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 3) 2013 45ndash56

Pricoco S (1987) ldquoUn oracolo di Apollo su diordquo Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa23 3ndash36

Rad G von (1933) ldquoἄγγελος B ךאלמ im ATrdquo TheologischesWoumlrterbuch zumNeuenTesta-ment I 75ndash79

Robert L (1971) ldquoUn oracle graveacute agrave Oinoandardquo Comptes rendus de lrsquoAcadeacutemie desInscriptions et Belles Lettres 597ndash619 [= Robert L Opera minora selecta V Amster-dam 1989 617ndash639]

Saffrey HD (1969) ldquoNouveauxOracles chaldaiumlques dans les scholies du Paris Gr 1853rdquoRevue de philologie 43 59ndash72

Saffrey HD (1981) ldquoLes Neacuteoplatoniciens et les Oracles ChaldaiumlquesrdquoRevue des EacutetudesAugustiniennes 27 209ndash225 [= Saffrey HD Recherches sur le neacuteoplatonisme apregravesPlotin Paris 1990 63ndash79]

Saffrey HD (1992) ldquoAccorder entre elles les traditions theologiques une characteacuteris-tique du neacuteoplatonisme atheacutenienrdquo in Bos EP Meijer PA (ed) On Proclus and hisinfluence in medieval philosophy LeidenmdashNew YorkmdashKoumlln 35ndash50 [= Saffrey HDLe neacuteoplatonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 2000 143ndash158]

Saffrey HD (1999) ldquoΣημεῖονsignum dans la litteacuterature neacuteoplatonicienne et la theacuteur-gierdquo in Signum IX Colloquio Internazionale [del lessico intellettuale europeo] Roma8ndash10 gennaio 1998 a cura di ML Bianchi 23ndash38 [= Saffrey HD Le neacuteoplatonismeapregraves Plotin Paris 2000 127ndash141]

Scholz H (1937) Der Hund in der griechisch-roumlmischenMagie und Religion BerlinSeebaszlig H (1982) ldquoEngel II Altes Testamentrdquo Theologische Realenzyklopaumldie IX 583ndash586

SengH (1996)Untersuchungen zumVokabular und zurMetrik in denHymnendes Syne-sios Frankfurt aM (Patrologia 4)

Seng H (2005) ldquoDer Koumlrper des Theurgenrdquo in Pagani e cristiani alla ricerca dellasalvezza XXXIV Incontro di studiosi dellrsquoantichitagrave cristiana Roma 5ndash7 maggio 2005Roma 849ndash860

Seng H (2009) ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ ΑΖΩΝΟΙ ΖΩΝΑΙΟΙ Drei Begriffe chaldaeischer Kosmologieund ihr Fortleben Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 1)

Seng H (2010) ldquoἈμφιφαής Facetten einer chaldaeischenVokabelrdquo in Seng H TardieuM (ed) Die ChaldaeischenOrakel KontextmdashInterpretationmdashRezeption Heidelberg(Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2) 235ndash254

Seng H (2015) ldquoΠΑΤΡΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΥΛΗ Au sujet du dualisme dans les Oracles Chal-

84 seng

daiumlquesrdquo in Jourdan F Vasiliu A (ed) Dualismes Doctrines religieuses et traditionsphilosophiques Paris [= Chocircra Revue drsquoeacutetudes anciennes et meacutedieacutevales Hors-seacuterie 2015] 279ndash304

Seng H (2016a)Un livre sacreacute de lrsquoAntiquiteacute tardive LesOracles Chaldaiumlques Turnhout(Bibliothegraveque de lrsquoEacutecole des Hautes Eacutetudes 170)

Seng H (2016b) ldquoTheologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritualrdquo in Seng HSfameni Gasparro G (ed) Theologische Orakel in der Spaumltantike Heidelberg (Bi-bliotheca Chaldaica 5) 145ndash170

Seng H (2016c) ldquoOC 216 (dubium) des Placesmdashfr Orph 353 Kern Probleme undInterpretationenrdquo in Soares Santoprete LG Van den Kerchove A (ed) Des oasisdrsquoEacutegypte agrave la Route de la Soie Hommage agrave Jean-Daniel Dubois Turnhout (Biblio-thegraveque de lrsquoEacutecole des Hautes Eacutetudes 176) 811ndash826

Seng H (2016d) ldquoἼυγγες συνοχεῖς τελετάρχαι in den Chaldaeischen Orakelnrdquo in SengH Soares Santoprete LG Tommasi CO (ed) Formen und Nebenformen des Pla-tonismus in der Spaumltantike Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 6) 293ndash316

Seng H (2016e) ldquoEin Orakelzitat bei Johannes Lydos De mensibus 4 101 p 141 1ndash11Wuensch (OC 215 dubium des Places)rdquoΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ 40 89ndash106

Seng H (2017) ldquoLangage des dieux et langage des hommes dans les Oracles Chal-daiumlquesrdquo in Soares Santoprete LG Hoffmann P (ed) Langage des dieux langagedes deacutemons langage des hommes dans lrsquoAntiquiteacute Turnhout (Recherches sur lesrheacutetoriques religieuses 26) 53ndash78

Seng H (2018) ldquoIlias 14 291 und die Chaldaeischen Orakelrdquo in Seng H Soares Santo-prete LG Tommasi CO (ed) Hierarchie und Ritual Zur philosophischen Spiritu-alitaumlt der Spaumltantike Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 7) 251ndash257

Shaw G (1988) ldquoTheurgy as Demiurgy Iamblichusrsquo Solution to the Problem of Embod-imentrdquoDionysius 12 37ndash53

Sheppard ARR (19801981) ldquoPagan cult of angels in RomanAsiaminorrdquoTalanta 121377ndash101

Tanaseanu-Doumlbler I (2013) Theurgy in Late Antiquity The Invention of a Ritual Tradi-tion Goumlttingen (Beitraumlge zur Europaumlischen Religionsgeschichte 1)

Tanaseanu-Doumlbler I (2016) ldquo lsquoDenn auf der Erde koumlnnen sie sich nicht aufhalten son-dernnur auf heiliger Erdersquo Bemerkungen zumVerhaumlltnis derGoumltter zurMaterialitaumltin Porphyriosrsquo Philosophia ex oraculis hauriendardquo in Seng H Sfameni Gasparro G(ed) Theologische Orakel in der Spaumltantike Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5)171ndash204

Tardieu M (1987) ldquoPleacutethon lecteur des OraclesrdquoMecirctis 2 141ndash164Tardieu M (2010) ldquoLrsquooracle de la pierre mnouzirisrdquo in Seng H Tardieu M (ed)Die Chaldaeischen Orakel KontextmdashInterpretationmdashRezeption Heidelberg (Biblio-theca Chaldaica 2) 93ndash108

Tardieu M (2014) ldquoLe paradis chaldaiumlquerdquo in Lecerf A Saudelli L Seng H (ed)


Oracles chaldaiumlques fragments et philosophie Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 4)15ndash29

Terzaghi N (1904) ldquoSul commento di Niceforo Gregora al ΠΕΡΙ ΕΝΥΠΝΙΩΝ di SinesiordquoStudi italiani di filologia classica 12 181ndash217 [= Terzaghi N Studia Graeca et LatinaIndashII Torino 1963 602ndash638]

TheilerW (1942)Die chaldaumlischenOrakel unddieHymnendes Synesios Halle (SKGG 181) [= Theiler W Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus Berlin 1966 (QSGPh 10) 252ndash301]

Timotin A (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōn dePlaton aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens LeidenmdashBoston (Philosophia Antiqua 128)

Tissi LM (2013) ldquoUn oracolo tratto da Porfirio nella Teosofia di Tubinga (sect27 Erbse =I 24 Beatrice)rdquo in Gigli Piccardi D Magnelli E (ed) Studi di poesia greca tardoan-tica Firenze 37ndash64

Toulouse S (2001) ldquoQue le vrai sacrifice est celui drsquoun cœur pur Agrave propos drsquoun ora-cle lsquoporphyrienrsquo dans le liber XXI sententiarum eacutediteacute parmi les œuvres drsquoAugustinrdquoRecherches Augustiniennes 32 169ndash223

Vermaseren MJ Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis Mithraicae IndashIIThe Hague 1956ndash1960

terVrugt-Lentz J (1976) ldquoGeister IIrdquoReallexikon fuumlrAntikeundChristentum IX col 598ndash615

Werth N (2006) Hekate Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Goumlttin Hamburg (Anti-quitates 37)

Williams G (2012)The cosmic viewpoint A Study of SenecarsquosNaturalQuestions OxfordZago M (2010) ldquolaquoNon cambiare mai i nomi barbariraquo (Oracoli Caldaici fr 150 desPlaces)rdquo in Seng H Tardieu M (ed) Die Chaldaeischen Orakel KontextmdashInterpre-tationmdashRezeption Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2) 109ndash143

Zintzen C (1976) ldquoGeister BIIIcrdquoReallexikon fuumlr Antike und Christentum IX col 647ndash652


What is a Daimon for Porphyry

Luc Brisson

Porphyry seems to have been the first to situate the particularly complex entityknown as ldquodemonrdquo within a complete theological system He takes his inspi-ration from Plotinus who was himself strongly inspired by the Stoics whileremaining faithful to Plato

Before Porphyry

In epic poems in the Homeric Hymns in tragedy and in the Orphic poems theterm δαίμων frequently appears as a synonymof θεός1 this connection betweenthe two terms is also obvious in Porphyry In epic poems δαίμων can designatean indeterminate divine power that unleashes the wind on the sea2 or thatinspires reckless thoughts3 a divinity linked to chance4 and fate5 In the trage-dians one finds a representation of the δαίμων as a vengeful spirit6 Finally theterm δαίμων could be considered as the posthumous title of some exceptionalmen7In Plato the term designates an entity intermediary between the gods and

theworldwhose task it is to administer it as in themyth told in the Statesman8or in the Symposium9 between the gods and human beings Particularly bymeans of oracles the demon transmits the godsrsquo instructions to human beingsthey also convey the prayers of human beings up to the gods We can there-fore understand why Eros appears as the ideal intermediary between the godsandhumanbeings betweenhumanbeings in the context of amorous relations

I would like to thank Michael Chase for translating this article into English1 For systematic references see Timotin (2012) This book was very useful to me2 Odyssey XIX 201 XII 1693 Iliad IX 6004 Odyssey XVIII 256 XIX 1295 Euripides Orestes 15456 Aeschylus Persians 619ndash621 in particular7 In the myth of the races Hesiod (Works and days 121ndash126) grants the men of the Golden Age

the title of δαίμονες See Platorsquos adaptation of this myth in Republic iii 415andashc8 Plato Statesman 271cndash274d9 Plato Symposium 203andashe

what is a daimon for porphyry 87

and finally within the human being between the body and the soul To thisprocess of mediation one may connect the assimilation in the human soul ofthe intellect to a δαίμων for the intellect is the activity that makes possible theestablishment of a linkbetween thedivine and thehumanbeing assimilated toa celestial plant10 whose roots are in the head Also associated with this δαίμωνis the notion of happiness called εὐδαιμονία in ancient Greek literally ldquowhoseδαίμων (the intellect) is in a good shaperdquo Finally the demonic sign that divinevoice that prevents Socrates from acting in certain circumstances is connectedwith this intermediary11In the Epinomis12 a treatise attributed to Plato but which is not by him one

finds the first attempt to establish a hierarchy among divine beings in whichthe δαίμονες find their place The general thesis defended by the author of theEpinomis is the following philosophy is identified with astronomy which isdefined as the science of the heavenly bodies considered as the highest divinebeings towhichmoreover a cultmust be rendered In this context demons aresituated between the visible gods that is the stars and human beings They aremadeof either ether or air13 If webelievePlutarch14moreoverXenocrates sec-ond head of the older Academy considered demons to be intermediary beingsin the manner of the Symposium but associated themwith the isosceles trian-gle in reference to the Timaeus15With the renewal of Platonism at the beginning on the Roman Empire

which can be defined as a rejection of the aristotelianised and stoicised inter-pretation of Plato promoted by the New Academy demonology assumes con-siderable importance For Philo of Alexandria16 the entire universe is providedwith souls and the souls in the air are precisely the angels of which Genesis

10 Plato Timaeus 90a ldquoNowwe ought to think of themost sovereign part of our soul as godrsquosgift to us given to be our guiding spirit This of course is the type of soul that as wemain-tain resides in the top part of our bodies It raises us up away from the earth and towardwhat is akin to us in heaven as though we are plants grown not from the earth but fromheaven In saying this we speak absolutely correctly For it is fromheaven the placewhichour souls were originally born that the divine part suspends our head ie our root andso keeps our whole body erectrdquo (trans DJ Zeyl)

11 See Brisson (2005a)12 Ps-Plato Epinomis 984dndash985b13 Ps-Plato Epinomis 984endash985a14 Plutarch De facie in orbe lunae 943endash944a15 Plato Timaeus 31bndash32b The gods are represented by the equilateral triangle the δαίμο-

νες by the isosceles triangle and human beings by the scalene triangle (see Plutarch Dedefectu oraculorum 416c4ndashd4)

16 Philo De gigantibus 6ndash18 De somniis I 134ndash143 De plantatione 12ndash13

88 brisson

63 speaks which are to be identified with the demons mentioned by theGreek philosophers Such demons are the instruments of divine providencewhich excludes the existence of evil demons For his part Apuleius17 estab-lishes a twofold hierarchy among living beings physical and theological Onehas four parts fire air earth and water while the other has three comprisingthe supreme god the star-gods and the demons Different degrees of prov-idence correspond to this hierarchy The approach is similar in Maximus ofTyre18 In contrast Alcinoos in his handbook intended for teaching Platorsquos doc-trines the Didaskalikos does not seem to have shown any particular interest indemonology He does not establish a twofold hierarchy physical and theologi-cal among living beings and does not connect the doctrine of the demonswiththat of providence19

In Porphyry

Porphyryrsquos theological system20 takes its inspiration from that of Plotinus butis much more systematic

The First GodAccording to Porphyryrsquos treatise On Abstinence from Killing Animals21 at thesummit of the hierarchy is the first god ldquoThe first god being incorporealunmoved and indivisible22 neither contained in anything nor bound by him-self23 needs nothing external as has been said24rdquo25 In Porphyry this god seemsto have been less separate from the Intellect and hence from the Soul than the

17 Apuleius De dogm Platon I 11 De deo Socratis I 116 IIndashIII 121ndash12418 Maximus of Tyre Discourse VIII and IX19 Alcinoos Didaskalikos 17115ndash2020 Described in the De Abstinentia this system seems to be the one defended in the Letter to

Anebo the Egyptian (ed Saffrey-Segonds Premiegravere partie Les ecirctres supeacuterieurs fragments2ndash32) On this subject see Porphyre De lrsquoabstinence ed Bouffartigue-Patillon vol I xxixndashxliv

21 Porphyry On Abstinence from Killing Animals trans G Clark We also use Porphyre Delrsquoabstinence eacuted Bouffartigue-Patillon The De Abstinentia is here abreviated DA and theEnglish translation is G Clarkrsquos sometimes modified

22 These are the predicates of the incorporeal see Porphyry Sentences 1ndash323 The incorporeal is everywhere and nowhere see Porphyry Sentence 3124 DA I 57 3 Naturally the first god is self-sufficient25 DA II 37 1


One-Good of Plotinus26 The typical formula that qualifies him is ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι(ldquohe who is above all thingsrdquo)27 The priest of this supreme god is the philoso-pher28 The appropriate cult for this god is quite naturally silence ldquoTo the godwho rules over all as a wiseman said29 we shall offer nothing perceived by thesenses either by burning or inwords For there is nothingmaterial which is notimpure to the immaterial So even logos expressed in speech is not appropriatefor him nor yet internal logos when it has been contaminated by the passionof the soul30 But we shall worship him in pure silence and with pure thoughtsabout himrdquo31 This very fine text may be compared to this other passage ldquoSoinasmuch as the father of all is simpler and purer and more self-sufficientbeing established far from thematerial reflection the onewho approaches himshould be pure and holy in all respects beginning with the body and culminat-ing in the inner man assigning to each of his parts or altogether to what ishis the holiness that is natural to eachrdquo32 These lines evoke it seems the soulrsquosunionwith the supreme god33 It should be notedmoreover that the use of theterm ldquofatherrdquo associated with the first godmay well refer to the ChaldaeanOra-cles34 where the first god is called Father and is at the opposite extreme frommatter which Plotinus describes as a ldquoghostly image of a bulkrdquo35 The soulrsquosapproach to this father and its union with him36 demands the practice of allthe virtues37 This supreme god corresponds to the One-Good of Plotinus withwhich in the Life of Plotinus38 Porphyry whowas seventy years old at the timesays hewas united only once whereas Plotinus had had this experience severaltimes in his life

26 On Porphyryrsquos doctrine see Hadot (1966)27 See DA I 57 2 II 34 2 and III 5 4 Life of Porphyry 23 26 Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica

IV 5 128 DA II 49 129 Perhaps Apollonius of Tyana cf Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica IV 10 730 A Stoic distinction31 DA II 34 2 For silent worship see also Corpus Hermeticum I 31 XIII 17ndash2132 DA I 57 3 The words ὑλικῆς ἐμφάσεως means the body that is a reflection on the matter

described as a mirror see Plotinus III 6 [26] 7 25 The ldquoinner manrdquo refers to Republic IX598a7

33 Plotinus VI 7 [38] 34 28ndash3134 Chaldaean Oracles fr 1 Des Places35 Plotinus III 6 [26] 7 13 εἴδωλον καί φάντασμα ὄγκου trans AH Armstrong36 See Brisson (2005b)37 See Porphyry Sentence 32 and Brisson (2006)38 Porphyry Life of Plotinus chap 23

90 brisson

The Other GodsThe other gods are described as ldquoparticular (μερικοί)rdquo39 This qualification indi-cates that the other gods are multiple They belong to very different groupswho are distributed between the level of the Intellect and that of the Soul

The Intelligible GodsSince the Intellect follows immediately upon the One the intelligible gods off-spring of the supreme god40 come first Their priest is also the philosopherwhomust add topure silence the singing of hymns41 ldquoFor sacrifice is anofferingto each god from what he has given with which he sustains us and maintainsour essence in beingrdquo42 The intelligible is the food of the soul43 this is whyPorphyry establishes a parallel between this act and that of a peasant offering apart of his harvest as an act of thanks The Platonicmaxim that seeks ldquoassimila-tion to godrdquomust be understood as assimilation to the Intellect throughwhichthe soul can unite with the One Plotinus44 also recommends the singing ofhymns and Porphyry mentions the Pythagorean practice in this context ldquoThePythagoreans who are committed students of numbers and lines made theirmain offering to the gods from these They call one numberAthena [7] anotherArtemis [2] and likewise another Apollo [1] and again they call one Justice [4]and another Temperance [9]45 and similarly for geometrical figuresrdquo4647 In aPlatonic context the goal is by no means to relate the intelligible forms to spe-cific traditional divinities but simply to contemplate the intelligible forms assuch The critical remark about those philosophers who busy themselves withstatues48 could well be directed against Amelius Porphyryrsquos fellow-disciple atPlotinusrsquos school49 who used to make the rounds at the temples A bit furtheron we find a mention of the sacrifices that should be offered by philosophersldquoHoliness both internal and external belongs to a godly man who strives tofast from the passions of the soul just as he fasts from those foods which arouse

39 DA I 57 240 DA II 34 4 The term ldquooffspringrdquo (ἔκγονος) is as it were called for by the qualifier ldquofatherrdquo

applied to the supreme god41 See Pernot (1993) See also Proclus Hymnes et priegraveres trad Saffrey Proclusrsquo Hymns Van

den Berg (2001)42 DA II 34 443 This metaphor comes from Phaedrus 248andashc44 Plotinus II 9 [33] 9 3345 Hymns to numbers were attributed to the Orphics fr 309ndash317 Kern = 695ndash705 Bernabeacute46 See Steel (2007)47 DA II 36 1ndash248 DA II 35 149 Porphyry Life of Plotinus 10


passions who feeds on wisdom about the gods and becomes like them by rightthinking about the divine a man sanctified by intellectual sacrifice (ἱερωμένουτῇ νοερᾷ θυσίᾳ) who approaches the god inwhite clothing andwith a truly puredispassion in the soul with a body which is light and not weighed down withthe alien juices of other creatures or with the passions of the soulrdquo50 In thisparagraph we find a more precise mention of the cult that the philosophermust render to the intelligible gods

The Gods Associated with the SoulThen comes the domain of the Soul uponwhichwe find little interesting infor-mations in the DA First and foremost one finds the world soul for the worldis a living being and is therefore made up of a body and a soul then the soulsof the visible gods that are the heavenly bodies the souls of the invisible godsthat are the demons and even the souls of humanbeings and animals All thesesouls are linked to a body which in the case of the invisible gods is the pneumawhereas for mankind this body which initially is also a pneuma is at the endof its descent to earth an organism containing the four elements

TheWorld SoulWhat one finds on the world soul corresponds to what Plato and Plotinussay about it ldquoNor does the soul of the world which by nature has three-dimensionality51 and self-movement52 its nature is to choose beautiful andwell-ordered movement53 and to move the body of the world in accordancewith the best reasons (logoi)54 It has received the body into itself and envelopsit55 and yet is incorporeal and has no share in any passion56rdquo57 The allusion toreasons gives a clear indication that we are in a Plotinian context58

50 DA II 45 451 Perhaps an allusion to the definition of the soul by Xenocrates according to Aristotle in

the De anima I 2 404b16ndash3052 See Plato Phaedrus 247andashb The intelligible is food for the intellect53 The soul is defined as the principle of spontaneous motion (Phaedrus 245cndashd) These

motions are beautiful and orderly for they are circular and obey amathematical harmony(Timaeus 36cndashd)

54 The logoi are the Forms that are present in the Soul in the mode of succession and nolonger of simultaneity as are the Forms in the Intellect

55 See Plato Timaeus 34b 36e The soul is everywhere in the body of the world but nowherebecause it is incorporeal

56 Since the soul is incorporeal it cannot be subject to affections according to PorphyryrsquosSentence 21

57 DA II 37 258 See Brisson (1999)

92 brisson

TheVisible Gods That is the Heavenly BodiesNext comes the world itself that is the fixed stars and the wandering stars inparticular the sun and the moon since they are made up of a soul and a bodyldquoTo the other gods the world and the fixed starsmdashvisible gods composed ofsoul and bodymdashwe should return thanks as has been described by sacrifices ofinanimate thingsrdquo59 In amore positive sense onemust proceed as follows ldquoButfor the gods within the heaven the wandering and the fixed (the sun should betaken as leader of them all and the moon second) we should kindle fire whichis already kin to them and we shall do what the theologian60 says He saysnot a single animate creature should be sacrificed but offerings should not gobeyond barley-grain and honey and the fruits of the earth including flowerslsquoLet not the fire burn on a bloodstained alterrsquo and the rest of that he says forwhat need is there to copy out the wordsrdquo61 Sacrifices of plants pertained tothe first men who burned these plants to honor the heavenly bodies Hencethis remark by Porphyry on a practice of his time ldquoIt is for them that we pre-serve anunderlying fire in the temples this being the thingmost like themrdquo62 Inthe Timaeus fire is the element associated with the dwelling of the gods63 Forthe philosopher however the mere fact of contemplating the stars is alreadya form of cult64 Here Porphyry coincides with the position of the Epinomiswhere philosophy was fused with astronomy

The Invisible Gods That is the DemonsFinally we come to the invisible gods identified with the demons ldquoSo thereremains the multitude of invisible gods whom Plato called daimones withoutdistinctionrdquo65 This remark refers to this famous passage of theTimaeus whichafter evoking the celestial gods moves on to the traditional gods

To describe the dancing movements of these gods their juxtapositionsand the back-circlings and advances of their circular courses on them-selves to tell which of the gods come into line with one another at their

59 DA II 37 360 This could well be Orpheus but it is a Pythagoreanized Orpheus61 DA II 36 3ndash462 DA II 5 263 See the Timaeus 39endash40a64 DA II 35 165 DA II 37 4 The full grading god archangel angel demon archon soul (Letter to Anebo

fr 28a Saffrey-Segonds) is not taken into account here


conjunctions and howmany of them are in opposition and inwhat orderand at which times they pass in front of or behind one another so thatsome are occluded from our view to reappear once again thereby bring-ing terrors and portents of things to come to those who cannot reasonmdashto tell all this without the use of visible models66 would the labor spentin vain We will do with this account and so let this be the conclusion toour discussion of the nature of the visible and generated godsAs for the other gods it is beyond our task to know and to speak of how

they came to be (Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων δαιμόνων εἰπεῖν καὶ γνῶναι τὴν γένε-σιν) We should accept on faith the assertion of those figures of the pastwho claim to be the offspring of gods They must surely have been wellinformed about their own ancestors So we cannot avoid believing thechildren of gods even though their accounts lack plausible or compellingproofs Rather we should follow custom and believe them on the groundthat what they claim to be reporting are matters of their own concernAccordingly let us accept their account of how these gods came to be andstate what it is Earth and Heaven gave birth to Ocean and Tethys who inturn gave birth to Phorcys Cronus and Rhea and all the gods in that gen-eration Cronus and Rhea gave birth to Zeus and Hera as well as all thosesiblings who are called by names we know These in turn gave birth toyet another generation In any case when all the gods had come to beboth the ones who make their rounds conspicuously and the ones whopresent themselves only to the extent that they are willing the demiurgeof the universe spoke to them67

This passage is highly interesting because it considers the terms δαίμων andθεός as synonyms and especially because it reminds us that a god since he con-sists of a soul and body is not immortal by nature his immortality depends ona decision on the part of the demiurge who has fashioned him It should alsobe noted that Plato is very clear on the subject the traditional gods are placedon the same level as the heavenly bodies Porphyry continues by pointing outthat some of these traditional gods have received a name while others havenot Those who have been given a name receive honors like the other gods andgranted a cult those who have not received a name also receive honors and arethe object of a cult albeit an obscure one Whereas popular religion considers

66 An armillary sphere67 Plato Timaeus 40cndash41a

94 brisson

that all demons can become angry if they are neglected68 Porphyry makes avery clear distinction between the good demons who do only good and thebad ones who are maleficentAll demons are thusmade up of a soul and body This body however is not a

terrestrial body but a vehiclemade of pneuma69 Yet inwhat does this pneumato which the souls of the demons are associated consist This may of coursebe a case of a Platonic recuperation of a Stoic notion The Stoics consideredthe world to be a divine living unit organized according to rational laws andgoverned in its slightest details by a providence from which all transcendenceis excluded At the basis of their cosmology they placed the following two prin-ciples One can only be affected it is matter (ὕλη) lacking all determination allmotion and all initiative while the other has the ability to act and brings tomatter form quality andmotion This second principle is ldquoreasonrdquo70 (λόγος) Inthis context the λόγος can also receive the name of ldquogodrdquo for its action makesit as it were the artisan of the universe but an artisan whose art resides in allthe productions of nature By taking the demand for the indeterminacy of mat-ter to its limit Stoicism was forced to recognize in the λόγος alone the cause ofthe most elementary physical characteristics those of the four elements (fireair water and earth) and those of the result of the combination of these fourelements in sensible things This is why we may speak of Stoic ldquocorporealismrdquoor even ldquomaterialismrdquo the action of the λόγος on matter and bodies remains amaterial corporeal activityIn addition the active principle which the Stoics call λόγος also has phys-

ical name ldquofirerdquo This is not concrete fire but a fire that unites within itself allthe powers of concrete fire It is an energy and the three other elements (airwater earth) correspond to the three states in which it can also be found gasliquid solid This fire that is the λόγος identifiedwith god can also be conceivedas an igneous breath the omnipresent πνεῦμα In all the parts of theworld pen-etrated by the πνεῦμα and informed by it fire which is hot is associated withexpansion while air which is cold is characterized by contraction This oscilla-tion which animates all bodies and ensures their cohesion is called ldquotensionrdquo(τόνος) a tension that is diversified according to the regions of the universeIt assumes the name of ldquotenorrdquo or ldquomaintenancerdquo (ἕξις) in inanimate solids ofldquoconstitutionrdquo (φύσις) in plants and of ldquosoulrdquo (ψυχή) in living beings71 In all

68 DA II 37 569 On the pneuma in Porphyry see Kissling (1922) Proclus The Elements of Theology ed

Dodds 318ndash319 Deuse (1983) 218ndash22770 As one will soon realize this term should not be taken in its usual sense71 SVF II 1013 [= Sextus Empiricus Adv math IX 78]


these cases the function of this corporeal principle is to maintain cohesion inall bodies including and above all the body of the world Neoplatonists suchas Plotinus and Porphyry criticize this notion of pneuma because it remainscorporeal and does not enable a distinction between body and soul Yet Ploti-nus72 and Porphyrymake it the body of the invisible gods and this paradoxicalfunction explains why pneuma is not translated here for it has no equivalentin a modern language In general this body is not perceptible by the sensessometimes however evil demons can as we shall see make themselves visibleby projecting images on their pneuma73Quite naturally the pneuma which is subject to affections is liable to be

destroyed ldquoThe pneuma insofar as it is corporeal is passible and corruptibleThough it is so bound by souls that the form endures for a long time it is noteternal for it is reasonable to suppose that something continuously flows fromthem and that they are fed74 In the good daimones this is in balance as inthe bodies of those that are visible but in the malevolent it is out of balancethey allot more to their passible element and there is no evil that they do notattempt to do to the regions around the earthrdquo75 It is thus the relation of theirsoul to their body that allows the good demons to be distinguished from thebad onesDemons canbe goodor bad according towhether their soul dominates their

vehicle or their pneuma which because it is corporeal is subject to affectionsldquoAll the souls which having issued from the universal soul administer largeparts of the regions below the moon resting on their pneuma but controllingit by reason should be regarded as good daimoneshelliprdquo76 It is hard to determinewhether the formula ὅσαι μὲνψυχαὶ τῆς ὅλης ἐκπεφυκυῖαι implies that these soulscome from the hypostasis Soul or from the world soul77 It is also quite difficultto understand this other formula ἐπερειδόμεναι μὲν πνεύματι One thinks rightaway of themyth of the Phaedrus inwhich all living beings including gods and

72 We find this doctrine of the breath assimilated to a body in Plotinus III 6 [26] 5 22ndash29ldquoBut the purification of the part subject to affections is the waking up from inappropriateimages and not seeing them and its separation is effected by not inclining much down-wards and not having a mental picture of the things below But separating it could alsomean taking away the things fromwhich it is separatedwhen it is not standing over a vitalbreath (pneuma) turbid from gluttony and sated with impure meats but that in which itresides is so fine that it can ride on it in peacerdquo (Translation byAH Armstrongmodified)

73 See Porphyry Ad Gaurum 6 (1) 6ndash11 and maybe Synesius of Cyrene De insomniis 19 274 See Porphyry Sentence 2975 DA II 39 276 DA II 38 277 The ambiguity is already present in Plotinus IV 3 [27] where the expression designates-

96 brisson

demons are providedwith a soul and a vehicle the pneuma the soul consistingof a driver who is reason mounted on a chariot that is his vehicle and of twohorses one good corresponding to ardor and another one bad correspondingto desire In Plato no specification is made of the nature of this vehicle and allthe gods and demons are good

The Good DemonsPorphyry takes up a tradition that goes back to Plato according to which thegood demons intermediary between the gods and the world ensure the gov-ernment of the sublunary world these demons care for animals harvests andatmospheric phenomena particularly rain and wind78 These demons are alsothe intermediaries between gods and men ldquoAmong them must be numberedthe lsquotransmittersrsquo79 as Plato80 calls them who report lsquowhat comes from peopleto the gods and what comes from to gods to peoplersquo carrying up our prayersto the gods as if to judges and carrying back to us their advice and warningsthrough oraclesrdquo81 In addition they preside over liberal arts and techniques82In short demons administer the sublunary world This is a theme that goesback to theDemundo a treatise attributed to Aristotle but which contains sev-eral Stoic elements Moreover as is the case for Socratesrsquo divine sign the gooddemonswarnus in so far as is possible of the dangers towhich the baddemonsexpose us83

The Evil DemonsBy accepting the existence of evil demons Porphyry departs from most of thePlatonic traditionwhich acknowledges only gooddemons ldquoBut the soulswhichdonot control the pneuma adjacent to them but aremostly controlled by it arefor that very reason toomuch carried away then the angers and appetites of the

the hypostasis Soul in chapter 1 32ndash33 and the world soul in chapter 2 34ndash35 For paral-lels pointing toward the world soul see Corpus Hermeticum X 7 Macrobius In SomniumScipionis I 6 20

78 DA II 38 279 Τοὺς πορθμεύοντας80 Plato Symposium 202e3ndash4 Ἑρμηνεῦον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον θεοῖς τὰ παρrsquo ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνθρώ-

ποις τὰ παρὰ θεῶν81 DA II 38 3 One finds this representation which comes from the Symposium (202dndash203a)

in Maximus of Tyre Discourse VIII Apuleius De dogm Platon I 12 204 De deo Socratis 6132ndash133 Plutarch De Iside 26 and De defectu 471andashb

82 DA II 38 283 DA II 41 3


pneuma are set off These souls are also daimones butmay reasonably be calledmaleficentrdquo84 These harmful demons are located in the region closest to theearth85 and are subject to affections The existence of evil demons allows one toaccount for evil in this world and for deviant religious practices Indeed thesedemons ldquohellip are themselves responsible for the sufferings that occur around theearth plagues crop failures earthquakes droughts and the like helliprdquo86 They alsostir up disturbances among mankind and in society ldquoThey themselves rejoicein everything that is likewise inconsistent and incompatible slipping on as itwere the masks of the other gods they profit from our lack of sense winningover the masses because they inflame peoplersquos appetites with lust and longingfor wealth and power and pleasure and also with empty ambition from whicharises civil conflicts and wars and kindred eventsrdquo87 Finally they give rise toreprehensible religious practices ldquoThen they prompt us to supplications andsacrifices as if the beneficent gods were angry They do such things becausethey want to dislodge us from a correct concept of the gods and convert us tothemselvesrdquo88 They inspire human sacrifices rejoice in bloody sacrifices andpromote the practice of sorcery89In fact the evil demons allow a reconciliation between philosophical reli-

gion and critique of popular religion It is the evil demons that give rise tothe practices condemned by philosophy If the evil demons come to wear themasks of the gods it is because of their description by the poets and of cer-tain positions of the philosophers who borrowed heavily from tradition whoseauthority was thereby reinforcedUnlike the good demons the evil demons become visible from time to time

Various forms can come to be imprinted on their invisible pneuma ldquoAll theseand those that have the opposite power are unseen and absolutely impercep-tible to human senses90 For they are not clad in a solid body nor do they allhave one shape but they takemany forms91 The shapes which imprint and arestamped upon their pneuma are sometimes manifest and sometimes invisible

84 DA II 38 4 see 58 2 The word ὁρμή refers to an important notion in stoicism the impulseto action

85 DA II 39 3 Influence by the Chaldaean Oracles fr 149 des Places See H Seng in this book86 DA II 40 187 DA II 40 388 DA II 40 289 DA II 42 1ndash3 See Graf (1994)90 This is already the case in Epinomis 984e91 See Sentence 29

98 brisson

and the worse demons92 sometimes change their shaperdquo93 We find a detaileddescription of this process in the Ad Gaurum ldquoFor instance to begin with thelast point if we could imprint onourbodywhatwe representmdashlike thedemonswho as the story goes manifest the forms of their representations on the airybreath that is associated with them or connected with them not by coloring itbut by manifesting the reflections of their imagination in some ineffable wayon the surrounding air as in amirrormdashone could inferhelliprdquo94 These evil demonswho are closer to the earth masquerade as gods and lead mortals astray bytheir change of forms We find this conception of the demons in a Christianauthor such as Calcidius95 who identifies angels with the good demons andevil demons with the henchmen of Satan (chap 133) It is practically impossi-ble to establish a direct historical link between Calcidius and Porphyry but onemay imagine that if Calcidius did not know Porphyry both may depend on acommon sourceIn his critique of popular religion Porphyry coincides with his adversaries

the Christians96 Yet whereas popular pagan religion was fiercely denouncedby the Gnostics and by Christian apologists it was only partially denounced byPorphyry Hermetic literature97 the Chaldean Oracles98 Gnostics and Chris-tians99 considered that the world in which we live is subject to the malevolentpower of demons Porphyry sought a conciliatory position that did not hesi-tate to criticize popular religion but tried to make it partially compatible withphilosophical religion The main stumbling block100 was blood sacrifice themost important act of the religion of the city which implied putting animalsto death and eating their fleshAn entire theology and demonology were attached to sacrifice (34ndash50) Dif-

ferent sacrifices must be offered to gods that differ in rank (37) To the highestgod one cannot offer corporeal sacrifices (34) for a sacrificemust be adapted tothe nature of the god towhom it is offered (35) Onemust follow the example ofthe Pythagoreans who offered numbers to the gods (36) Sacrifices attract the

92 See Calcidius (sect135)93 DA II 39 194 Porphyry Ad Gaurum 6 (1) 6ndash11 trans M Chase95 Calcidius Commentaire au Timeacutee de Platon ed Bakhouche sect127ndash136 On demons see

Den Boeft (1977) Timotin (2012) 132ndash14196 See Timotin (2012) 131ndash132 and 209ndash21597 Corpus Hermeticum IX 5 XVI 13ndash15 Asclepius 25ndash2698 Chaldaean Oracles fr 89ndash90 des Places On these evil demons see H Seng in this book99 Paul Ephes 612 Cor 26ndash8100 Cf Detienne (1979)


evil demons who unlike the good ones feed on blood and burned flesh (38ndash43) In fact it is the consumption of animal flesh that constitutes a source ofimpurity for mankind (44ndash45) Flesh attracts evil demons (46) Contact withan inferior soul sullies the human soul (47ndash49)Finally we understand why the consumption of animal flesh is contrary to

the supreme goal of philosophy which is to tend toward union with god (50)Divination does not require animal sacrifices for there are good demons whoindicate to the good person by means of dreams signs and voices what he orshe must do (51ndash53) Although in some cases one must allow animal sacrificenothing forces us to consume the flesh of the victims Indeed even if we acceptthat there were human sacrifices in the past nothing authorizes us to eat ourfellow-humans (53ndash57) Although it is not clear that Porphyry always acceptedthe doctrine of metensomatosis101 according towhich the soul could pass fromone human or animal body to another as a function of the quality of its previ-ous existence one can assume that for a Platonist like him putting an animalto death and especially eating it could not fail to be considered as homicideand an act of cannibalism

The Human SoulIt is in this context that thehumanbeingmust be situated thebeingwhose soulhas fallen into an earthly body and whose goal is to rise back up and return tothe principle that is his origin It should be noted that on the occasion of thehuman soulrsquos descent from the star where it was located to come and establishitself in a body towhich it becomes attached at birth102 the soul becomes ladenwith pneuma In a way human soul is a kind of demon inhabiting a body103

Bibliography

Primary SourcesCalcidius Commentaire au Timeacutee de Platon eacutedition critique traduction franccedilaise etnotes par Beacuteatrice Bakhouche avec la collaboration de Luc Brisson pour la traduc-tion Paris 2011

Oracles chaldaiumlques avec un choix de commentaires anciens Texte eacutetabli et traduit par

101 See Deuse (1983) Smith (1984)102 See Porphyry in the Ad Gaurum103 See Brisson (2018) The issue of the personal demon in Porphyry is dealt with in this book

by Dorian D Greenbaum and by Nilufer Akcay and in Plotinus by Thomas Vidart

100 brisson

Eacute Des Places troisiegraveme tirage revu et corrigeacute par APh Segonds Paris 1996 [firstedition 1971]

PorphyreDe lrsquoabstinence texte eacutetabli et traduit par J Bouffartigue etM Patillon 3 volsParis 1977ndash1995

Porphyre On Abstinence from Killing Animals translated by Gillian Clark London2000

Porphyre Lettre agrave Aneacutebon texte eacutetabli traduit et commenteacute par HD Saffrey et A-Ph Segonds Paris 2012

ProclusThe Elements of Theology edition and translation by ER Dodds Oxford 19632Proclus Hymnes et priegraveres traduction par Henri Dominique Saffrey Paris 1994Proclus Proclusrsquo Hymns essays translation commentary by Robbert Van den BergLeiden-Boston 2001

Secondary LiteratureBrisson Luc (1999) ldquoLogos et logoi chez Plotin Leur nature et leur rocirclerdquo Les CahiersPhilosophiques de Strasbourg 8 [special issue on Plotinus] 87ndash108 (reprinted inOntologie et Dialogue Hommage agrave Pierre Aubenque sous la direction de NestorL Cordero Paris 2000 47ndash68)

Brisson Luc (2005a) ldquoSocrates and the divine signal according to Platorsquos testimonyphilosophical practice as rooted in religious traditionrdquo Apeiron 38 2 [special issueSocrates and divine sign ed by P Destreacutee and ND Smith] 1ndash12

Brisson Luc (2005b) ldquoPeut-on parler drsquounion mystique chez Plotinrdquo in A DierkensB Beyer de Ryke (eds)Mystique la passion de lrsquoUn de lrsquoAntiquiteacute agrave nos jours Brux-elles 61ndash72

Brisson Luc (2006) ldquoThe Doctrine of the Degrees of Virtues in the Neoplatonism AnAnalysis of Porphyryrsquos Sentence 32 its Antecedents and its Heritagerdquo in H TarrantDirk Baltzly (eds) Reading Plato in Antiquity London 89ndash106

Brisson Luc (2018) ldquoLes peacutereacutegrinations de lrsquoacircme humaine suivant Porphyre Une anal-yse de la Sentence 29rdquoMeacutelanges Paul-Hubert Poirier Queacutebec forthcoming

Den Boeft J (1977) Calcidius on Demons (ch 127ndash136) LeidenDetienne Marcel (1979) La cuisine du sacrifice ParisDeuse W (1983) Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelen-lehre Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse Einzel-veroumlf-fentlichung 3 Wiesbaden

Graf Fritz (1994) La magie dans lrsquoantiquiteacute greacuteco-romaine ideacuteologie et pratique ParisHadot Pierre (1966) ldquoLa meacutetaphysique de Porphyrerdquo in Porphyre Fondation HardtEntretiens sur lrsquoAntiquiteacute Classique 12 125ndash163 (reprint in Pierre Hadot Plotin Por-phyre Eacutetudes Neacuteoplatoniciennes Paris 1999)

Kissling RC (1922) ldquoThe okhema-pneuma of the Neo-platonists and the De insomniisof Synesius of Cyrenerdquo American Journal of Philology 43 318ndash330


Kroll Wilhelm (1894) De Oraculis Chaldaicis Breslauer Philologische Abhandlungentraduction par Henri Dominique Saffrey Paris Vrin 2016

Pernot Laurent (1993) La rheacutetorique de lrsquo eacuteloge dans le monde greacuteco-romain 2 volsParis

Smith A (1984) ldquoDid Porphyry reject the Transmigration of human Souls into Ani-malsrdquo Rheinisches Museum fuumlr Philologie 127 276ndash284

Steel Carlos (2007) ldquoDivine figures An essay in Platonic-Pythagorean Theologyrdquo in APlatonic Pythagoras Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the Imperial Age ed M Bo-nazzi C Leacutevy and C Steel Turnhout 215ndash242

Timotin Andrei (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens Leiden-Boston


Porphyry of Tyre on the Daimon Birth and the Stars

Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum

Introduction

Theworks of Porphyry of Tyremdashpolymath philosopher and astrologer1mdashhaveenjoyed an upsurge in scholarly interest particularly in the last twenty yearsThis attention has forced a reassessment of earlier verdicts on Porphyryrsquosthought From formerly having been accused of being lsquogacircteacute par trop de soup-lessersquo2 and lsquono consistent or creative thinkerrsquo3 his reputation has been reha-bilitated lsquoa very erudite intellectual with an amazing knowledge of the his-tory of philosophy an interest in religion rhetoric and the culture of histimersquo4 lsquoIt is not inappropriate to compare Porphyry with Plutarch who sharedmany of the same interests helliprsquo5 Recent works featuring Porphyry have con-centrated on religious issues (in some cases Christian and the topic of sal-vation)6 identity and ethnography7 and ritual oracles and divination8 Somehave touched on the topic of Porphyryrsquos interest in astrology (mostly tangen-tially)9 as well as his conception of the daimōn10 However aside frommy own

I thank Crystal Addey for her insightful and useful comments on an earlier draft of thisessay I also thank JamesWilberding for helpful suggestions on Porphyry and the Myth ofEr Finally I thank the anonymous reviewer for pointing out areas needing clarificationand Akindynos Kaniamos for general comments Needless to say any errors remaining inspite of their advice are my own

1 For evidence supporting this designation see my recent book Greenbaum (2016) 236251 266ndash273 also Addey (2014a) 104ndash106 117ndash124 also below lsquoPorphyry onAstrologyrsquo espn 22

2 Bidez (1913) 1323 Dodds (1951) 286ndash2874 Karamanolis and Sheppard (2007) 45 Smith (2007) 126 Simmons (2015) Proctor (2014)7 Johnson (2013)8 Addey (2014a)9 Eg Johnson (2013) astrology is more central to his topic in Johnson (2015) 186ndash20110 Timotin (2012) 208ndash215 Alt (2005) 79ndash80 Nance (2002) however Nancersquos point of view

is somewhat blinkered as to Porphyryrsquos other wide-ranging interests and how thesemightaffect how he writes about daimones See also Luc Brissonrsquos and Nilufer Ackayrsquos articles inthis volume

porphyry of tyre on the daimon birth and the stars 103

work11 no one has as yet considered how astrology has been integrated intoPorphyryrsquos ideas about birth and the daimōn to say nothing of the relationshipof the soulrsquos attachment to the body at birth This article aims to remedy thatlackThe focus of my investigation will be the way in which Porphyry combines

the functions and interactions of the daimōn humans and souls with his inter-est in astrology particularly the astrological moment of birth The primarytexts I shall be looking at are OnWhat is Up to Us To Gaurus on How Embryosare Ensouled12 and parts of Porphyryrsquos understudied astrological treatise Intro-duction to the Tetrabiblos13 which integrates with the other two texts A closereading of these texts in regard to the daimōn astrology and when the soulcomes into the body will demonstrate a coherent philosophical and astrologi-cal line followed by Porphyry in these treatises14In looking at Porphyryrsquos astrological knowledge this essay will also dis-

cuss astrological terms that relate etymologically to terms used by Porphyry inphilosophical contexts even if Porphyry does not make a specific connectionbetween them The point of giving these examples is not to prove beyond a rea-sonable doubt that Porphyry equated or even explicitly connected such termsand doctrines It is to show in demonstrating the astrological knowledge basethat would have been available to Porphyry as an astrologer underlying simi-larities between the use of terms in astrological and philosophical contexts

Porphyry on Daimones Astrology and theMyth of Er

Porphyry onDaimonesPorphyryrsquos abiding interest indaimones is revealed in anumber of hisworksOnAbstinence from Killing Animals Philosophy from Oracles Life of Plotinus Let-ter to Anebo On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey Commentary on Platorsquos

11 Greenbaum (2016) 247ndash255 266ndash27512 The ascription of this text to Porphyry has mostly been agreed upon by scholarship pace

Barnes (2011) 109 n 22 who calls it in relation to Porphyryrsquos authorship lsquodoubtfulrsquo Butto my mind James Wilberdingrsquos argument for authenticity expanding on Kalbfleischrsquos ispersuasive Wilberding (2011) 7ndash10 esp 9ndash10

13 For the argument for Porphyryrsquos authorship of this treatise (which has been accepted bymost scholarship on the topic) see Greenbaum (2016) 266ndash270

14 This discussion follows a holistic approach in line with recent scholarship (eg Johnson[2013] 13ndash14) in contrast to eg Bidezrsquos approach (1913) dating Porphyryrsquos works by theirso-called intellectual development

104 greenbaum

Timaeus OnWhat is Up to Us and To Gaurus Each of these has a different goalinmind InOnAbstinence Porphyry defines and classifies the different kinds ofdaimones existing in theworld both good and evil (especially in relation to ani-mals and blood sacrifice) The Life of Plotinus recounts the famous episode inwhich Plotinusrsquos personal daimōn is conjured by an Egyptian and is found to benot merely a daimōn but a godlike daimōn (1014ndash33) In Philosophy from Ora-cles the mention of daimones especially those of less than sterling qualitiesallows Eusebius to twist Porphyryrsquos words to suit his polemical agenda of con-flating gods and daimones and therefore condemning the pagan gods asmerelyevil demons In the Cave of the Nymphs Porphyry mentions the lsquonatal daimōnrsquo(35) discusses the descent and ascent of the soul through the Gates of Cancerand Capricorn (22ndash23) and notes that the rising places belong to the gods butthe setting ones to daimones (29) Fragments from themostly lost Commentaryon the Timaeus deal with various classes of daimones and how they manifestThe Letter to Anebo provides a full-fledged inquiry into the role of daimones indivine hierarchies but also discusses the role of the personaldaimōn in theurgyproper and in astrology InToGaurus the daimōnrsquos ability to display images viaan lsquoairy pneumarsquo is discussed In OnWhat is Up to Us Porphyryrsquos commentaryon the Myth of Er examines the role of the personal daimōn that attaches toevery person upon incarnation and the astrological moment of birthDaimones are approached from different angles in these treatises and it

is important to take account of the context in which Porphyryrsquos informationabout them occurs Sometimes his purpose is definition classification and dif-ferentiation as in De abstinentia and the Commentary onTimaeus Other timeshis purpose is to provide discussion on the differences between gods and dai-mones as in parts of Demysteriis (quoting the Letter to Anebo) or on souls anddaimones (egCommTim Frag X [Sodano]) But the Letter toAnebo also trainsmuch of Porphryrsquos focus daimonically speaking on the personal daimōn itsattributes and its purpose in the lives of humans Thus it is clear that Porphyryconsiders lsquodaimonesrsquo not as a monolithic class but as varied beings with vari-ous functions and characteristics performing various roles Though Porphyryis unusual in that his works provide us with a large amount of material on dai-mones what he tells us is quite consistent with the varied cultural views ofdaimones in the Greco-Roman era and Late Antiquity15 In this essay the per-sonalnatalguardian daimōn will be emphasised not only because this is the

15 For overviews of the daimōn in cultural contexts seeGreenbaum (2016) Introduction andChs 1 3 5 and 6 For extensive analysis of the daimōn in a Platonic context as well as liter-arily philosophically and religiously see Timotin (2012)


kind of daimōn featured in the texts under discussion but also because it rep-resents one of the principal areas where astrology and philosophy intermingleparticularly in Porphyryrsquos work16

Porphyry on AstrologyAstrology is another topic treated by Porphyry in more than one work TheseincludeOn the Cave of theNymphs the Letter toAnebo Philosophy fromOraclesLife of Plotinus OnWhat is Up to Us To Gaurus and obviously the Introductionto the Tetrabiblos a strictly astrological text almost certainly written for stu-dents in astrology17 As with his works discussing daimones his treatments ofastrology reflect the different issues he is addressing although his views in thedifferent treatises are not as inconsistent as some have assertedIn the Life of Plotinus Porphyry mentions Plotinusrsquos interest in astrology

lsquomore precisely the [astrological] outcomes of the natal astrologersrsquo ie nottables or other mathematical tools but how the astrologers derive astrologi-cal effects18 which would naturally be of more interest from a philosophicalperspective In Philosophy fromOracles he is concerned with the proper astro-logicalmoment for beginning an oracular ritual in order to obtain a valid oracle(this reflects the astrological technique of katarchē which can include begin-ning a task or event based on the best astrological circumstances for what the

16 I thank Akindynos Kaniamos for his felicitous phrasing here17 HTarrant personal conversation (17 Feb 2015) I sharehis position especially becausePor-

phyry inserts his own commentary into the astrological doctrines he draws chiefly fromAntiochus of Athens (mostly unacknowledged) and PtolemyManuals of astrology aimedat current or would-be practising astrologers are common in the Greco-Roman era andLate Antiquity and even exist in Demotic Egyptian (Winkler 2016) Whether addressedto readers generally dedicated to a particular student (such as Ptolemy to Syrus VettiusValens toMarcus or Paulus Alexandrinus to Cronammon) or written as a series of classesover time (an example of such practice is Olympiodorusrsquos Commentary on Paulus Alexan-drinusrsquos Introduction to Astrology which took place between May and July of 564CE inAlexandria see Westerink [1971] and Greenbaum [2001] vii) such texts have much incommon with Porphyryrsquos treatise on technical doctrines of astrological practice Johnson(2013) 162ndash164 is uncertain as towhom the textwas addressed but surmises itwas for phi-losophy students who might like to know something about astrology (it does not seem tohave occurred to him that Porphyry could teach astrology students even though Johnsoncompares the Introduction to the teaching texts of other astrologers [164 and nn 94ndash95])

18 VP 15 23ndash24 hellip τοῖς δὲ τῶν γενεθλιαλόγων ἀποτελεσματικοῖς ἀκριβέστερον See the discussionof this passage inAdamson (2008) here 265ndash266 (but he hasmissed the specific referenceto natal astrologers [γενεθλιαλόγων] whom he calls generically lsquohoroscope castersrsquo)

106 greenbaum

event or task represent)19 The same criteria apply for the consecration of stat-ues20 In On the Cave of the Nymphs he describes a cosmology that is heavilyinfused with astrological motifs The Letter to Anebo inquires about the iden-tity of onersquos personal daimōn vis-agrave-vis the astrological technique of finding alsquohousemasterrsquo (οἰκοδεσπότης) providing onemeans for learning to achieve hap-piness andvirtue21The Introduction to theTetrabiblosdevotes an entire chapterto the discovery of the oikodespotēs and lord of the nativityOn What is Up to Us and To Gaurus combine matters of soul daimōn and

incarnation along with astrological content The astrological viewpoint dis-played here by Porphyry is applied in a philosophical context22 he seeks tounpack the philosophical meaning behind certain doctrines and examine the

19 See Addey (2014a) 104ndash105 117ndash124 contrast with Johnson (2013) 78ndash80 113ndash11820 See Peacuterez Jimeacutenez (2007) also my discussion in Greenbaum (2016) 253ndash25421 See my analysis in Greenbaum (2016) 266ndash275 esp 273ndash27522 It is important to emphasise here that Porphyry was not an opponent or denier of astrol-

ogy (even if he critiques it at times) as some scholars have declared Saffrey and Segonds(2012) 77 comm Fr 83 Porphyry lsquomettait en doute la possibiliteacute mecircme de lrsquoastrologiersquo(in my view they have conflated Porphyryrsquos inquiry about finding the astrological lsquohouse-masterrsquo with Iamblichusrsquos own comments about it and astrology generally) Broze andVan Liefferinge (2011) 68 77 Tanaseanu-Doumlbler (2013) 75ndash79 who seems to have misin-terpreted Porphyryrsquos positions She claims he lsquosatirically questionedrsquo among other thingslsquoastrology and the quest for the personal daimonrsquo (75) her arguments on both topicsare flawed and she seems unaware that Porphyry also wrote an astrological textbookThe mere fact that Porphyry brings astrology into so many of his treatises and authoredan astrological text to boot should give pause to those who assume his scorn for itSome remark that Porphyryrsquos view of astrology was lsquoambivalentrsquo Johnson (2013) 113 orlsquoagnosticrsquo Wilberding (2013) 99 contra Wilberding (2011) 77 n 227 when he criticisesor questions astrological doctrines eg To Gaurus 1661 lsquoI have mentioned these [theChaldeansastrologers] not because I agreewith all their doctrineshelliprsquo But it is not uncom-mon for astrologers to criticise and offer improvements for astrological practices (seeeg Ptolemy and Vettius Valens) this does not mean they disavow it Furthermore oneshould not assume as Johnson (2013) does a unanimous agreement for astrologers eitheron physical causation by the stars or on determinism (lsquohardrsquo determinism 112 subse-quently called lsquoastrological determinismrsquo 115) or even a default fatalism towhich Johnsoncontrasts Porphyryrsquos lsquosoft astrologyrsquo (114) Finally we should not assume that Porphyry isapproaching astrology froman etic position (ie only as a philosopher critical of astrologyas a knowledge system) as Johnson does 162ndash164 esp 164 Aside from his authorship ofan astrological textbook evidence for Porphyryrsquospracticeof astrology appears inHephaes-tio Apotelesmatica (II 10 23ndash27) who quotes Porphyry as giving an example birthchartshowing how to determine length of life inmonths (mentioning a technique also coveredin the Intr Tetr) For bibliography on this chart see Heilen (2015) I 281 (Hor gr 234X5)


parameters of fate (εἱμαρμένη) in astrology It is clear that Porphyry acknowl-edges a role for the stars in the incarnation of humans (or animals in general)His purpose especially in On What is Up to Us is to tease out the parametersof heimarmenē in this role from what is in our power Furthermore he wantsto make clear that astrology in both practice and philosophy is concerned notonly with heimarmenē and the things about life that are unchangeable (overwhich we have no control) but with the choices we have within the confinesof astrological doctrine In this he is not unlike other Hellenistic astrologerswhose practice often shows not the rigidity of astrological fatalism (if such athing even exists in practice I argue for its rarity)23 but the flexibility of astrol-ogy to interpret the choices available to people as they go through life24 Thisis not astrological fatalism or a lsquohardrsquo determinism to use a modern locu-tion25 but the use of astrology as a stochastic art26 a divinatory tool basedmore onmetaphor and symbolic and significating language (which after all isits conception in Mesopotamian thought)27 rather than as a causal and rigidproto-lsquosciencersquo28 Undeniably views of astrologers about their craftmay display

23 See Greenbaum (2016) passim but esp Chs 1 3 and 824 Here I mean not only astrologyrsquos common practice of assigning different attributions to

the same astrological phenomena (planets zodiac signs as well as configurations) egMercury signifies education (παιδεία) letters testing (ἔλεγχος) speechreason (λόγος)having siblings interpretation etc (Valens Anthology I137) but also interpreting eventswith similar astrological characteristics in differentways See below lsquoAstrology andChoicein the SoulrsquosDescentrsquo (pp 130ndash131) for an example of different interpretations for the sameastrological configuration by Vettius Valens

25 Some modern scholarship on astrology and determinism has applied a slightly differentterminology Long (1982) 170 and n 19 uses lsquohardrsquo astrology lsquowhich claims that heavenlybodies are both signs and causes of human affairsrsquo and lsquosoftrsquo astrology in which they areonly signs Hankinson (1988) here 132ndash135 prefers lsquostrongrsquo (lsquoconcrete predictions for par-ticular individualsrsquo 132) and lsquoweakrsquo (lsquogeneral tendencies and predispositionsrsquo 134) astrol-ogy

26 See Greenbaum (2010)27 See eg Oppenheim (1974) Rochberg (1996) Rochberg (2004)28 In its modern sense Even in antiquity Ptolemy is the main proponent of an astrology

solely dependent on physical causation Most other Hellenistic astrological texts and Iinclude Porphyryrsquos in that category do not emphasise or even discuss a physical mech-anism by which astrology works (indeed they concentrate on elucidating the doctrinesand techniques used in actual practice as working astrologers they do not for the mostpart concern themselves with philosophical issues though somemdashparticularly VettiusValensmdashgive clues about their views in this regard) For a discussion of the issue of causal-ity in astrology especially in regard to Plotinusrsquos position see Dillon (1999) Lawrence(2007)

108 greenbaum

contradictory or inconsistent notions about the role of fatemdashthe point is thatthese varied viewpoints do notmonolithically endorse a hard determinism orextreme astrological fatalism Furthermore the origins of western Hellenisticastrology in Mesopotamia and Egypt mean that when we think about astrol-ogy and fate wemust be alert for those culturesrsquo ideas about fate and the starsand how theymay informHellenistic astrology and notmerely consider Greekviews29When Porphyry talks about astrology as far as a lsquochoice-basedrsquo practice is

concerned he is following in the steps of Dorotheus of SidonManilius andVet-tius Valens30 As far as astrological philosophy is concerned he is following histeacher Plotinuswho looked at heavenly configurations as a languageof signs31rather than embracing Ptolemyrsquos theories and explanations of pure physicalcausation32 Above all he is following Plato in understanding how choice andnecessity are a part of every human life and in discerning what parts of ourlives which begin with particular positions of planets and stars in the heav-ens are not under our control and what parts are dependent on our abilityof self-determination to choose (or not) virtue and making our lives better Inthis even the interpretation of the astrological chart can allow for different out-comes based on our choices andmentality (seemore discussion of this below)

29 See Greenbaum (2016) Chs 2 and 330 The first two include katarchic astrology (which includes choosing the best astrologi-

cal moment to begin something) in their treatises Hephaestio (b 380CE) also coverskatarchic astrology I mention him here because he follows and enlarges on Dorotheuswhom he quotes extensively Valensrsquo position on heimarmenē in astrology is complicatedbut his assertions of an unalterable fate are tempered by his clear belief in the powerof providence and the daimōn for escaping from it see Komorowska (2004) 294ndash334Greenbaum (2016) 36ndash44 his positions on fate and providence are not dissimilar to thosein Ps-Plutarchrsquos De fato see Komorowska (2004) 332ndash334 contra Komorowska (1995)Greenbaum (2016) 28 He even speaks of astrology as a lsquoheavenly theoryrsquo (οὐρανία θεω-ρία) revealed to him by the aid of his personal daimōn (Anthology VI 17) see Greenbaum(2016) 34 and n 70

31 Eg Enneads II 3 [52] 71ndash13 86ndash9 On this topic see Dillon (1999) Lawrence (2007)Adamson (2008) Addey (2014a) 205ndash208 211

32 Most strictly astrological textsmdashincluding Porphyryrsquosmdashdo not containmuch if any phil-osophical exegesis of astrology they are concerned with practical techniques Maniliuswhose Stoic tendencies shine through in his Astronomica and Vettius Valens whose phi-losophy is eclectic but certainly present in his Anthology are probably the two ancientastrologers (alongwith FirmicusMaternus)most devoted to expressing any kind of philo-sophical view of astrology For Ptolemyrsquos philosophical inclinations see Taub (1993)


Porphyry on theMyth of ErThe main treatise in which Porphyry discusses Platorsquos Myth of Er in RepublicX is the essay transmitted by Johannes Stobaeus under the title Περὶ τοῦ ἐφrsquoἡμῖν (OnWhat is Up to Us)33 Fragments designated as a Commentary on PlatorsquosRepublic also deal with the Myth of Er and may be part of what was originallyone treatise34 I shall draw on both sets of fragments in this analysis In themwe find importantmaterial on Porphyryrsquos ideas about incarnation the daimōnand what choice and self-determination ([τὸ] αὐτεξούσιον) the soul is capableof both before birth and afterPorphyryrsquos concern is to demonstrate Platorsquos ultimate consistency in allow-

ing human choice over part of the human lived experience (especially themoral part)35Here his idea of lsquofirstrsquo and lsquosecondrsquo lives is an important part of hisargument The souls freely choose a lsquofirstrsquo life (though based on a lottery givingthe order inwhich they choose) This choice ismade on a biological and genderlevel to be human or animal and for those who have chosen to be human tobemale or female (268F 48ndash54 Smith) Once the choice ismade certain neces-sitated consequences follow The second life has two separate components36one of which results in necessitated consequences and one which is lsquoup tousrsquo The former we may describe as environmental or situational (268F54ndash67)for example we may be born into a first-world or third-world environmentinto poverty or riches or something in-between We may be beautiful or uglyEach of these yields certain consequences if we are born male into a patri-archal culture we immediately have certain advantages that a woman wouldnot being born into an affluent family providesmorematerial advantages andthe same with physical appearance So such a component of our lives whichare the soulrsquos choice before birth are no longer up to us after we are bornand begin living our lives These Porphyry says are lsquoprovided by nature or by

33 Wilberding (2011) translates lsquoOn What is In our Powerrsquo which also conveys an accuratesense of the Greek to use the phrase lsquoOn Free Willrsquo as Johnson (2013 2015) and othershave done applies a modern connotation which is not present in the Greek and whichcan easily mislead a modern reader For an excellent analysis of the term ἐφrsquo ἡμῖν and thedangers of mis-translation see Eliasson (2008) 14ndash16

34 The two sets of fragments are in Smith (1993) 181ndash187F and 268ndash271F For discussion of theone treatise theory seeWilberding (2011) 123ndash124

35 This is also Plotinusrsquos aim in Ennead III 4 [15]36 I agree with the parameters of Wilberding (2013) 93ndash101 who discusses the lsquotwo domainsrsquo

of the second life one of which (the environmental) is chosen by the soul before incarna-tion I disagree with the assessment of Johnson (2015) 189ndash191 about (lack of) choice inthe environmental and familial aspects of the second life

110 greenbaum

chancersquo37 This accords with heimarmenē38mdashwhat we could call the physicaland environmental circumstances under which someone is born such as anacorn (to use a popular analogy)39 necessarily growing into an oak tree nota maple or an elm (and that acorn falling either on fertile or infertile soil)These circumstances of the second life are tied in with astrology to be dis-cussed belowWhat is up to us Porphyry says are lsquoacquisition of skills and professions and

knowledgersquo lsquohellip political lives and the pursuit of powerrsquo which lsquodepend on delib-erate choicersquo40 These for him are another life (268F 55) a lsquokind of secondcharacterrsquo (or impression 268F 56 δεύτερον τινα χαρακτῆρα) These lives canbe lived in a good or evil way (268F 78ndash79) So the soul chooses a first life andpart of a second life that once chosen lead to necessary consequences andcannot be changed But once this choice is made the unfolding of that lifemdashhow we live that lifemdashwisely or unwisely with virtue or with vice is up to usthis is the component of character in Porphyryrsquos second life41The daimōnwho accompanies the soul into lifemust also be examined here

As we know from the Myth of Er the souls choose their daimōn who accom-panies them into life and ratifies the life they chose Plato plainly states thatchoosing the daimōn is the soulrsquos prerogative lsquoYour daimōnwill not be allottedto you but you will choose your daimōnrsquo (617e1)42 But Porphyry perhaps fol-lowing his master Plotinus43 does not use the verb αἱρέω (choose) in regard tothe daimōn but instead λαγχάνω lsquoobtain by lotrsquo in OnWhat is Up to Us lsquohellip thatthe daimōn that we obtained by lot is some kind of inescapable guard for usrsquo(268F 15ndash16)44 Why might this be An important distinction between thesetwo concepts (choice vs allotment) is that the former gives more power and

37 268F 65ndash66 Smith διὰ φύσεως ἐπορίσθη ἢ τύχης SeeWilberdingrsquos argument (2013) 98ndash101tying this phrase in with the soulrsquos choice of this part of the second life and its astrologicalconnection (271 F 72ndash79)

38 This reference to nature and chance recalls the discussion in Pseudo-Plutarchrsquos essay OnFate (571Endash572C) where heimarmenē is associated with both nature and tyche

39 See Hillman (1996 repr 1997)40 268F 67ndash69 τὰς δὲ γε τῶν τεχνῶν ἀναλήψεις καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἐπιστημῶν τε καὶ

⟨τὰς⟩ τῶν πολιτικῶν βίων ἀρχῶν τε διώξεις hellip 268F 74ndash75 hellip ⟨ἐκ⟩ τῆς προαιρέσεως hellip41 Note that Plato asserts in Phaedo 69bndashc that true virtue exists with intentional knowl-

edge [φρόνησις] Thanks to Crystal Addey for this observation42 Plato Republic 617e1 οὐχ ὑμᾶς δαίμων λήξεται ἀλλrsquo ὑμεῖς δαίμονα αἱρήσεσθε43 Cf the title of Ennead III 4 lsquoOn our Allotted Daimōnrsquo Περὶ τοῦ εἰλήχοτος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος

(thanks to Crystal Addey for this suggestion) Plotinus uses the verb as employed by Platoin Phaedo 107d (thanks to the anonymous reviewer for this reminder)

44 268F 15ndash16 hellip ὅτι ὃν εἰλήχαμεν δαίμονα ἀναπόδραστός τις ἡμῖν φρουρός


responsibility to the soul and the latter does not It could be that Porphyry (andPlotinus)merely acknowledge the role that allotment plays in the choice of thedaimōn since the soulsrsquo choice of a life and a daimōn is dependent on the orderin which they get to choose based on the lot they picked up Or this neces-sary ratification of the choices made is because the daimōn is connected withLachesis whose very name means lsquoAllotterrsquo And though it may be chosen it iseffectively part of the allotment specified by LachesisJamesWilberding suggests that the daimōnrsquos necessary ratification of the life

is only of what Porphyry designates as the lsquofirstrsquo life which amounts to the barephysical components of a life (species and gender) and thus the daimōn is lsquonat-uralizedrsquo45 (but Iwould prefer to think of the daimōn as enforcing nature ratherthan being lsquonaturalisedrsquo) ThoughWilberding does not say it explicitly I wouldadd that the daimōnmust also ratify those components of the second life thathave necessitated consequencesThus there are two necessitations going on here the physical and environ-

mental components of the life as necessary consequences of the choice andthe daimōnrsquos necessary enforcement of that life Furthermore we see thework-ings of choice andnecessity intertwined in this scenario since the souls choosefreely in some respects but the consequences of their choice are necessitatedThus the consequences of the choice lack choice46 In addition there is thepos-sibility that this first choice before incarnation (lsquothe soul still being outsidersquo) isalso lsquostainedrsquo (χραίνεσθαι) by our past lives and that it could give us a certainlsquoinclinationrsquo (ῥοπή) toward the kind of life we choose Plato says Porphyry callsthis inclination a lsquochoicersquo (αἵρεσις) (271F 16ndash20)47 How free the choice is how-ever is debatable the lsquoinclinationrsquo seems to bemore compelled than voluntarywhich also points to some kind of necessitated allotmentAnother issue to consider is how lsquoinformedrsquo the choice ismdashare we choosing

after thoughtful consideration with all our rational faculties or is the choicemore impulsive Porphyry seems to imply the latter when he highlights thechoicemade lsquoon the spurof themoment and stupidlyrsquo (ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς καὶ ἀμαθίας)

45 Wilberding (2013) here 91 and personal correspondence with him 15 Dec 2015 I thankhim for his insightful observations which have stimulated my train of thought here

46 This scenario is reminiscent of the issue of tertiary pronoia raised in De fato which oper-ates within fate (heimarmenē) but allows some choice it can work on antecedents butthe consequents are subject to fate see Valgiglio (1964) 57 We should not forget that Defato puts the daimōn in charge of tertiary pronoia

47 271F 16ndash20 ἀρέσκει καὶ τὸ χραίνεσθαι τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτεξούσιον ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγγινομένηςἐνταῦθα προβιοτῆς τὸ δrsquo ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις αὐτεξούσιον ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τινα τῶν τῇδε βίων τῆς⟨ψυχῆς⟩ ἔξω ἔτι οὔσης ῥοπῆς ἣν αἵρεσιν ὁ Πλάτων λέγει

112 greenbaum

(271F 124ndash125) Andwhat arewe tomake of the soul who chooses first choosingtyranny (Rep 619b)One reason for this could be that a previous life or familialinclinations could induce the choice of tyranny48 Another could be the veryabundance of life choices at this stage in the proceedings the soul grabs ontowhat seems to be a wonderful life on the surface but the choice is reckless andunconsidered So lsquovirtue has no masterrsquo and lsquoGod is not responsiblersquomdashbut wehave to live with the results of our choice ratified by the daimōnThe lsquosecondrsquo life though consists not only of physical or environmental fac-

tors but also intellectualmoral and virtuous concernsmdashand these latter are lsquoupto usrsquo (When we examine the astrological factors associated with the first andsecond lives upon incarnation we shall analyse how interpretations of thesecan also be lsquoup to usrsquo even though the physical positioning of planets and starsat the time of birth are factors that cannot be changed) These intellectual andmoral faculties can be used by us during our incarnated lives not only beforewe live them Thus virtue has nomaster and it is the soulrsquos choice to honour ordisdain itAnd here we should not forget the power of the daimōn to play a guiding

role in the (good)moral choices the soul makes even as it necessitates the pre-vious choices Although he does not explicitly address this issue in OnWhat isUp to Us Porphyry does say that the daimons have ways to lsquoreveal their gift tous through dreams andwaking visionsrsquo (182dF 73ndash74)49 after reminding us thatPlato encourages the souls to flee injustice (182cF 64ndash65) He also reminds ustwice about the ability to choosemoderation and avoid vice (268F 77ndash78 271F2ndash4) this ability conforms with a tyrantrsquos choice to live kindly and asWilberd-ing noticed with Porphyryrsquos advice to his wifeMarcella to behave as if sheweremale50 These calls formoderation and choosing to livewisely echo Rep 619a7ndashb1 which says that through such behaviour a human becomes the most happy(εὐδαιμονέστατος)Porphyrydoesnot address herePlatonic andPlotinian considerations for the

daimonrsquos ability to influence or encourage such behaviour though these weresurely known to him and clues that he endorsed them are available as we shallsee This ability occurs on the soul level and reflects the daimōnrsquos deep asso-ciation with soul in Platonic philosophy The most pertinent texts are PlatorsquosTimaeus 90andashc and Plotinusrsquos essay on our allotted daimon (III 4 [15])51

48 SeeWilberdingrsquos discussion of this issue Wilberding (2013) 94ndash95 10249 182dF 73ndash74 (= Wilberding 2011 13670ff) hellip διὰ δή τινων τοιούτων πλασμάτων ἡμῖν ἐκφαί-

νουσιν τὴν ἑαυτῶν δόσιν ὄναρ τε καὶ ὕπαρhellip50 Wilberding 2011 149 n 1851 The analysis in Timotin (2012) 291ndash297 300ndash302 has been helpful for this discussion


In Timaeus 90andashc the daimon is linked to the highest part of the soul andits cultivation leads to happiness

Concerning the most lordly part of our soul hellip we say god has given eachof us as his daimōn that which is housed at the summit of our bodyand which raises us from earth to our kindred in heaven since we arenot an earthly but a heavenly plant hellip But he who has seriously devotedhimself to learning and to true thoughts (phronēseis) and has exercisedthese qualities above all his others must necessarily and inevitably thinkthoughts (phronein) that are immortal and divine if he lays hold of truthhellip and inasmuch as he is always tending his divine part and keeping thedaimonwho dwells together with himwell-ranked hemust be especiallygood-spirited (eudaimōn)52

As Timotin has pointed out53 Porphyry accepts this passage and the assimila-tion of the highest part of the soul to the daimon (DM IX 8 2826ndash12) othertexts mention the association with nous54 This role for the daimōn strength-ens the power of the soul-as-agent to choose a daimōn able to operate fromthe highest andmost virtuous plane available to the soul and representing thepersonal daimōn accompanying the soul into incarnation as wellPlotinus considers the same passage in lsquoOn our allotted daimonrsquo (Enn III 4)

He speaks of a humanwho is virtuous (σπουδαῖος) because he acts by his betterpart which is associated to nous and linked to the highest kind of daimōn (oreven god) (III 4 61ndash5) And for Plotinus the personal daimōn is on a higherplane of virtue than the soulhuman it accompanies lsquoBut if one is able to fol-low the daimōnwho is above him he himself comes to be above living like that

52 Timaeus 90a2ndash3 3ndash7 90b6ndashc2 4ndash6 (Burnet vol 4) τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρrsquo ἡμῖνψυχῆςhellip ὡς ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲν ἡμῶν ἐπrsquo ἄκρῳτῷ σώματι πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ συγγένειαν ἀπὸ γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν ὡς ὄντας φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειονἀλλὰ οὐράνιον hellip hellip τῷ δὲ περὶ φιλομαθίαν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀληθεῖς φρονήσεις ἐσπουδακότι καὶταῦτα μάλιστα τῶν αὐτοῦ γεγυμνασμένῳ φρονεῖν μὲν ἀθάνατα καὶ θεῖα ἄνπερ ἀληθείας ἐφά-πτηται πᾶσα ἀνάγκη πουhellip ἅτε δὲ ἀεὶ θεραπεύοντα τὸ θεῖον ἔχοντα τε αὐτὸν εὖ κεκοσμημένοντὸν δαίμονα ξύνοικον ἑαυτῷ διαφερόντως εὐδαίμονα εἶναι Trans Bury modified see Green-baum (2016) 23 and n 24 The wordplay between δαίμων and εὐδαίμων is a well-knowntrope in antiquity

53 Timotin 2012 301 and n 21654 As in the Platonist Plutarchrsquos take in the Myth of Timarchus in De genio Socratis see Tim-

otin (2012) 249ndash251 Broze and Van Liefferinge (2011) 74ndash75 Greenbaum (2016) 23ndash2534

114 greenbaum

daimōn and giving the pre-eminence to that better part of himself to which heis being led and after that one he rises to anotherrsquo55 In the Life of Plotinus thisnotion seems exemplified in Porphyryrsquos description of Plotinusrsquos daimon beinglsquoof the more godlike kindrsquo and he adds that this revelation even inspired Ploti-nus to write III 4 (VP 1028ndash29 1030ndash31)56 Porphyryrsquos characterisation of onetype of daimōn as lsquodivinersquo in his Commentary on the Timaeus echoes the sameidea57Though Porphyry does not specifically apply Plotinusrsquos hierarchical concep-

tion of daimōn in On What is Up to Us other such hierarchies appear in ToGaurus (in this case of souls from lower to higher) The lsquoself-movingrsquo soul thatenters the body at birth (106ndash112) is on a higher level than the previous soulsinvolved with the embryorsquos creation and formation Thus hierarchies of bothdaimōn and soul play a part in Porphyryrsquos philosophical positions on aspectsof birth The daimōnrsquos ability to encourage the incarnated soul toward a lifeof virtue is clear in the Timaeus passage and in Plotinusrsquos understanding ofit58 We are reminded of Heraclitus lsquoCharacter for a human is his daimōnrsquo59A daimōn so capable thus also aids in fulfilling Platorsquos dictum that the soul willpossess more or less virtue depending on whether she honours or disdains itFinally a brief word about the use of theword bios for life Porphyry not only

posits the choice of two kinds of life he also makes a distinction between thetwo-fold nature of the second life (1) bios as a physical phenomenon (depen-dent from zoē the condition of being alive) that is the physical circumstancesand qualities under which someone is born and (2) bios as a lsquomanner of liv-ingrsquo60 Although I shall discuss Porphyryrsquos astrological thoughts about theMythof Er in the next section here a brief observation about a pertinent astrologi-cal practice should be noted In the description of the twelve sections (lsquoplacesrsquo

55 Plotinus III 4 [15] 318ndash20 Εἰ δὲ ἕπεσθαι δύναιτο τῷ δαίμονι τῷ ἄνω αὐτοῦ ἄνω γίνεται ἐκεῖνονζῶν καὶ ἐφrsquo ὃ ἄγεται κρεῖττον μέρος αὐτοῦ ἐν προστασίᾳ θέμενος καὶ μετrsquo ἐκεῖνον ἄλλον ἕως ἄνω(Trans Armstrong modified)

56 Porphyry VP 1028ndash29 Τῶν οὖν θειοτέρων δαιμόνων ἔχων τὸν συνόντα See also Addey 2014b62 and 56

57 Porphyry Comm Tim Fragment X10ndash11 Sodano τὸ μὲν θείων δαιμόνων γένοςhellip58 Also as in Plutarchrsquos De genio (593Endash594A) where the daimōn can encourage and aid the

best souls to reach the upperworld (AndPlutarch compares thedaimōn to a lsquopilotrsquo (κυβερ-νήτης) at 586A3ndash4)

59 Heraclitus fr B119 DK ἦθος ἀνθρώπωι δαίμων Formultiple translations and interpretationsof this phrase see Greenbaum (2016) 1ndash2

60 Here I am followingWilberdingrsquos extensive treatment and analysis seeWilberding (2011)124ndash125 131ndash132 Wilberding (2013) 92ndash94 esp 96


figure 1 Places of the astrological chart

topoi in Greek) that make up the astrological chart the names of the first andsecond places are commonly given as zoē and bios The first place zoē is wherethe ecliptic with its zodiacal signs intersects with the eastern horizon of thebirthrsquos location (it contains the Ascendant the rising degree at that momentand place in time) so it astrologically represents the physical moment of birthand the physical factors attendant at that moment The second place is calledbios because it is where the astrologer can discern how the life created at thefirst place may actually be lived Moreover in katarchic astrology the centre-pins kentra (the Ascendantfirst place is one of these) represent the presentthe actuality of events while the post-ascensional or succedent places (thesecond place is one) signify the future still unrealised where some choice orchange is possible61We can only knowwith certainty that Porphyry was aware

61 See Greenbaum (2016) 66ndash67 citing Hephaestio and Julian of Laodicea

116 greenbaum

of the name for the first place not the second62 (interestingly another namefor the second place is lsquoGate of Hadesrsquo)Certainly it is coincidental that these two terms for lsquolifersquo feature both in the

basics familiar to any competent astrologer as well as in Porphyryrsquos under-standing of lives in the Myth of Er Yet given Porphyryrsquos interest in astrologyit is worthwhile to point out their astrological usageThe arrangements of the planets stars and zodiac in the astrological birth-

chart are also of concern to Porphyry in his exegesis of the Myth of Er as weshall explore in the next section

Linking the Daimōn to the Stars

Astrologymeets daimonology in a number of Porphyryrsquos texts Philosophy fromOracles On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey On What is Up to UsCom-mentary on Platorsquos Republic63 the Letter to Anebo andToGaurus The followingdiscussion however will focus on the three texts where this intersection mostdistinctively shows how Porphyryrsquos views on the daimōn as a personal guidemay be combinedwith the astrological components in the soulrsquos incarnation atbirthToGaurusOnWhat is Up toUs (includingwhat is known as the Commen-tary on Platorsquos Republic) and the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos Each containssignificant astrological content ThoughToGaurus only explicitlymentions thedaimōn once (regarding its pneuma at 615ndash6) and the Introduction to theTetrabiblos mentions it not at all when we combine the ideas expressed inthese texts and examine them as a whole we become able to see the coherentline in Porphyryrsquos thought concerning the daimōn birth and astrologyWe shall

62 See Porphyry To Gaurus 16513 where the Ascendant is called lsquoplace of lifersquo lsquoζωῆς τόπονrsquoHowever a lsquosummaryrsquo of an Introduction by Antiochus of Athens contains many of theitems discussed by Porphyry in his Intr Tetr and also includes some descriptions ofthe places lsquohellip the Hour-marker [Ascendant] is the rudder of the manner of life and the[2] entrance of life itself indicative of soul and manners and such things [3] Its post-ascension [ie the second place] is a place of hopes and things that go along with themrsquo(CCAG 83 1171ndash3 hellip ὁ ὡροσκόπος καὶ οἴαξ τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς ζωῆς εἴσοδος δηλωτικός τε ψυχῆςκαὶ τρόπου καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα τὸ δὲ ἐπαναφερόμενον αὐτοῦ ἐλπίδων τόπος καὶ τῶν συστοίχων)This seems to assert that the Ascendant and first place of the chart is the lsquorudderrsquo of bios(the second place) thus connecting zoē and bios

63 In this essay I consider both these texts as parts of Porphyryrsquos overall commentary on theMyth of Er


beginwith an introduction to the physical origins of humans and the soulrsquos partin this in To Gaurus and I argue an implied though unspoken involvement ofthe daimōn in the concepts and terms used by Porphyry to describe this pro-cess We shall then consider how Porphyry treats the astrological componentsof birth in his philosophical as well as his astrological treatise(s) the daimōnrsquosrole in this and discover his use of a Platonic metaphor as a significant part ofhis thinking both philosophically and astrologically

The Soul Becomes Embodied at Birth inTo GaurusSoul in this treatise is a crucial agent in the formation of the embryorsquos physicalbody Two souls are involved the fatherrsquos soul which operates in the formationof sperm (1051ndash3) and the motherrsquos soul which takes over the formation ofthe babyrsquos body once the seed is implanted in her (104ndash6)64 In both cases it isthe lsquoexternalrsquo (ἔξωθεν 1063) or soul lsquofrom aboversquo (ἄνωθεν 1053) that has thisability This process involves a hierarchy of soul where the higher informs thelower65 The fetusrsquos own soul cannot create its bodymdashthat must be done by asoul higher in the hierarchy namely first the fatherrsquos then even more impor-tantly for the bodyrsquos formation and construction the motherrsquos external soul(ἐκτός 6113ndash14)

hellip perhaps on account of this the embryorsquos own soul is not the craftsmanof the formation of the [body] subordinate to it Rather it is the motherrsquossoul thatmdashthough not being the craftsman of her own body eithermdashisthe craftsman of someone elsersquos body which is in the mother and yetexternal to her substance hellip66

That the motherrsquos soul is described in this context as a lsquocraftsmanrsquo dēmiourgosseems deliberately meant to evoke the demiurge of the Timaeus This sectionof To Gaurus foreshadows a further discussion of this topic in 1051ndash5 wherethe functions of the fatherrsquos and motherrsquos external souls are to administrate ormanage (literally lsquokeep housersquo διοικέω LSJ sv) the formation and constructionof the embryorsquos body In their functions as (consecutive) administrators thesesouls are called lsquopilotsrsquo (κυβερνήτης)

64 In this the vegetative powers of both parents also play a part see 1051ndash565 Previously (pp 113ndash114) we saw the daimonic hierarchy in Plotinus [Enn III 4] where the

soulrsquosdaimōn is on ahigher level than the soul and can steer it towards amore virtuous life66 Porphyry To Gaurus 6111ndash14 hellip μήποτε διὰ τοῦτο ψυχὴ μὲν ἰδία τοῦ ἐμβρύου οὐ δημιουργὸς

τῆς εἰδοποιίας τοῦ ὑπrsquo αὐτήν ἀλλrsquo οὐδὲ τοῦ οἰκείου σώματος ἡ τῆς μητρὸς ψυχή τοῦ δrsquo ἐν αὐτῇἀλλοτρίου καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκτόςhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 39 slightly modified

118 greenbaum

Therefore nature even goes over to other pilots at other times (i) Foras long as the seed is in the father it is administered by the vegetative[power] of the father as well as by the fatherrsquos soul from above whichconspires with the vegetative power towards its works (ii) But when ithas been released from the father into the mother it goes over to the veg-etative [power] of the mother and her soul hellip67

Several observations can be made about this passagersquos significance in relationto the practice of astrology First the idea of multiple administrators or man-agers over a particular process has parallels with astrological doctrines wherethe rulership or authority of a particular planet over a certain function in adoctrine can change and one planet lsquohands overrsquo to another Two examples ofthis are (1) planetary hours with different planets consecutively presiding overandmanaging the hours of day and night68 and (2) the doctrine of profectionswhere a particular planet ruling over a certain function in each year hands overin the following year to the next planet in the sequence69A third andmore significant example in this context is the astrological doc-

trine of the οἰκοδεσπότης (lsquohouse-masterrsquo) It is important because Porphyryexamines this termboth in his Letter toAnebo (in connectionwith the personaldaimōn) and in two chapters of the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos The termoikodespotēs is multivalent encompassing a number of different functions inastrological practice (I describe these and give examples in my recent book)70For example a housemastermay be the lsquohouse-lordrsquo71 of a sign planet or placebut may also become a ruler based on howmany counts of rulership it has in aparticular degree or place72 There can be lsquoco-housemastersrsquo as well as lsquohouse-mastersrsquo ruling over very specific topics making them a kind of sub-ruler but

67 Ibid 1051ndash5 διὸ καὶ προσχωρεῖ ἄλλοτε ἄλλοις αὐτὴ κυβερνήταις ἕως μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ τὸσπέρμα διοικεῖται ὑπό τε τῆςφυτικῆς τοῦπατρὸς καὶ συμπνεούσης τῆς ἄνωθεν τοῦπατρὸςψυχῆςτῇ φυτικῇ πρὸς τὰ ἔργα ὅταν δrsquo ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καταβληθῇ εἰς τὴν μητέρα προσχωρεῖ τῇ φυτικῇτῆς μητρὸς καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ τῇ ταύτηςhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 44 modified

68 Paulus Alexandrinus Introduction ch 21 (Boer 41ndash45) Olympiodorus the Younger Com-mentary on Paulusrsquo Introduction Ch 18 (33ndash37 Boer)

69 Described in detail in Dorotheus Carmen Astrologicum IV 1 (sim at Hephaestio Apote-lesmatica II 271ndash11) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos IV 10 (Huumlbner) Vettius Valens Anthology IV11 and Paulus Alexandrinus Introduction Ch 31 (82ndash85 Boer)

70 Greenbaum (2016) 255ndash266 256ndash257 and Appendix 7 423ndash43871 The planet ruling a particular zodiac sign eg Venus rules Taurus and the Sun rules Leo72 It may be not only a lsquohousersquo ruler but exaltation triplicity or term ruler or a combination

of these


a lsquohousemasterrsquo may also be a compound ruler of these topics For Porphyrythe rulership of these lsquosub-housemastersrsquo becomes a factor in finding an over-all authority for the chart This overall chart ruler is also called the lsquolord of thenativityrsquo or lsquohouse-master of the nativityrsquo73 It is often used by other astrologersin calculating lifespan but as we shall see below for Porphyry it is far moremorally importantPorphyryrsquos use of theword lsquopilotrsquo κυβερνήτης is noteworthy here First it sig-

nals his use of the ship metaphor for the soul coming into incarnation (theship metaphor is also employed by Plotinus for the soul coming into life withits daimōn [Enn III 4 [15] 647ndash60]) Secondly he uses the same word lsquopilotrsquoin connection with the oikodespotēs and lord of the nativity in his astrologi-cal text Introduction to the Tetrabiblos (Ch 30) The kubernetēs metaphor is awell-known trope in Plato and the Platonic tradition74 As noted above (n 58)Plutarch even compares thedaimōn to a kubernetēs inDegenio Socratis 586A3ndash4 That Porphyry would use this term inToGaurus as well as in the Introductionto the Tetrabiblos thus seems deliberate and significant In both of these textsthese intermediate pilots will yield to a more permanent guide once the fetusis born In To Gaurus Porphyry says

Indeed the entire time in the belly is spent in the formation and firmingup [of the embryo] like the construction of a ship in which at the verymoment when the ship-builder having completed the ship launches itinto the sea the pilot is settled in it75

The ship is obviously the physical body but the meaning of lsquoship-builderrsquo (ναυ-πηγός) is more difficult to pin down I think its sense here has two compo-nents The stuff of which the ship is built nature is its building blocks But themotherrsquos soul (along with the fatherrsquos) which has overseen the forming andlsquofirming uprsquo of the fetus can also be regarded as a ship-builder in the senseof one who constructs or more importantly oversees (a lsquopilotrsquo in 1051ndash5) theconstruction of the shipbody

73 See Paulus Introduction Ch 36 95ndash98 esp 9719ndash20 Boer Porphyry (1940) Intr TetrCh 30

74 See Afonasin (forthcoming) 23ndash30 Afonasin (2014) who calls it the lsquopilot metaphorrsquoGreenbaum (2016) 269ndash270

75 PorphyryToGaurus 1041ndash10 ὁ δὴ πᾶς χρόνος ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ εἴς τε τὴν πλάσιν καὶ τὴν πῆξιν ἀνα-λίσκεται ἐοικὼς νεὼς κατασκευῇ εἰς ἣν αὐτίκα δὴ μάλα ὅταν ἐκτελέσας αὐτὴν ὁ ναυπηγὸς εἰςτὴν θάλασσαν καθελκύσῃ ὁ κυβερνήτης εἰσοικίζεται Trans Wilberding (2011) 44 modified

120 greenbaum

The word ναυπηγός is interesting for another reason First it comes from thesame root as πῆξις emphasising its involvement with the lsquofixingrsquo or lsquogellingrsquoof the embryo And interestingly an astrological term for the birthchart thelsquorootrsquo chart representing the moment of the nativity is lsquoπῆξιςrsquo (called lsquoradixrsquo inLatin)76 The lsquogellingrsquo of the human fetus which is taking place is mirrored bythe astrological lsquofixingrsquo of the natal chart at themoment of birth Thus the chartrepresents the lsquoroot plantrsquo (the verb from which πῆξις comes πήγνυμι is com-monly used of plants being lsquofixedrsquo ie planted)77 Earlier inToGaurus Porphyrymakes an analogy between the farmerrsquos tending of a plant and a soulrsquos cultiva-tion of the embryo saying their cultivation is lsquohellip because they can be led andsteered by a guide hand-led bymeans of their passionsrsquo78 This foreshadows hisuse of kubernetēs for the lsquoplantingfixingrsquo of the embryo by the soul Porphyryalso uses the analogy between plant and embryo at 48ndash11 and citing Timaeus77c3ndash5 emphasises the embryo being fixed and rooted at 44 and 411 (Wemayalso note that Timaeus 90a6ndash7 refers to a human as a lsquoheavenly plantrsquo (φυτὸνhellip οὐράνιον) striving to move from earth to heaven) Though no specific con-nection should be implied in this context between the πῆξις of plantsembryosand the astrological πῆξις it is interesting that the same word has these multi-ple connotations

76 The lsquofixedrsquo configuration of the planets etc at birth For the use of πῆξις meaning lsquofixedrsquonatal chart in astrological texts see eg theGreek fragments of DorotheusCarmenAstro-logicum (transmitted by Hephaestio) Serapion (in CCAG 84 23112) Valens AnthologyAppendix XIX sentence 7 (42933 Pingree) and sentence 8 (4303) where πῆξις replacesthe word genesis used in Book IV 10 20ndash21 Also Hephaestio Apotelesmatica uses it inBooks II and III to compare the natal chart positions to those of other charts relevant toan individualrsquos life (as in profections or katarchai) also Rhetorius Compendium In Anti-ochus πῆξις occurs once where it also appears to be a synonym for genesis (ThesauroiCCAG VII 11525ndash30)

77 LSJ sv AI Regarding the use of πῆξις πήγνυμι in Porphyry the latter is used in the Cave oftheNymphs 254ndash9 lsquoBut the northwind is the properwind for souls proceeding to genesisIt is for this reason that for those about to die the breath of the north wind ldquoblowing uponthem revives the soul from its grievous swoonrdquo [Hom Il 5 697ndash698] while the breath ofthe south wind dissolves it For the former since it is colder congeals life and in the chillof earthly genesis locks it in while the latter since it is warmer dissolves it and impels itupwards to the heat of the divinersquo My italics Trans Seminar Classics 609 25 Greek textSem Clas 609 2418ndash23 hellip ἀλλὰ βορέας μὲν οἰκεῖος εἰς γένεσιν ἰούσαις διὸ καὶ τοὺς θνῄσκεινμέλλοντας ἡ βορέου πνοὴ (5) lsquoζωγρεῖ ἐπιπνείουσα κακῶς κεκαφηότα θυμόνrsquo ἡ δὲ τοῦ νότου δια-λύει ἡ μὲν γὰρ πήγνυσι ψυχροτέρα οὖσα καὶ ἐν τῷ ψυχρῷ τῆς χθονίου γενέσεως διακρατοῦσα ἡδὲ διαλύει θερμοτέρα οὖσα καὶ πρὸς τὸ θερμὸν τοῦ θείου ἀναπέμπουσα

78 Porphyry To Gaurus 637 ὅτι δὲ ἄγεσθαι [οἷά τε ἦν] καὶ [κ]υβερνᾶσθαι ὑπὸ προηγητοῦ χειρ-αγωγούμενα τοῖς πάθεσι


Another word used in connection with the embryorsquos creation is δημιουργέωAs we saw above what themother produces is called lsquoδημιουργουμένοςrsquo (1049ndash10)The sameword is usedof her soul in crafting the fetus at 6113ndash14 (see abovep 117 and n 66) Thus the motherrsquos soul is both a lsquopilotrsquo (1053ndash5) and acts asa lsquodemiurgersquo (1049ndash10 6111ndash14) in the role of overseeing the ship-building79But in addition to the intermediate pilots who play a part in the creation of thefetus there is also another pilot the external self-moving soul80 who comes inat the moment of birth to guide the human during its life (1065ndash8 and 1111ndash2)

hellip that [physical nature of the embryo] for its part is carried by the laws ofnature from darkness into light from a watery and blood-filled dwellingto an airy envelope81 And it in turn at this time immediately gets fromoutside the pilot who is present by the providence of the principle thatadministers the whole82 hellip And the pilot embarks to deal with the taskas soon as the [embryorsquos] nature has come forth into light [but] under nocompulsion to do so83

79 Here I wouldmodifyWilberdingrsquos (2011) statement 66 n 119 (commenting on 1047) thatlsquoNature is the ship-builderrsquo I would say rather that nature constitutes what the ship thebody is not the ship-builder itself or more precisely not the lsquobrainsrsquo behind the shiprsquosconstruction

80 Wilberding (2011) 67 n 127 shows that ἔξωθεν is used by Porphyry of the self-moving soul81 Here I follow Brisson et alrsquos translation 177 of lsquoenveloppe aeacuteriennersquo (ἐναέριον κύτος)

Whether this means the atmosphere or that the body is an airy cavity is uncertain In theTimaeus the construction of a living being includes a lsquovessel formed of airrsquo (Timaeus 78c2καὶ τὸ κύτος ἀεροειδῆ) Aristotle also uses kutos in reference to body cavities in eg De gen-eratione animalium 741ndash743 But kutos can also connote the lsquovaultrsquo of heaven Valens usesthis connotation in Anthology III 113 referring to the Sunrsquos lsquohanding overrsquo the vault whensetting in the evening and also in IV 1111 (16326 Pingree) in one of two lsquooathrsquo passageswhere Valens asks his disciple to swear by lsquothe starry vault of heavenrsquo οὐρανοῦ μὲν ἀστέριονκύτος So the common word kutos can be equally used for elements of both microcosmand macrocosm Bodily cavities or vessels can have a heavenly analogue in the vault ofheaven

82 Porphyry To Gaurus 1065ndash8 hellip φέρεται δὲ κἀκείνη θεσμοῖς φύσεως ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς ἀπὸ(5) ἐνύγρου καὶ ἐναίμου διαίτης εἰς ἐναέριον κύτος κἀνταῦθα δὴ πάλιν εὐθὺς ἔχει ἔξωθεν τὸνκυβερνήτην παρόν(τα πρ)ονοίᾳ τῆς τὰ ὅλα διοικούσης ἀρχῆς hellip Trans Wilberding (2011) 45modified

83 Ibid 1111ndash2 Ἐμβαίνει δὲ ὁ κυβερνήτης εἰς φῶς πρ(οε)λθούσ(ης) τῆς φύσεως μετὰ τοῦ ἔργου⟨οὐκ⟩ ἀναγκαζόμενος Here I followWilberdingrsquos interpretation putting μετὰ τοῦ ἔργουwiththe pilot contra Brisson et al (2012) 177 and 261 (6 68ndash70) lsquoNous entendons ici ἔργονcomme renvoyant au nouveau-neacutersquo

122 greenbaum

The phrase lsquoprovidence of the principle that administers the wholersquo demon-strates a connection between the babyrsquos guiding soulpilot and the WorldSoul84 Porphyry emphasises the connection of birth and the soul to light whenhe says that the body moves from the darkness of pure matter to the light con-temporaneous with the entrance of the self-moving (noetic) soul (the PlatonicEpistle VII 344b7 connects nous and light) That the pilot comes in under lsquonocompulsionrsquo reminds us that the soul has freely chosen its existence on earthWe shall return to the topic of the pilot below in the section lsquoThe AstrologicalPilot and the Personal Daimōnrsquo

Daimōn Human and the Pneuma-ochēmaThe daimōn is mentioned only once in To Gaurus as a possessor of pneumalsquodaimonesdisplay the formsof [their] imaginings in the airy pneuma that eitheris present [with] or is adjacent to themrsquo85 Porphyry brings this up to contrastit with the way the human soulrsquos pneuma functions thus setting up the soulrsquosfunction in thedevelopment of the embryo aswe sawabove But the concept ofpneuma either as a compositewith a vehicle (ochēma) or alone canbe relevantin the descent of the soul into incarnation where the soul takes on qualities ina process with obvious astrological componentsWhen a child is born according to Porphyry its soul descends through the

heavenly spheres taking on different attributes from the planets as it descendsThese according to Porphyry are what make up the soul-vehicle (ochēma-pneuma) and after death they are dispersed back into the cosmos86 Macro-bius following Porphyry provides an example of this descent in his Commen-tary on the Dream of Scipio (I 12) I 1213 refers to the lsquoluminous bodyrsquo (lumi-nosum corpus) by which the soul is enveloped as it descends This is clearly the

84 Wilberding (2011) 15 and 64 n 79 and Brisson et al (2012) 261 (6 65) make the sameassessment

85 PorphyryToGaurus 615ndash6hellip τοὺς δαίμονας τὰ εἴδη τῶν φαντασμάτων εἰς τὸ (5) συνὸν ἢ παρα-κείμενον αὐτοῖς ἀερῶδες πνεῦμα διαδεικνύναι transWilberding (2011) 39 slightly modifiedBrisson et al (2012) 242 cite On the Cave of the Nymphs 145ndash9 and Sentences 296ndash13 ascorrelatives for Porphyryrsquos idea here

86 Kissling (1922) 318 Wilberding (2011) 74 n 201 which supplies the relevant sourcesSome followers of Porphyry though rejected an outright dispersal for the irrationalsoul and its vehicle saying that their mixed-together componentsmdashacquired when thesoul descended through the spheresmdashresolved into their constituent elements and thenreturned to the spheres fromwhich they came (Sodano (1964) 68ndash69 [CommTim fr LXXXSodano]) see also Kissling ibid 324 Berchman (2005) 51ndash52 and nn 202ndash203


ochēma-pneuma as Kissling and others have pointed out87 Next the soul takeson different qualities each associated with a planet

in the sphere of Saturn [it takes on] reasoning and intelligence whichthey call logistikon and theorētikon in Jupiter the power of acting whichis said to be praktikon in Mars a burning for boldness which is calledthymikon in the Sun the faculty of perception and imagination whichthey name aisthētikon and phantastikon the impulse for desire which iscalled epithymētikon in Venus articulating and interpreting what it feelswhich is said to be hermeneutikon in the orb of Mercury it exercises thefaculty of forming and growing bodies namely phytikon on entering thelunar sphere88

The planetary order in which these qualities are received is called Chal-dean an order very commonly associated with astrology89 and some of thequalities also have an astrological background90 Macrobius is said to have

87 Kissling (1922) Dodds (1963) 318ndash319 Stahl (1952) 136 n 22 Armisen-Marchetti (2001) 167n 258 Formoreon thedevelopmentof the soul vehicle inNeoplatonism seeAddey (2013)149ndash152 Synesius who follows Porphyryrsquos ideas develops the idea of the soul-vehicleconnected with the daimōn in his De insomniis though he does not call it lsquoluminousrsquo(αὐγοειδὲς) see Kissling (1922) 327 For Synesiusrsquos dependence on ideas of Porphyry inthis treatise see Smith (1974) 156 Sheppard (2014) 97 and n 2 Tanaseanu-Doumlbler (2014)145ndash147 In De insomniis he explicitly associates the pneuma of the soul with the daimōnlsquoThe psychic pneuma which the happy people [εὐδαίμονες] also call the ldquopneumatic soulrdquomay become a god a daimon of any kind and a phantom It is in this that the soul paysits penaltiesrsquoDe insomniis 137D τὸ γέ τοι πνεῦμα τοῦτο τὸ ψυχικόν ὃ καὶ πνευματικὴν ψυχὴνπροσηγόρευσαν οἱ εὐδαίμονες καὶ θεὸς καὶ δαίμων παντοδαπὸς καὶ εἴδωλον γίνεται καὶ τὰς ποι-νὰς ἐν τούτῳ τίνει ψυχή Trans Russell with text in Russell and Nesselrath (2014) 24ndash25Smith (1974) 156 cites the same passage

88 Macrobius Somnium Scipionis I 1214 in Saturni ratiocinationem et intellegentiam quodλογιστικόν et θεωρητικόν vocant in Iovis vimagendi quod πρακτικόν dicitur inMartis animo-sitatis ardorem quod θυμικόν nuncupatur in Solis sentiendi opinandique naturam quod αἰ-σθητικόν et φανταστικόν appellant desiderii vero motum quod ἐπιθυμητικόν vocatur in Vene-ris pronuntiandi et interpretandi quae sentiat quod ἐρμηνευτικόν dicitur in orbe Mercuriiφυτικόν vero id est naturam plantandi et augendi corpora in ingressu globi lunaris exercet

89 The order is Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon Macrobius mentions thisorder also at I 42 For a discussion of planetary orders including Chaldean see Green-baum (2016) 168ndash170 and Table 52 404

90 Eg lsquoboldnessrsquo (τόλμα in Greek) is often an attribute of Mars whose ancient name is alsoPyroeis lsquofiery onersquo aisthesis is associated with the Sun (see Vettius Valens Anthology I 1)desire with Venus and interpretation with Mercury

124 greenbaum

taken this material from Porphyry who in turn was relating the ideas of Nume-nius91How does this material on soul vehicle and acquisition of planetary quali-

ties compare with what Porphyry says in the Commentary on Platorsquos Republicand On What is Up to Us Though developed in different ways there are noserious ideological incompatibilities In reference to the rainbow of light inRepublic 616bndash617a Porphyry states that it is the lsquofirst vehicle of the cosmicsoul and analogous to the luminous vehicle of our soulrsquo92 A similar concep-tion appears in 185aF93 The planetary spheres appear in OnWhat is Up to Uswhen the [soulrsquos] lsquopassage through the seven spheres of the first type of lifehappens another passage down them incites [the soul] differently accordingto the desires it has for certain of the second livesrsquo94So the luminous vehicle of a human soul is analogous to that of the World

Soul The column of light in Republic with its lsquorainbowrsquo contains in fact thespheres of the fixed stars and the planets sun and moon each sphere takingon a particular colourWhen a soul comes into incarnation then its luminousvehicle takes on in analogy to theWorld Soulrsquos the light in each of the heavenlyspheres that represents the planets95 This idea is developed further inOnWhatis Up to Us when the soul descends taking on the characteristics of each of theplanets as it goes down into generation The daimōn too (in its higher forms) iscommonly associated with light so we could speculate that the personal lightattached to the soul may apply also to the daimōn who accompanies the soulinto birth96

91 Armisen-Marchetti (2001) 66 n 263 169 n 275 for Macrobiusrsquos general reliance on andquotation of Porphyry see Gersh (1986) II 493 495ndash496

92 Commentary onRep = 185F 4ndash6 Smithhellip καὶ τῆς κοσμικῆς ψυχῆς ὄχημαπρῶτον εἶναι θέμενοςαὐτὸ καὶ ἀνάλογον τῷ αὐγοειδεῖ τῆς ἡμετέρας trans Wilberding (2011) 136 On this see alsoKissling (1922) 326

93 SeeWilberding (2011) 139 nn 12ndash13 (with references to ancient texts on this topic citingSmith [1993] 213ndash214)

94 Porphyry 271F 68ndash71 Smith hellip τοῦ ⟨δὲ⟩ πρώτου βίου ἡ διέξοδος διὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφαιρῶν γιγνο-μένη ἄλλως ἄλλης κατrsquo αὐτὰς κινουμένης κατὰ τὰς προθυμίας πρὸς τινας τῶν δευτέρων βίωνHere I agreewithWilberdingrsquos ingenious analysis (Wilberding [2011] 130) that the souls goupwards through the seven spheres to the fixed stars where they arrive at the horoscopes(which are decans in this case see Greenbaum and Ross (2010) 166 and n 111 Greenbaum(2016) 210 n 67) and then back down through the seven spheres to incarnation (and aparticular degree of the zodiac the Ascendant)

95 For more on the lsquolightrsquo names for the planets see Cumont (1935)96 For sources on the connections between the daimōn and light see Greenbaum (2016) 21ndash

27 45 197ndash198 218 273 305ndash306 340


The connection of the vehicle to stars appears in both Plato and AristotleIn Timaeus (41dndashe) the demiurge assigns each soul to a star and places it in avehicle (ἐς ὄχημα) Aristotle (On the Generation of Animals) first uses the wordlsquoanalogousrsquo in relation to the pneuma its nature is lsquomore divinersquo than the [four]elements (736b31 θειοτέρου τῶν καλουμένων στοιχείων) and thus it is lsquoanalogousto the element of the starsrsquo (736b37ndash737a1 ἀνάλογον οὖσα τῷ τῶν ἄστρων στοι-χείῳ) which Kissling rightly identifies as aether97 Thus there are precedentsfor involving the pneuma-ochēma in the soulrsquos descent through the stars

Astrology and Choice in the Soulrsquos DescentIn the astrological portions of these texts we can see how Porphyry weavesastrology into his philosophy of birth Three passages are particularly impor-tant for this discussion These are To Gaurus (1651ndash15) The Commentary onPlatorsquosRepublic (187F Smith) andOnWhat isUp toUs (271F 5ndash15 42ndash100 Smith)We shall look at each of these in turnThe passage in To Gaurus (165) begins by placing the self-moving (higher)

soul in the body at birth a soul which was described as a pilot and joins lsquoinharmonyrsquo with the body at exactly lsquothe right momentrsquo

However regarding the corporeal and irrational substance what is lack-ing in termsof its being joined to [a pilot] at birth is provided and affordedby the universe as an individual soul is immediately present the very soulwhich comes to be present to the [body] that has been brought forth at justthe right moment and comes to be in harmony with the instrumental bodythat is suited to receive it98 (My italics)

The moment when the soul the pilot of the humanrsquos life joins the body is notrandom This moment of birth is lsquoaccording to kairosrsquo (κατὰ καιρὸν)99 the right

97 Kissling (1922) 319 His article is extremely helpful for delineating the antecedents of theochēma

98 Porphyry To Gaurus 1651ndash5 κα(τ)ὰ μέντοι τὴν σω(ματικὴν) ἄλογον οὐσίαν τὸ ἐλλεῖπον τῆςσυναρτήσε(ως) μ(ετ)ὰ τὴν κ(ύ)ησιν ἐνδίδωσί τε καὶ ἀποπίμπλησι τὸ πᾶν ἰδίας ψυχῆς εὐθὺςπαρούσης ἥτις ἂν ⟨ᾖ⟩ κατὰ καιρὸν ψυχὴ τῷ τεχθέντι γενομένη καὶ σύμφωνος τῷ ἐπιτηδείωςἔχοντ(ι αὐτ)ὴν δέξασθαι (ὀργανικῷ σώ)ματι hellip Reading with Festugiegravere (1950 repr 2006)III 297 n 1 and Wilberding (2011) 76 n 220 ἥτις ἂν ⟨ᾖ⟩ κατὰ καιρὸν for ἥτις ἂν κacutehellipνTrans Wilberding 53

99 I support the inspired emendation of κατὰ καιρὸν here (see n 98 above) because Porphyryuses a very similar phrase later in the sentence (καθrsquo ὃν καιρὸν) and because the lacunoseportion begins with a κ and ends with a ν (M Chase in Brisson et al [2012] 329 n 29

126 greenbaum

and proper time when it is lsquoin harmonyrsquo with the body Kairos in this contextthe lsquoright momentrsquo for acting is an important concept not only in Neoplatonicritual (as in DM 84 2676ndash10)100 but in astrologymdashin fact the entire branch ofastrology called lsquokatarchicrsquo depends on finding the right moment the kairosand the most propitious arrangement of the heavens to begin something101It is at the kairos that body and soul are in harmony (symphonos) That Por-phyry would have known of this practice can be seen in his exchange withIamblichus on beginning a ritual at the proper astrological moment (DM 84)and his citation of the sub-branch of katarchic astrology called lsquoquestionsrsquo inthe Introduction to the Tetrabiblos102Next Porphyry points out the divinity of the eastern or rising (anatolika)

portions of the sky103

And the Chaldeans104 say that from eternity there has been a divine andintelligible stream through the easternrising parts of heaven And thisstream both moves and turns the cosmos and brings to life everything init by sending them their own souls And every degree when it came tobe around this eastern regionrising place which is a gate of souls andthe spiritual inlet of the universe is made powerful [This region] wascalled lsquocentrepinrsquo and lsquohoroscopersquo And on this invisible stream dependseverything that has emerged from amother or that has in some other waybecome suited for being brought to life hellip on account of which they alsocall this easternrising centrepin lsquoplace of lifersquo hellip105

follows Limburgrsquos ἔξωθεν Dorandirsquos text omits itmdashthough he acknowledges Festugiegravere inthe app crit and the French translation seems to reflect it)

100 See Addey (2014a) 105ndash106 211 Addey (2014b) 68ndash69 Greenbaum (2016) 247ndash248 alsoAddey (2015)

101 See Greenbaum (2016) 40ndash44 360 366ndash367102 In Ch 19 lsquoOn Aversionrsquo he compares the lord of the ascendant in a chart to the lord of the

ascendant in a chart associated with lsquoquestionsrsquo περὶ ἐρωτήσεων (CCAG 54 2015ndash6)103 See a similar sentiment inDeantro 29wherehe tells us that the lsquorising portions are proper

to the godsrsquo ὡς θεοῖς μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά [sc οἰκεῖα] (2814ndash15 Seminar Classics 209)104 By lsquoChaldeansrsquo Porphyry means lsquoastrologersrsquo (or perhaps more specifically ancient astrol-

ogers to emphasise the antiquity of the doctrine described) See Greenbaum (2013) svChaldaeans astrologers Johnson (2013) 276 has not understood the common locution oflsquoChaldeanrsquo for lsquoastrologerrsquo even though this passage is highly astrological in content

105 Porphyry To Gaurus 1655ndash10 13 = 19643ndash50 52ndash53 Brisson et al (2012) καὶ τῶν Χαλδαίωνῥεῦμα θεῖον ἐξ αἰῶνος νοητὸν (γενέ)σθαι φαμένων κ(ατὰ τὰ ἀνα)τολικὰ μέρη | τοῦ (οὐρανοῦ) ὃ(κι)νεῖ τ(ε) τὸν κ(όσμον) καὶ στρέφει καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐ(ν) αὐτῷψυχὰς πέ(μ)π(ον) οἰκείας ζῳογονεῖπᾶσα οὖν μοῖρα γιγνομένη περὶ τὸν ἀνατολικὸν τοῦτον τόπον ὅς ἐστι ψυχῶν πύλη καὶ εἴσπνοια


This rising portion named for the location where the sun rises to beginthe day contains as described above (p 126) the point where the eclipticand eastern horizon meet at the moment of birth and is called the Ascen-dant in the astrological chart (hōroskopos lsquohour-markerrsquo in Greek) This firstplace is the lsquoplace of lifersquo It seems that Porphyry is reconciling basic princi-ples of astrologymdashthe mechanics of the chart and the moment of birth onwhich the layout of the chart is basedmdashwith philosophical concepts of soulsand their entries into bodies through a place designated as divine Thus thechart becomes a de facto illustration of birth arising from a divine and intelli-gible sourceA slightly different approach is taken in 187F where we find an emphasis

not on the eastern portion that contains the Ascendant but on the risings(anaphorai) of the different zodiac signs and the sphaera barbarica

hellip Plato having learned about the ascensional times from the Egyptiansindicates that the soul of Ajax has the twentieth place in terms of therisings of the times that determine the lives and that itwas thenbydirect-ing his attention to the universe that the messenger of these accounts[Er] counted the order I mean [the order] of the souls that are choos-ing first second twentieth or whatever other position For we too haveencountered the Sphaerae Barbaricae of the Egyptians and Chaldaeansthat determine the differences in lives according to the degrees of thezodiacmaking the onedegreemaybe kingly and thenext onemdashand thisis paradoxical to hearmdasha kind of mercantile degree or one that is worsethan even this life and another degree [they make] that of a priest andthe one after that is of a slave andmdashwhat is even worse than thismdashamanwho is without shame regarding his male nature106

τοῦ παντός δυναμοῦται λέγεται δὲ κέντρον καὶ ὡροσκόπος hellip ⟨διrsquo⟩ ὃ καὶ ζωῆς τόπον λέγουσι τὸἀνατολικὸν τοῦτο κέντρονhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 53 modified

106 Porphyry 187F 5ndash18 Smith hellip παρrsquo Αἰγυπτίων μαθόντα τὸν Πλάτωνα περὶ τῶν ἀναφορικῶνχρόνων ἐνδείκνυσθαι διὰ τούτων ὡς ἄρα κατὰ τὰς ἀναφορὰς τῶν τοὺς βίους ὁριζόντων χρόνωνεἰκοστὴν εἶχεν τάξιν ἡ τοῦ Αἴαντος αὕτη ψυχή καὶ τοῦτο ἀποβλέπων εἰς τὸ πᾶν ὁ τῶνδε τῶνλόγων ἄγγελος ἠρίθμει τὴν τάξιν λέγω τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν πρώτων ἢ δευτέρων ἢ εἰκοστῶν ἢ ἄλλωςὁπωσοῦν αἱρουμένωνΚαὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἐνετύχομεν σφαίραις βαρβαρικαῖς Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Χαλδαίωνκατὰ τὰς μοίρας τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ τὰς τῶν βίων διαφορὰς ὁριζούσαις καὶ τὴν μὲν ποιούσαις εἰ τύχοιβασιλικήν τὴν δὲ ἑξῆς ὃ καὶ παράδοξον ἀκοῦσαι ἐμπορικήν τινα καὶ ταύτης χείρονα τῆς ζωῆςκαὶἄλλην ἱερέως καὶ τὴν μετrsquo αὐτὴν δούλου καὶ τὸ τοῦδε χεῖρον ἀπηρυθριακότος πρὸς τὴν ἄρρεναφύσιν Trans Wilberding (2011) 137ndash138

128 greenbaum

Here Porphyry ties the order in which the souls choose with ascensionaltimes and thus some portion of the zodiac He makes a similar connectionin 271F 5ndash12 where he says that the souls are allotted and lsquotake their lives inorder and as the period leads themrsquo107 And each soul goes through the revolu-tion and stops in order lsquowith the lots signifying first and secondrsquo (271F 10ndash12)108Lachesis the allotter who gives the lots to the prophet is said to be lsquothe revo-lution of the universersquo (271F12ndash15)109 This is extremely interesting because itmeans that he is joining the order of the lots with the zodiac and thus with thelives they eventually choose The case is made even clearer when he adds tothe earlier passage (187F 14ndash17) lsquoit is not surprising that the souls drawing lotstogether have the first middle and last [position] according to the ascensionsof the degreesrsquo110mdashthus in regard to the first lives the souls choose in an orderprescribed by portions of the zodiac and how they rise (In this case these por-tions may be the decans which would divide each sign into three portions often degrees each see n 94) A further elaboration appears in 271F 79ndash87 wherehe talks about the Egyptians considering lsquothe first degrees of each zodiac signas goodrsquo because they were apportioned lsquoto the lord of the signrsquo but the finaldegrees were lsquoassigned to the malefic starsrsquo This as Stephan Heilen noticed111surely refers to the Egyptian terms where each sign is divided into portions ofvarying size each ruled by a planet and the first terms are invariably given to aplanet having significant rulership in that signAscensional times are found bymeasuring howmany degrees of right ascen-

sion must pass over the meridian in order for a particular zodiac sign to rise112The time it took zodiac signs to rise was affected by location (klimata zonesbased on latitude) and their position relative to the AriesLibra axis and waslong known by astrologers113 Different systems for these had been codified for

107 Ibid 271F 6ndash7 hellip τοὺς βίους καὶ λαμβάνειν αὐτοὺς ἀλλὰ τάξει καὶ ὡς ἄγει αὐτὰς ἡ περίοδοςlsquoPeriodrsquo in this context refers to the system of planetary periods numbers of years con-ferred by planets a system well-known in astrology and eg in Valens Anthology III 13combined with ascensional times to give lifespan indications

108 Ibid 271F 11ndash12 κλήρων σημαινόντων τὸ πρῶτον καὶ τὸ δεύτερον Trans Wilberding (2011)144

109 Ibid 271F 14ndash15 Λάχεσιν δὲ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς περιστροφὴνhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 144110 Ibid 187F 14ndash17 hellip οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν καὶ τὰς συγκλήρους ψυχὰς τὸ πρωτεῖον ἔχειν καὶ μέσον καὶ

ἔσχατον κατὰ τὰς ἀναφορὰς τῶν μοιρὼνhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 144111 Heilen (2010) 58112 Neugebauer (1975) 36 979ndash980 Schmidt andHand (1994a) 17 Schmidt andHand (1994b)

v113 Pairs of signs based on the Aries-Libra axis are equally ascending AriesPisces Tau-

rusAquarius GeminiCapricorn CancerSagittarius LeoScorpio VirgoLibra


different vernal points and different locations (Babylon and Alexandria forexample) Porphyry himself includes two chapters on rising times for zodiacsigns in his Introduction to the Tetrabiblos (chs 41ndash42) in which he gives thetraditional rising times for Alexandria followed by Ptolemyrsquos values So whenPorphyry says that one goes lsquoherersquo to be a dog and another lsquotherersquo to be a manthis would depend not only on a soul merely going to one particular Ascen-dant degree but on the time relative to the location and the sign that wasrising114Porphyry also considers the significance of the sphaera barbarica a celes-

tial globe of lsquoforeignrsquo constellations Some interpretations of these are given byManilius Astronomica Book 5 in relation to their co-rising with zodiac signs(known as paranatellonta) these produce certain characteristics for one whohas these configurations in his birthchart115 Teucer of Babylon wrote a com-mentary on paranatellonta and decans in antiquity Inmentioning the sphaerabarbarica Porphyry further refines his technique for discovering the astronom-ical and astrological situation at birthWe have already seen (271F 68ndash71 n 94above) that decans are likely involved in where the soul goes to align the firstlife with the right astrological momentBut Porphyry is interested not only in the mechanics of the astrological

moment of birth but also with how astrology can encompass choice and dif-ferent outcomes for the same planetary positions and even similar Ascendantpositions He asks lsquoWhy then in the same ascension is say a dog generatedand a man and a woman and many men for all of whom neither the first lifenor the second life is the samersquo116 His answer although the souls lsquoseemrsquo toenter the world at the same moment this is not true in actuality because ofthe differences in ascensional times (based on location) and because of thelot providing different examples of lives (271F 60ndash67) First he tries to supplyan astronomical reason for the variation that different ascensional times canaffect the ascendant in subtle waysmaking it slightly different for each personso that what appears to be the same actually is not117 But he also brings up thelsquolotrsquo that allows the choice of different lives and this goes back to the Myth of

114 For example in System A for Alexandria LeoScorpio took 35deg of right ascension to rise atKlima 1 but 39deg to rise at Klima 7 see Table in Schmidt and Hand (1994a) 21

115 See Housman (1930) xlndashxliv Boll (1903) 75ndash77 375ndash388 Greenbaum (2016) 226ndash227116 Porphyry 271F 57ndash60 Smith διὰ τί οὖν ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἀναφορᾷφέρε καὶ κύων γεννᾶται καὶ ἀνὴρ καὶ

γυνὴ καὶ πολλοὶ ἄνδρες καὶ πάντων οὔτε ὁ πρῶτος βίος ὁ αὐτὸς οὔτε ὁ δεύτερος TransWilberd-ing (2011) 145

117 Wilberding (2011) 152 n 49

130 greenbaum

Er and the soulrsquos choice The soulrsquos internal disposition (διάθεσις) toward a par-ticular life matches the external astrological lsquodispositionrsquo (271F 44ndash51)118He also mentions Platorsquos assertion that lsquoconfigurations of a certain sort sig-

nify the lives but they do not necessitate themrsquo (271F 87ndash88)119 and lsquothe causeof their movingrsquo (271F 90ndash92 αἰτία hellip τῆς hellip φορὰς) first to a decan and thento an Ascendant degree (see above n 94) is their choice of a first and secondlife In other words it is not the stars but the souls who in choosing a first andsecond life compel the necessity of physical and environmental consequencesthat comewith that life a life analogically portrayed (lsquowrittenrsquo) by the astrolog-ical configuration This configuration then only signifies what was chosen thenecessitations are a result of the soulsrsquo choices However the soul is still able tolsquomanage [this life] through either virtue or vicersquo120We can see an example of this latter option even in astrological practice Vet-

tius Valens in illustrating a technique called profections (Anthology V 6121ndash125)121 uses the life of a dancer to show how the same configuration of pro-fections twelve years apart produce different outcomes based on the dancerrsquospsychological (and moral) reaction to events that happened to him when hewas 19 and 31 years old Valens emphasises different components of the con-figurations in each case showing that the dancerrsquos psychological outlook andmoral reaction benefited or damaged him particularly whether he followed avirtuous path and gained wisdom or not In his 20th year when he escapeda ruined reputation imprisonment and even risk of death certain fortunateastrological circumstancesprevailedHowever that thiswas a lsquoluckybreakrsquo thatcould have gone another way did not occur to him He learned no humility ormoral lessons from it Sowhen the sameastrological circumstances arose againmore negative components prevailed Valens tells us that because the dancerhad become lsquoinsolent and a braggartrsquo122 the events that now ruined his reputa-tion and livelihoodwere his own faultmdashlsquohe himself became responsible for his

118 Wilberding and I discussed this point seeWilberding (2011) 151 n 43 Johnson (2015) 198gives the same assessment without citingWilberding The usual astrological term for thisis διάθεμα (not διάθεσις) but Porphyry seems to be making a specific correlation betweenthe two lsquoarrangementsrsquo

119 Porphyry 271F 87ndash88 Smith σημαίνειν μὲν οὖν τὰ ποιὰ σχήματα τοὺς βίους τίθεταιν Πλάτωνἀναγκάζειν δὲ οὐκέτιhellipTrans Wilberding (2011) 146

120 Ibid 271F 109ndash110 hellip διrsquo ἀρετῆς αὐτὸν διοικεῖ ἢ κακίας Note the same verb διοικέω thatPorphyry uses of the soul in To Gaurus 105 and 106

121 For a full discussion and interpretation of this passage see Greenbaum (2016) 324ndash327122 V 6125 (2209ndash10 Pingree) hellip ὑβριστὴς καὶ ἀλαζὼνhellip


downfallrsquo123 and this was specifically caused by his ownmental stance leaningnot towards virtue and humility but pride and arrogance (The situation illus-trates theMyth of Errsquos statement lsquoresponsibility is with the chooserrsquo) Thus forValens the same astrology can produce different outcomes based on whetherthe mental inclinations of the person incline the expression of the positive ornegative components of that astrological configurationThus both in astrological and in philosophical approaches we find choice

and decision-making available in the interpretation of human lives By includ-ing astrological material in his discussions of fate and human choice Porphyryshows his desire to involve the doctrines of astrology with his philosophicalexpositions It would have been easy for him just to leave out the astrology orto decisively reject it but that is not what he does The very fact that he bringsastrology into these discussions shows his concern for reconciling it with thephilosophical positions he is taking For him astrology can reflect choice justas the soul can partake of it

The Astrological Pilot of the Soul and the PersonalDaimōnThe word lsquopilotrsquo (kubernetēs) mentioned in To Gaurus refers (1) to the exter-nal or self-moving soul that pilots the ensouled body during life and (2) to thelsquointermediatersquo pilots the fatherrsquos and motherrsquos souls that helped to form andconsolidate the fetus at fertilisation and while it was in the motherrsquos wombKubernetēs and its variants are also important in Plato where nous is the lsquopilotof the soulrsquo (Phaedrus 247c7) and the famous charioteer is also a kind of landpilot (Phaedrus 247bndash248a) As Afonasin has amply demonstrated the kuber-netesmetaphor is found inmany venues associated with Platonism (see abovep 119 and n 74) As we have already seen nous and its connections to thedaimōn are also Platonic concerns (egTimaeus 90andashc) continuing in the trans-missions to Middle and Neo-Platonism So Porphyry is following in a well-established tradition When we add the idea of a daimōn accompanying thesoul into life we can infer another layer of guidance for an ensouled humanbeing Plutarchrsquos earlier articulation of these concepts occurs especially in Degenio Socratis comparing the daimōn to a pilot (κυβερνήτης) at 586A3ndash4 speak-ing of the nousdaimōn guiding the soul as if it were a charioteer reining inhorses (evoking the Phaedrus passage) and demonstrating how it aids in thesaving of the best souls (593Endash594A) Later Plotinus posits a daimōn who canguide a life from a higher andmore virtuous level than that on which the life islived The human so guided can then choose to follow this daimōn in becoming

123 V 6125 (2209 Pingree) hellip ἑαυτῷ παραίτιος τῆς καθαιρέσεως ἐγένετοhellip

132 greenbaum

more virtuous All of these interrelated conceptions form a constellation ofwhat the personal daimōn is and can doThe Letter to Anebo demonstrates Porphyryrsquos urgent interest in the personal

daimōn and not only abstractly He solicits Iamblichusrsquos opinion about itscapabilities and how to recognise it in onersquos own life For Iamblichus this dai-mōn is constellated from the entire cosmos He repeats (DM 96) Platorsquos rolefor the daimōn in the Myth of Er a role discussed in similar terms by Porphyryin OnWhat is Up to Us but for Iamblichus this daimōn should be sought withtheurgy In DM 97 Iamblichus reiterates that the personal daimōn rules overevery part of us and refers back to Porphyryrsquos question about the oikodespotēsof the nativity now blatantly inserting the word daimōn for oikodespotēs inresponding to Porphyryrsquos concerns He thus supplies an equivalence betweenthe personal daimōn as lsquosingle daimōn over everything that concerns usrsquo (DM9711ndash12) and the oikodespotēs of the nativity in its sense of an overall ruler ofthe chartThe discussion of the personal daimōn in the Letter to Anebo thus has direct

philosophical relevance for Porphyryrsquosmethod for obtaining an overall oikodes-potēs which he calls a lsquolordrsquo (kurios) of the nativity in the Introduction to theTetrabiblos Chapter 30of this textwhichdraws thebasicmethod for finding anoverall chart ruler from Antiochus is interspersed with commentary and addi-tions by Porphyry that show evidence of this philosophical subtext ThoughPorphyry does not use the word daimōn let alone oikeios or idios daimōn inhis strictly astrological text the word we do find is our old friend kubernētēsHere is the relevant passsage with Porphyryrsquos commentary onAntiochusrsquos doc-trine124

Furthermore precise definitions are required to differentiate house-mas-ter of the nativity lord and predominator from one another For theancients entangle the names up and do not distinguish their characteris-tics For each has its own power just like a skipper and a pilot so we willteach how they are different from each other

Porphyry goes on to give the method for finding this lord finishing with thisstatement

124 Porphyryrsquos commentary is italicised here Introduction CCAG V4 2063ndash7Ἔτι τίνι διαφέ-ρουσιν ἀλλήλων οἰκοδεσπότης γενέσεως καὶ κύριος καὶ ἐπικρατήτωρ χρὴ διεσταλκέναι οἱ γὰρἀρχαῖοι πλέξαντες τὰς ὀνομασίας τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν οὐ διέκριναν ἰδίαν γὰρ ἕκαστος ἔχει δύναμιν ὥσπερναύκληρος καὶ κυβερνήτης διδάξομεν οὖν τίνι ἀλλήλων διαφέρουσι


From all these they declare the lord to be the one placedmost sympathet-ically in the nativity that is the onemore on a centrepin more in a phaseof visibility or more on its own places and having themost power in rela-tion to the figure of the nativity and those co-witnessing it But how onemust investigate the lord which has been so found will be said next andhowmuch power [it has] from this125

This method is designed to find the strongest best and most effective planetin the chart It is hard to ignore Porphyryrsquos use of the word kubernētēs hereespecially given its importance in To Gaurus (Could Plutarchrsquos comparison ofdaimōn with kubernētēs also have had an influence) Let us connect the dotsbetween the Letter to Anebo the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos To Gaurus andOnWhat is Up to Us

(1) a personal daimōn equated with an oikodespotēs of the nativity in itsmeaning of an overall ruler [Letter to AneboDM]

(2) this chart ruler the lord of the nativity associated with a pilot responsi-ble for steering the ship safely who is represented astrologically by thestrongest and best planet in the chart [Introduction to the Tetrabiblos]

(3) a pilot associated with a higher soul again steering a ship that is a met-aphor for the body (following an important Platonic concept that alsobrings in the idea of nous and the daimōn) [To Gaurus]

(4) a daimōn who ratifies the life chosen by the soul some components ofwhich are necessarily out of our control after being chosen and somewhich are up to us (the daimōnmay also encourage virtue for us [Timaeus90bndashc]) and the soul entering life and the body within the matrix of theastrological chart fixed at the moment of birth [OnWhat is Up to Us]

The result of these circumstances yields

(5) a daimōnsoulpilot who steers and governs the ensouled human joiningwith the body at birth a birth which for Porphyry has clear and necessaryastrological components

125 Intr Tetr CCAG V4 20723ndash20817 ἐκ δὲ τούτων πάντων τὸν συμπαθέστατα πρὸς τὴν γένε-σιν κείμενον ἀποφαίνονται κύριον τουτέστι τὸν ἐπικείμενον πρότερον τὸν ἀνατολικώτερον ἢ τὸνμᾶλλον ἐπrsquo οἰκείων τόπων καὶ τὴν πλείστην δύναμιν πρὸς τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γενέσεως ἔχοντα τούς τεσυμμαρτυροῦντας αὐτῷ περὶ δὲ τοῦ εὑρεθέντος κυρίου πῶς δεῖ σκέπτεσθαι ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ῥηθήσε-ται καὶ ὅση ἡ ἐκ τούτου δύναμις

134 greenbaum

The function of this daimōn is encapsulated beautifully in a statement byProclus another Neoplatonic philosopher (and follower of Plotinus and Por-phyry) also interested in the daimōn and astrology

The daimōn alone moves all governs all orders all our affairs For it per-fects the reasonmoderates passions inspires naturemaintains the bodyprovides the accidentals fulfils the decrees of fate and bestows gifts fromprovidence and this one being is king of all that is in us and all that hasto do with us steering our whole life126

We could characterise Porphyryrsquos whole complex of ideas here as just a com-bination of his philosophical concerns with his astrological ones but at thispoint I shall venture a bolder statement about what Porphyry is doing He isnot merely adding on to his philosophical concerns with some astrology Onthe contrary his astrological observations have become a part of evenmeshedwith his philosophical concerns Indeed they have informed a significant partof his approach to how a soul incarnates how the daimōn guides a life howthat life comes into existence and what sort of virtue it chooses to embrace

Abbreviations

CCAG Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum Edited by Franz Cumont etal 12 vols Brussels Henri Lamertin 1898ndash1953

DM Iamblichus DemysteriisD-K Diels Hermann andWalther Kranz Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker grie-

chisch und deutsch 6th ed 3 vols Vol 1 Berlin Weidmann 1951 repr 1966Intr Tetr Porphyry Introduction to Ptolemyrsquos TetrabiblosLSJ Liddell Henry George Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones A Greek-

English Lexicon 9th ed Oxford Clarendon Press 1996VP Porphyry Vita Plotini

126 Proclus On Alcibiades I 781ndash6 (Westerink) μόνος δὲ ὁ δαίμων πάντα κινεῖ πάντα κυβερνᾷπάντα διακοσμεῖ τὰ ἡμέτερα καὶ γὰρ τὸν λόγον τελειοῖ καὶ τὰ πάθη μετρεῖ καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἐμπνεῖκαὶ τὸ σῶμα συνέχει καὶ τὰ τυχαῖα χορηγεῖ καὶ τὰ εἱμαρμέναπληροῖ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς προνοίας δωρεῖ-ται καὶ εἷς ἐστὶν οὗτος ἁπάντων τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ περὶ ἡμᾶς βασιλεύς οἰακίζων ἡμῶν τὴν σύμπασανζωήν Trans (modified)WOrsquoNeill in ProclusDiadochus (1965) It seems likely that Proclusis following Porphyry here This statement also has similarities with Iamblichusrsquos at DMIX6 280 (as quoted in Dillon (2001) 4) See also Timotin (2012) 311ndash312


Bibliography

Primary SourcesAntiochus of Athens Introduction Summaries of Books 1 and 2 Edited by Franz Cu-mont CCAG VIII3 111ndash119 Brussels 1912

Antiochus of Athens ap Rhetorius lsquoThesauroirsquo In CCAG I edited by Franz Boll 140ndash166Brussels 1898

Aristotle Generation of Animals Translated by AL Peck Loeb Classical Library Cam-bridge MA 1943

Armisen-Marchetti Mireille ed Macrobe Commentaire au Songe de Scipion 2 volsParis 2001

Berchman Robert M Porphyry Against the Christians Leiden-Boston 2005Brisson Luc Gwenaeumllle Aubry Marie-Heacutelegravene Congourdeau and Franccediloise Hudryeds Porphyre Sur la maniegravere dont lrsquo embryon reccediloit lrsquoacircme Histoire des doctrines delrsquoantiquiteacute classique Paris 2012

Clarke Emma C John M Dillon and Jackson P Hershbell eds and trans IamblichusOn the Mysteries Atlanta 2003

Diels Hermann and Walther Kranz Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker griechisch unddeutsch 6th ed 3 vols Vol 1 Berlin 1951 repr 1966

Dodds ER ed Proclus The Elements of Theology Oxford 1963Dorotheus of Sidon Carmen Astrologicum Edited by David Pingree Leipzig 1976Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler trans and annot Late Classical Astrology Paulus Alexan-drinusandOlympiodoruswith theScholia fromLaterCommentators Reston VA 2001

Heilen Stephan Hadriani genitura Die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos vonNikaia Edition UumlbersetzungundKommentar 2 vols Vol 43 Texte undKommentareBerlin 2015

Hephaestio Apotelesmaticorum libri tres Edited by David Pingree 2 vols Leipzig 1973Housman AE M Manili Astronomicon Liber Quintus (accedunt addenda libris I IIIII IV) London 1930

Olympiodorus Eis ton Paulon ⟨Heliodorou⟩ Heliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexan-drinum Commentarium Edited by Emilie Boer Leipzig 1962

Paulus Alexandrinus Elementa Apotelesmatica Edited by Emilie Boer Leipzig 1958Plato Phaedo Translated by Harold North Fowler In Plato I Loeb Classical LibraryCambridge MA 1917 repr 2001

Plato Phaedrus In Platonis Opera vol 2 Edited by John Burnet Oxford 1910Plato Republic In Platonis Opera vol 4 Edited by John Burnet Oxford 1905Plato Timaeus Translated by RG Bury In Plato IX Loeb Classical Library CambridgeMA 1929 repr 1989

Plotinus Plotinus Ennead III Translated by AH Armstrong Loeb Classical LibraryCambridge MA 1967 repr 2006

136 greenbaum

Plutarch De genio Socratis Translated by Phillip H De Lacy and Benedict Einarson InMoralia VII Loeb Classical Library Cambridge MA 1959 repr 2000

Porphyry Introduction to the Tetrabiblos In CCAG V4 Edited by Emilie Boer and StefanWeinstock 185ndash228 Brussels 1940

Porphyry Vita Plotini In Plotini Opera vol 1 Edited by Paul Henry and Hans-RudolfSchwyzer Paris 1951ndash1973

Proclus Diadochus Proclus Alcibiades I A Translation and Commentary Translated byand commWilliam OrsquoNeill The Hague 1965

Pseudo-Plutarch De fato Translated by Phillip H De Lacy and Benedict Einarson InMoralia VII Loeb Classical Library Cambridge MA 1959 repr 2000

Ptolemy Claudius Ἀποτελεσματικά Edited by Wolfgang Huumlbner Opera quae exstantomnia III 1 StuttgartLeipzig 1998

Rhetorius Compendium astrologicum secundum epitomen in cod Paris gr 2425 ser-vatam Edited by David Pingree and Stephan Heilen BerlinNewYork forthcoming

Russell Donald A and Heinz-Guumlnther Nesselrath eds On Prophecy Dreams and Hu-man Imagination Synesius De insomniis Tuumlbingen 2014

Saffrey Henri Dominique and Alain-Philippe Segonds eds Porphyre Lettre agrave AneacutebonlrsquoEacutegyptien Paris 2012

Schmidt Robert trans and Robert Hand ed [1994b] Vettius Valens The AnthologyBook II Part 1 Vol VII Project Hindsight Greek Track Berkeley Springs WV 1994

Seminar Classics 609 State University of New York at Buffalo Porphyry The Cave ofthe Nymphs in the Odyssey Edited by JM Duffy PF Sheridan LG Westerink andJA White Arethusa Monograph 1 Buffalo NY 1969

Smith Andrew ed Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta StuttgartLeipzig 1993Sodano AR ed Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum Commentariorum Fragmenta Naples1964

StahlWilliamHarris trans and annotMacrobius Commentary on theDreamof ScipioNew York 1952

Valgiglio Ernesto ed trans and comm Pseudo-Plutarco De fato Rome 1964Vettius Valens Anthologiarum libri novem Edited by David Pingree Leipzig 1986Wilberding James trans and comm PorphyryToGaurus onHowEmbryos are Ensouledand OnWhat is in Our Power Ancient Commentators on Aristotle London 2011

Secondary LiteratureAdamson Peter (2008) lsquoPlotinus onAstrologyrsquoOxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35265ndash291

Addey Crystal (2013) lsquoIn the light of the sphere the vehicle of the soul and subtle-body practices inNeoplatonismrsquo In Religion and the Subtle Body inAsia and theWestBetweenMind and Body edited by Geoffrey Samuel and Jay Johnston 149ndash167 Lon-donNew York


Addey Crystal (2014a) Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism Oracles of the GodsAshgate Studies in Philosophy amp Theology in Late Antiquity Farnham SurreyBur-lington VT

Addey Crystal (2014b) lsquoThe Daimonion of Socrates Daimones and Divination in Neo-platonismrsquo In The Neoplatonic Socrates edited by Danielle A Layne and HaroldTarrant 51ndash72 Philadelphia

Addey Crystal (2015) lsquoIamblichus and Proclus on Divination and the Kairos in RitualPractices of Late Antiquityrsquo Paper presented at the Colloquium on Ritual Dynamicsin Late Antiquity University of St Andrews 3 June 2015

Afonasin Eugene (2014) lsquoThe Kybernētikē TechnēMetaphor in the Platonic TraditionrsquoPaper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for Neo-platonic Studies Lisbon Portugal 16ndash21 June 2014

Afonasin Eugene (forthcoming) lsquoThe PilotMetaphor and its Artistic Reflectionsrsquo Prax-ema 1 (forthcoming) 23ndash30

Alt Karin (2005) lsquoMan and daimones do the daimones influence manrsquos lifersquo In ThePhilsopher and Society in Late Antiquity Essays in Honour of Peter Brown edited byAndrew Smith 73ndash90 Swansea

Barnes Jonathan (2011) lsquo ldquoThere was an old person from Tyrerdquo rsquo In Method and Meta-physics Essays in Ancient Philosophy I edited by Maddalena Bonelli 100ndash124 Ox-ford

Bidez Joseph (1913) Vie de Porphyre Le philosophe Neacuteo-Platonicien GhentLeipzigBoll Franz (1903) Sphaera Neue griechische Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichteder Sternbilder Leipzig

BrozeMichegravele andCarineVan Liefferinge (2011) lsquoLe deacutemonpersonnel et son rocircle danslrsquoascension theacuteurgique chez Jambliquersquo In De Socrate agrave Tintin Anges gardiens etdeacutemons familiers de lrsquoAntiquiteacute agrave nos jours edited by Jean-Patrice Boudet PhilippeFaure and Christian Renoux 67ndash77 Rennes

Cumont Franz (1935) lsquoLes noms des planegravetes et lrsquoastrolatrie chez les Grecsrsquo LrsquoAntiquiteacuteclassique 4 no 1 5ndash43

Dillon John (1999) lsquoPlotinus on Whether the Stars are Causesrsquo Res Orientales 12 (LaScience des Cieux Sages mages astrologues) 87ndash92

Dillon John (2001) lsquoIamblichus on the Personal Daemonrsquo The Ancient World 321 3ndash9

Dodds ER (1951) The Greeks and the Irrational BerkeleyLos AngelesLondonEliasson Erik (2008) The Notion of ThatWhich Depends on Us in Plotinus and Its Back-ground Philosophia Antiqua 113 Leiden-Boston

Festugiegravere A-J (1950) La reacuteveacutelation drsquoHermegraves Trismeacutegiste 3 vols Vol 3 Les doctrinesde lrsquoacircme Paris repr 2006

Gersh Stephen (1986)Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism The Latin Tradition 2 volsNotre Dame Indiana

138 greenbaum

Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler (2010) lsquoArrows Aiming and Divination Astrology as aStochastic Artrsquo In Divination Perspectives for a New Millennium edited by PatrickCurry 179ndash209 Farnham Surrey

Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler (2013) lsquoChaldaeans astrologersrsquo In The Encyclopedia ofAncient History edited by Roger S Bagnall Kai Brodersen Craige B ChampionAndrew Erskine and Sabine Huebner httpdxdoiorg1010029781444338386wbeah21081

Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler (2016) The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology Origins andInfluence Leiden-Boston

Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler andMicahT Ross (2010) lsquoThe Role of Egypt in the Devel-opment of theHoroscopersquo In Egypt inTransition Social andReligiousDevelopment ofEgypt in the FirstMillennium BCE edited by Ladislav Bareš Filip Coppens and KvetaSmolarikova 146ndash182 Prague

Hankinson RJ (1988) lsquoStoicism Science and Divinationrsquo Apeiron 21 no 2 123ndash160Heilen Stephan (2010) lsquoPtolemyrsquos Doctrine of the Terms and Its Receptionrsquo In Ptolemyin Perspective edited by Alexander Jones 45ndash93 Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York

Hillman James (1996) The Soulrsquos Code In Search of Character and Calling New Yorkrepr 1997

Johnson Aaron P (2013) Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre The Limits of Hel-lenism in Late Antiquity Cambridge

Johnson Aaron P (2015) lsquoAstrology and the will in Porphyry of Tyrersquo In Causation andCreation in Late Antiquity edited by AnnaMarmadoro and Brian D Prince 186ndash201Cambridge

Karamanolis George andAnneSheppard (2007) lsquoIntroductionrsquo In Studies onPorphyryedited by George Karamanolis and Anne Sheppard 1ndash5 London

Kissling Robert Christian (1922) lsquoThe OXHMA-ΠΝΕΥΜΑ of the Neo-Platonists and theDe insomniis of Synesius of Cyrenersquo American Journal of Philology 43 no 4 318ndash330

Komorowska Joanna (1995) lsquoPhilosophical Foundation of Vettius Valensrsquo AstrologicalCreedrsquo Eos 83 331ndash335

Komorowska Joanna (2004) Vettius Valens of Antioch An Intellectual MonographyKrakoacutew

Lawrence Marilynn (2007) lsquoWho Thought the Stars are Causes The Astrological Doc-trine Criticized by Plotinusrsquo In Metaphysical Patterns in Platonism edited by JohnF Finamore and Robert M Berchman 17ndash33 New Orleans

Long AA (1982) lsquoAstrology arguments pro and contrarsquo In Science and SpeculationStudies in Hellenistic theory and practice edited by Jonathan Barnes Jacques Brun-schwig Miles Burnyeat and Malcolm Schofield 165ndash192 Cambridge

Nance Andreacute (2002) lsquoPorphyry TheMan and his DemonsrsquoHirundoTheMcGill Journalof Classical Studies 2 37ndash57


Neugebauer Otto (1975) A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy 3 vols Berlin-Heidelberg-New York

Oppenheim A Leo (1974) lsquoA Babylonian Divinerrsquos Manualrsquo Journal of Near EasternStudies 33 no 2 197ndash220

Peacuterez Jimeacutenez Aurelio (2007) lsquoHephaestio and the Consecration of Statuesrsquo Cultureand Cosmos 11 no 1 and 2 111ndash134

Proctor Travis W (2014) lsquoDaemonic Trickery Platonic Mimicry Traces of ChristianDaemonological Discourse in Porphyryrsquos De Abstinentiarsquo Vigiliae Christianae 68416ndash449

Rochberg Francesca (1996) lsquoPersonifications and Metaphors in Babylonian CelestialOminarsquo Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 no 3 475ndash485

Rochberg Francesca (2004) The Heavenly Writing Divination Horoscopy and Astron-omy in Mesopotamian Culture Cambridge

Schmidt Robert and Robert Hand (1994a) Project Hindsight Companion to the GreekTrack Berkeley Springs WV

Sheppard Anne (2014) lsquoPhantasia inDe insomniisrsquo InOnProphecy Dreams andHumanImagination Synesius De insomniis edited byDonald A Russell andHeinz-GuumlntherNesselrath 97ndash110 Tuumlbingen

Simmons Michael Bland (2015) Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity Porphyry of Tyreand the Pagan-Christian Debate Oxford

Smith Andrew (1974) Porphyryrsquos Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism The Hague

Smith Andrew (2007) lsquoPorphyrymdashScope for a Reassessmentrsquo In Studies on Porphyryedited by George Karamanolis and Anne Sheppard 7ndash16 London

Tanaseanu-Doumlbler Ilinca (2013)Theurgy in LateAntiquity The Invention of aRitualTra-dition Vol 1 BERG Goumlttingen

Tanaseanu-Doumlbler Ilinca (2014) lsquoSynesius and the Pneumatic Vehicle of the Soul inEarly Neoplatonismrsquo In On Prophecy Dreams and Human Imagination Synesius Deinsomniis edited by Donald A Russell and Heinz-Guumlnther Nesselrath 125ndash156 Tuumlb-ingen

Taub Liba Chaia (1993) Ptolemyrsquos Universe The Natural Philosophical and Ethical Foun-dations of Ptolemyrsquos Astronomy ChicagoLa Salle IL

Timotin Andrei (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens Philosophia Antiqua 128 Leiden-Boston

Westerink LG (1971) lsquoEin astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564rsquo ByzantinischeZeitschrift 64 6ndash21

Wilberding James (2013) lsquoThe Myth of Er and the Problem of Constitutive Luckrsquo InAncient Approaches to Platorsquos Republic edited by Anne Sheppard 87ndash105 BICS Sup-plement 117 London


Daimones in PorphyryrsquosOn the Cave of the Nymphs

Nilufer Akcay

Introduction

In his On the Cave of the Nymphs an allegorical interpretation of HomerrsquosOdyssey XIII 102ndash112 Porphyry states that souls descend into genesis due totheir inclination to pleasure which is identified with lsquobecoming moistrsquo Thisdiscussion is primarily based on De Antro 108ndash25 in which Porphyry refers toa lost work of Numenius

We specifically also call the powers that preside over water lsquoNaiadnymphsrsquo however they also used to speak in general of all souls descend-ing into genesis as Naiad nymphs For they deemed that the souls settledon water as being infused with the inspiration of the god as Numeniussays because of this he claims the prophet also says that the spirit ofGod is born upon the water and for this reason the Egyptians make alldivine beings stand not on solid ground but all on a floating vessel boththe Sun and all the others These should be understood to be the soulshovering over the moist element as they descend into genesis And it isfor this reason (Numenius says) that Heraclitus says that lsquoit is enjoymentnot death for souls to become moistrsquo that is to say falling into genesis isa delight for them and that he (Heraclitus) also says elsewhere that lsquowelive the death of them and they live the death of usrsquo For this reason thepoet (Homer) calls those in genesis lsquowetrsquo because their souls are wet Forboth blood and moist sperm are dear to them just like the nourishmentof the souls of plants is water1

I amgrateful to Prof JohnDillon for reading the draft of this paper This paper originated frompart of a doctoral dissertation presented inDepartment of Classics University of DublinTrin-ity College Dublin in 2017

1 Numenius F 30 des Places = F 46 Leemans Νύμφας δὲ ναΐδας λέγομεν καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑδάτων προ-εστώσας δυνάμεις ἰδίως ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τὰς εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσας ψυχὰς κοινῶς ἁπάσας Ἡγοῦντογὰρ προσιζάνειν τῷ ὕδατι τὰς ψυχὰς θεοπνόῳ ὄντι ὡς φησὶν ὁ Νουμήνιος διὰ τοῦτο λέγων καὶ τὸνπροφήτην εἰρηκέναι ἐμφέρεσθαι ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος θεοῦ πνεῦμα τούς τε Αἰγυπτίους διὰ τοῦτο τοὺςδαίμονας ἅπαντας οὐχ ἱστάναι ἐπὶ στερεοῦ ἀλλὰ πάντας ἐπὶ πλοίου καὶ τὸνἭλιον καὶ ἁπλῶς πάν-τας οὕστινας εἰδέναι χρὴ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐπιποτωμένας τῷ ὑγρῷ τὰς εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσας Ὅθεν καὶἩράκλειτον ψυχῇσι φάναι τέρψιν μὴ θάνατον ὑγρῇσι γενέσθαι τέρψιν δὲ εἶναι αὐταῖς τὴν εἰς τὴν

daimones in porphyryrsquos on the cave of the nymphs 141

lsquoBecoming moistrsquo is apparently associated with the Naiad nymphs who arethe protectors of waters This passage raises the question of the nature of theNaiad nymphs within the context of De Antro as a whole as Porphyry employstheir different symbolic interpretations They are firstly identified as both soulsand dunameis in De Antro 108ndash10 and then as daimones that preside overgenesis (γενεθλίοις δαίμοσιν) in De Antro 125 Similarly they are identified asdaimons of generation (τὸν γενέθλιον δαίμονα) in DeAntro 357 whomOdysseusappeases due to his blinding of Polyhemus namely Thoosa In addition Por-phyry specifies which region is appropriate to daimones or gods according tohis distinction the West is appropriate to daimones (δαίμοσι δὲ τά δυτικά DeAntro 2915) whereas the East is suited to gods (θεοῖς μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά DeAntro2915)Although all those brief statements provide little impression of Porphyryrsquos

demonology with his multifaceted identification of Naiad nymphs theyprompt us to examine whether daimones can also be considered as soulsfalling into genesis what type of daimones or souls they may be in Porphyryrsquosdemonology and how daimones have an influence or impact on the soulFollowing Porphyryrsquos allocation of the regions to mortals and immortals

or more specifically gods and daimones (τῷ μὲν θνητῷ καὶ γενέσει ὑποπτώτῳφύλῳ τὰ βόρεια οἰκεῖα τῷ δὲ θειοτέρῳ τὰ νότια ὡς θεοῖς μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά δαί-μοσι δὲ τὰ δυτικά 291ndash3)2 this paper argues that daimones symbolised by theNaiad nymphs are closely related to those that cause souls to descend into thematerial realm in Porphyryrsquos commentary on the story of Atlantis in Timaeus20d8ndash9 (F 10 Sodano) which is preserved in Proclusrsquo Commentary on PlatorsquosTimaeus 776ndash24 In accordance with his comment on the story of Atlantisit then seeks to apply Porphyryrsquos division of daimones and souls in particu-lar some of which are in the process of genesis some of which are ascend-ing to the higher realm of the celestial regions described in De Antro 291ndash3Next following this connection it draws a distinction between the guiding

spirit and the idea of humans souls as daimones the former having its sourcein Timaeus 90a the latter in Timaeus 90c On the basis of this distinction itdemontrates that Odysseus may be deemed to be one of the heroic or divine

γένεσιν πτῶσιν καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ φάναι ζῆν ἡμᾶς τὸν ἐκείνων θάνατον καὶ ζῆν ἐκείνας τὸν ἡμέτερονθάνατονΠαρὸ καὶ διεροὺς τοὺς ἐν γενέσει ὄντας καλεῖν τὸνποιητὴν τοὺς διύγρους τὰςψυχὰς ἔχονταςΑἷμά τε γὰρ ταύταις καὶ ὁ δίυγρος γόνος φίλος ταῖς δὲ τῶν φυτῶν τροφὴ τὸ ὕδωρ Unless otherwiseindicated the translations are my own

2 See Greenbaum (2016) 192 for hellip lsquoἀνατολικάrsquo also means rising places

142 akcay

souls allocated to the South in De Antro 292 while Athena is deemed to be hisguiding daimon ruling the rational part of Odysseusrsquo soul and leading him tothe divineFinally given that lsquothe individual souls have received a daimonic lotrsquo in F 108

of Porphyryrsquos commentary on the Timaeus this paper also covers the fact thatAthena might operate as Odysseusrsquo rational principle since he has not yetcompleted his self-improvement This aspect of Athena receives support fromPlotinusrsquo On Our Allotted Daimon (Enn III 43) in which he deems the guidingdaimon to be an entity superior to usIn De Antro 1016ndash17 Porphyry quotes Heraclitus 22B 77 DK to support the

idea that lsquobecomingmoistrsquo gives pleasure to the souls falling into genesis (Ἡρά-κλειτον ψυχῇσι φάναι τέρψιν μὴ θάνατον ὑγρῇσι γενέσθαι τέρψιν δὲ εἶναι αὐταῖςτὴν εἰς τὴν γένεσιν πτῶσιν) However he does not provide a detailed explana-tion justifying the association of lsquobecoming moistrsquo with pleasure and genesisIn order to elucidate this connection my analysis draws on the relevant partsof De Antro and other texts by Porphyry on demonology and psychology espe-cially On Abstinence from Killing Animals whose content on demonology isthe most elaborate among his other fragmentary writings his commentaryon the Timaeus particularly F 7 and F 12 (Sodano)3 and Sententia 9 On theassumption that Porphyry uses De Antro to explain important religious andphilosophical ideas and to train his followersrsquo way of thinking this paper seeksto show that Porphyryrsquos thoughts on demonology are consistent and that hisworks complement each other thereby allowing for a coherent reading of thevarious identifications of the Naiad nymphs and of Odysseus and Athena

On the Cave of the Nymphs

On the Cave of the Nymphs is an elaborate allegorical reading of Odyssey XIII102ndash112 In this section of the work Homer describes the cave near the har-bour of Phorcys in Ithaca where Odysseus is dropped by the Phaeacians andin which under the guidance of goddess Athena he stores the Phaeaciansrsquovaluable gifts Porphyry analyses these lines and provides a setting for an alle-gorical interpretation of the Odyssey as a narrative of the cyclical journey ofthe human soul4 This soul becomes embodied in the material world where all

3 Sodano (1964) 4 7ndash84 Smith (2007) 13 he describes Porphyryrsquos style of thinking in the treatise as lsquoparatacticrsquo where

lsquoPorphyry places a number of widely differing allegorical interpretations after each other andleaves the reader to make his own choicesrsquo


kinds of pleasures try to beguile it and keep it from achieving its purpose Afterits dissociation from the body the soul returns to the point of its departurethe intelligible realm Porphyryrsquos interpretation of the religious and mytholog-ical symbols and images in our case the Naiad nymphs Odysseus and Athenareflects his particular interests which also pervade many of his other worksthe relationship between the soul and the body and the salvation of the soulPorphyryrsquos interpretation of De Antro is in fact based on Numeniusrsquo identi-

fication of Homerrsquos cave as an image and symbol of the cosmos (τοῦ δὴ ἄντρουεἰκόνα καὶ σύμβολον φησὶ τοῦ κόσμου φέροντος Νουμήνιος καὶ ὁ τούτου ἑταῖροςΚρόνιος De Antro 213ndash4) and of Odysseus as an image of the soul passingthrough successive stages of genesis and returning to the place where it isfree from all the toils and passions of the material world (οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ σκο-ποῦ οἶμαι καὶ τοῖς περὶ Νουμήνιον ἐδόκει Ὀδυσσεὺς εἰκόνα φέρειν Ὁμήρῳ κατὰ τὴνὈδύσσειαν τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἐφεξῆς γενέσεως διερχομένου καὶ οὕτως ἀποκαθισταμένουεἰς τοὺς ἔξω παντὸς κλύδωνος καὶ θαλάσσης ἀπείρους De Antro 346ndash10) Nume-niusrsquo identifications of the Homeric hero and the cave seem tailor-made forPorphyry as they provide him with an opportunity to use the poetrsquos verses asan exegetical exercise to show his followers the association between the souland the body an interest which also emerges within his Life of Plotinus (VPlot13)Not only Numenius but also Plotinus in Ennead 168 interprets the journey

of Odysseus5 who flees from the pleasures offered by Circe and Calypso andeventually reaches his homeland symbolising the successful journey of thehuman soul to return to the lsquofatherlandrsquo that is the intelligible realm whilecontrasting him with Narcissus who loses himself in his own reflection in thewater and lsquodrowns in material beautyrsquo6 In following Numeniusrsquo treatment ofOdysseus Porphyryrsquos textwas clearly not idiosyncratic but followed apath thatwas to some extent familiar to his Neoplatonic audience This familiarity is alsocorroborated by Porphyryrsquos reference to another Odyssean image in his Life ofPlotinus (VPlot 2227) of the hero eagerly swimming to the coast of the Phaea-cians (νήχεrsquo ἐπειγόμενος Od 5399) This passage (VPlot 2223ndash34) as part of alengthy Delphic oracle reports an enquiry made by Amelius who consultedthe oracle of Apollo in Delphi wondering where Plotinusrsquo soul had gone Inrevealing the fate of Plotinusrsquo soul to him the oracle borrowedHomeric phrasesrelating to Odysseus pronouncing enigmatically that Plotinus had managedto lsquoescape from the bitter wave of blood-feeding lifersquo (πικρὸν κῦμrsquo ἐξυπαλύξαι

5 Lamberton (1986) 132ndash133 Edwards (1988) 509ndash5106 See Hadot (1999) 225ndash266 for Plotinusrsquo interpretation of the myth of Narcissus

144 akcay

αἱμοβότου βιότοιο VPlot 2231ndash32 cf 236) that is to say from life entrappedin the body in a way similar to how Porphyry interprets the soul of Odysseusescaping from all toils of the material world in De Antro

Naiad Nymphs as Symbols of Daimones and Souls

Let us first begin by giving a short summary of Porphyryrsquos treatment of dai-mones in De Abstinentia in particular7 We learn from De Abstinentia II 3710ndash381 that the region below the visible celestial bodies that is the sublunaryregion including the cosmos8 the fixed stars and the seven planets is filledwith daimones who can be sub-divided into different ranks The class of theinvisible gods (or daimones) must be appeased by peoplersquos prayers and sacri-fices Some of the daimones are well-known among people and bear nameswhile others are anonymous and only prayed to by fewer people Not only inthis passage of De Abstinentia but also elsewhere in his works Porphyry men-tions the anonymity of the daimones For example in his Homeric QuestionsVIII 193ndash94 he refers to this anonymity to explain Odysseusrsquo prayer lsquohear meLord whoever you arersquo (κλῦθι ἄναξ ὅτις ἐσσί) inOdyssey V 445 InDeAbstinentiahe provides a more extensive discussion

To the other gods the world and the fixed and wandering starsmdashvisiblegods composed of soul and bodymdashwe should return thanks as has beendescribed by sacrifices of inanimate things So there remains the multi-tude of invisible gods whom Plato called daimones without distinctionPeople have given some of them names and they receive from everyonehonours equal to the gods and other forms of worship Others have noname at all in most places but acquire a name and cult inconspicuouslyfrom a few people in villages or in some cities The remaining multitudeis given the general name of daimones and there is a conviction aboutall of them that they can do harm if they are angered by being neglectedand not receiving the accustomed worship and on the other hand thatthey can do good to those who make them well-disposed by prayer andsupplication and sacrifices and all that goes with them9

7 See Timotin (2012) 208ndash212 for a detailed discussion on Porphyryrsquos demonology See also LucBrissonrsquos and Dorian G Greenbaumrsquos contributions in this volume

8 Here the cosmos may refer to theWorld Soul which Porphyry would see as a god as a wholelike the seven planets and the fixed stars

9 Porphyry De abstinentia II 3710ndash381 Τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς θεοῖς τῷ τε κόσμῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπλανέσι καὶ


In this passage Porphyry refers to Timaeus 40d6ndash9 in which Plato describesdaimones the invisible gods as the offspring of the visible gods (ἔκγονοι θεῶν)that is to say of the cosmos the fixed stars and the sevenplanets In accordancewith custom Plato gives the names of the traditional gods in the order of theirgeneration Ge Uranus Oceanus Tethys Phorcys Cronus Rhea Zeus Heraand others (Tim 40e5ndash41a2) In his Symposium (202d11ndash203a4) Plato regardsdaimones as intermediaries between gods and humans After Plato accordingto Plutarchrsquos testimony in On the Obsolescence of Oracles 416cndashd Xenocrateswho is Porphyryrsquos possible source goes further and compares the equilateral tothe nature of the gods the scalene to that of man and the isosceles to that ofthe daimones10 The isosceles triangle partly equal and partly unequal showsthe dual character of daimones because they have divine powers and humanfeelingsReturning toDeAntro Porphyry states thatNaiadnymphs are souls descend-

ing into genesis despite the fact that they are traditionally the divine powersassociated with water (Νύμφας δὲ ναΐδας λέγομεν καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑδάτων προεστώ-σας δυνάμεις ἰδίως ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τὰς εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσας ψυχὰς κοινῶς ἁπάσαςDe Antro 108ndash10) Porphyry corroborates this statement by quoting Nume-nius (F 30 DP) who refers to Egyptian rituals that represent all daimones onbarques rather than on solid ground As regards his first statement on Naiadnymphs Porphyry ostensibly makes a generalisation related to a particulargroup of individual souls in the process of descending into genesis In DeAntro121ndash4 he uses the etymology of the word nymph which signifies not onlyfemale deities of nature at the lower ontological level but also nubile womenor brides11

πλανωμένοις ἔκ τε ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος οὖσιν ὁρατοῖς θεοῖς ἀντευχαριστητέον τὸν εἰρημένον τρό-πον διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν τῶν ἀψύχων λοιπὸν οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τὸ τῶν ἀοράτων πλῆθος οὓς δαίμοναςἀδιαστόλως εἴρηκε Πλάτων τούτων δὲ οἳ μὲν κατονομασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρrsquo ἑκά-στοις τυγχάνουσι τιμῶν τrsquo ἰσοθέων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης θεραπείας οἳ δὲ ὡς τὸ πολὺ μὲν οὐ πάνυ τικατωνομάσθησαν ὑπrsquo ἐνίων δὲ κατὰ κώμας ἤ τινας πόλεις ὀνόματός τε καὶ θρησκείας ἀφανῶςτυγχάνουσιν τὸ δὲ ἄλλο πλῆθος οὕτω μὲν κοινῶς προσαγορεύεται τῷ τῶν δαιμόνων ὀνόματι πεῖ-σμα δὲ περὶ πάντων τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ὡς ἄρα καὶ βλάπτοιεν ⟨ἂν⟩ εἰ χολωθεῖεν ἐπὶ τῷ παρορᾶσθαικαὶ μὴ τυγχάνειν τῆς νενομισμένης θεραπείας καὶ πάλιν εὐεργετοῖεν ἂν τοὺς εὐχαῖς τε αὐτοὺςκαὶ λιτανείαις θυσίαις τε καὶ τοῖς ἀκολούθοις ἐξευμενιζομένους (Trans Clark 2000 70)

10 Dillon (2005a) 128ndash129 Clark (2000) 154 n 299 for Xenocrates as Porphyryrsquos possiblesource See also Dillon (1996) 37ndash38 for Xenocratesrsquo interest in Pythagoreanism

11 Larson (2001) 20ndash21

146 akcay

Naiad nymphs are therefore souls entering into genesis It is also custom-ary to call brides nymphs as if they were closely connected with genesisand to pour water over them for bathing taken from springs or streams orfountains which are ever-flowing12

Porphyry predicates the connection between brides and Naiad nymphs on thefact that water used for bathing brides is under the protection of the Naiadnymphs a belief which he touches on in various passages of DeAntro (hellip διὰ τὰἐν ἄντροις καταλειβόμενα ἢ ἀναδιδόμενα ὕδαταὧν αἱ ναΐδεςὡςπροεστήκασι νύμφαιin 621ndash22 Νύμφας δὲ ναΐδας λέγομεν καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑδάτων προεστώσας δυνάμεις in108ndash9 αἳ ναμάτων καὶ πηγῶν προεστῶσαι πηγαῖαί τε καὶ ναΐδες διὰ τοῦτο κέκλην-ται in 132ndash3 λίθινοι δὲ κρατῆρες καὶ ἀμφιφορεῖς ταῖς προεστώσαις τοῦ ἐκ πετρῶνἐξιόντος ὕδατος νύμφαις οἰκειότατοι in 141ndash2)In De Antro 125 Porphyry defines the daimones that preside over genesis

(γενεθλίοις δαίμοσιν) implying that they are divine powers or more preciselyNaiad nymphs who traditionally belong to the lineage of Poseidon but areamong the multitude of the water-deities of lower rank Another referenceto daimones is found in De Antro 357 in which Porphyry explains Homerrsquosdescription of Odysseus sitting under the olive tree by specifying that he islsquoappeasing the daimon of generationrsquo (ἀπομειλισσομένῳ τὸν γενέθλιον δαίμονα)13because of his sinful action namely his blinding of Polyphemus the son of thenymphThoosa and the greatest among the Cyclopes (Od I 69ndash72) The daimonof generation whomOdysseus appeases is apparently the nymph Thoosa thedaughter of Phorcys who is listed as one of the offspring of the visible godsin Platorsquos Timaeus 40e6 This interpretation is supported by the fact that dai-mones and nymphs are associated with pleasure and genesis throughout DeAntro and that Porphyry states in De Antro 3510 that Odysseus must appeaselsquothe gods of the sea and of matterrsquo (ἁλίων καὶ ὑλικῶν θεῶν) which include thenymph Thoosa14

12 Porphyry De antro nympharum 121ndash4 ναΐδες οὖν νύμφαι αἱ εἰς γένεσιν ἰοῦσαι ψυχαί ὅθεν καὶτὰς γαμουμένας ἔθος ὡς ἂν εἰς γένεσιν συνεζευγμένας νύμφας τε καλεῖν καὶ λουτροῖς καταχεῖνἐκ πηγῶν ἢ ναμάτων ἢ κρηνῶν ἀενάων εἰλημμένοις

13 The phrase lsquodaimon of generationrsquo is reminiscent of the phrase lsquoappeasing the gods of gen-erationrsquo ἀπομειλίξασθαι τοὺς γενεθλίους θεοὺς in AdMarcellam 23 where Porphyry defendshis marriage as a concession to the social norms See Smith (1974) xvii Wicker (1987) 82Whittaker (2001) 164 Greenbaum (2016) 273ndash274 trans Zimmern (1986) 40

14 On nymphs as daimonic figures see also Plutarch De defectu 415C and Proclus In RempI p 12529ndash30 Kroll


The last reference to daimones in De Antro should be considered in a widercosmological and astrological context15 In DeAntro 291ndash3 Porphyry discussesproper assignments of the regions asserting that thewestern regions are appro-priate to daimones while the eastern ones are appropriate to the gods Thereare two further regions the South and the North which he allocates to theimmortals or more divine beings and to the race of mortals subject to gene-sis respectively In connection with Homerrsquos double-gated cave starting fromSection 20 to 29 Porphyry explains the poetrsquos assignment of the northernentrance of the cave of the nymphs to the mortals (θνητοί) and the south-ern to the immortals (ἀθάνατοι) His detailed discussion covers the gates ofheaven (πύλαι οὐρανοῦ) or the gates of the Sun the gates of the Sun and theMoon and the solstitial gates16 With regard to the solstitial gates which thewinter and summer solstices occur in Capricorn ruled by Saturn and in Can-cer ruled by the Moon respectively the soul descends into the material worldthrough the chain of the seven planets towards the Earth through the Moonand ascends to the seven planets each of which also represents a specific ini-tiatory grade of themysteries of Mithras to the sphere of the fixed stars throughSaturn17Porphyryrsquos short statement about the celestial regions prompts us to raise

a number of questions first why does Porphyry assign the western region todaimones in particular Second what precisely is the distinction between thesouls falling into genesis from the North and those daimones who are placedin the West Last what is the link between the western region and the Naiadnymphs as daimones seeing that Porphyry also identifies these nymphs withthe souls coming into genesis in De Antro 121ndash2In De Antro 324ndash26 we receive some information on what lsquothe Westrsquo tra-

ditionally signifies it is the quarter that people face entering into templeswhereas the statues of the gods and the entrances to almost all temples facethe East (πάντων τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ μὲν ἀγάλματα καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους ἐχόντων πρὸς ἀνα-τολὴν τετραμμένας τῶν δὲ εἰσιόντων πρὸς δύσιν ἀφορώντων) Indeed according toPorphyry Homerrsquos use of the North and the South rather than of theWest and

15 See Greenbaum (2016) and her article in this volume for daimon in astrological contexts16 Numenius F 32 des Places = F 44 Leemans = De Antro 281ndash10 and Proclus In Remp II

p 12826ndash12921 Kroll = Numenius F 35 des Places = F 42 Leemans according to Numeniusthe gates of the Sun signify the gates of Capricorn and Cancer The correspondence of thesolstices to the gates of the Sun seems to result from the fact that the Sun astrologicallyoccurs in Capricorn during the winter solstice and in Cancer during the summer solstice

17 See Beck (2006) and the relevant articles in Beck (2004) for the astrological interpretationof the solstitial gates Greenbaum (2016) Chapter 5

148 akcay

the East is a part of the puzzle that he puts forward in De Antro 316ndash42 andhe describes it as lsquonot a simple questionrsquo (οὐ μικρᾶς οὔσης ἀπορίας)Concerning our last questionmdashwhether there is a link between the west-

ern region and Naiad nymphs as daimonesmdashthe general association with themoistness of this region may at least offer some insights In his Tetrabiblos(I 113ndash41) Ptolemy describes the region to theWest as moist

The region to the West is itself moist because when the Sun is thereinthe things dried out during the day then first begin to becomemoistenedlikewise thewindswhich blow from this part whichwe call by the generalname Zephyrus are fresh and moist18

We infer from Porphyryrsquos statement in De Antro 244ndash9 that the eastern andwestern regions correspond to the equinoctial points

Homer attributed the caversquos entrances neither to the East and to theWestnor to the equinoxes that is Aries and Libra but to the South and to theNorth and to the northernmost gates towards theNorth and the southern-most gates towards the South because the cave is dedicated to souls andwater nymphs the regions are appropriate to souls subjected to genesisand apogenesis19

Here the East is the spring equinox occurring in Aries in the ascendant theWest the autumnal equinox occurring in Libra in the descendant The north-ern region and the southern region are assigned to souls under the process ofgenesis and apogenesis respectively because of the dedication of the double-gated cave to souls and Naiad nymphs In De Antro 298ndash9 we receive furtherinformation that the cardinal point (κέντρον) falling above the Earth (ὑπὲρ γῆν)corresponds to the East (τὸ ἀνατολικόν) the other under the Earth (ὑπόγειον)

18 Ptolemy Tetrabiblos I 113ndash41 ὁ δὲ πρὸς ταῖς δυσμαῖs τόπος αὐτός τέ ἐστιν ὑγρὸς διὰ τὸ κατrsquoαὐτὸν γινομένου τοῦ ἡλίου τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἀναποθέντα τότε πρῶτον ἄρχεσθαι ὑγραίνεσθαι οἵτε ἀπrsquo αὐτοῦ φερόμενοι ἄνεμοι οὓς κοινότερον ζεφύρους καλοῦμεν νεαροί τέ είσι καὶ ὑγραντικοί(Trans Robbins 1940 63)

19 Porphyry De Antro Nympharum 244ndash9 οὔτrsquo οὖν ἀνατολῇ καὶ δύσει τὰς θύρας ἀνέθηκεν οὔτεταῖς ἰσημερίαις οἷον κριῷ καὶ ζυγῷ ἀλλὰ νότῳ καὶ βορρᾷ καὶ ταῖς κατὰ νότον νοτιωτάταις πύλαιςκαὶ ταῖς κατὰ βορρᾶν βορειοτάταις ὅτι ψυχαῖς καθιέρωτο τὸ ἄντρον καὶ νύμφαις ὑδριάσι ψυχαῖςδὲ γενέσεως καὶ ἀπογενέσεως οἰκεῖοι οἱ τόποι These cardinal signs Cancer Libra Capricornand Aries are located where seasonal changes occurs see Greenbaum (2016) 152ndash155 fora discussion of strong and daimonic signs of zodiac


to the West (τὸ δυτικόν) In Adversus Mathematicos V 136ndash8 Sextus Empiricusalso affirms that Libra is located under the Earth whereas Aries is in the zenithor midheaven

somdashldquofor it will be clear by means of an examplerdquomdashif Cancer is in theascendant Aries will be in the zenith Capricorn sets Libra is under theEarth20

As both Edwards and Johnson also point out Porphyryrsquos assignment of thewestern region to daimones is reminiscent of his commentary on the storyof Atlantis in Timaeus 20d8ndash9 (F 10 Sodano)21 which is preserved in ProclusrsquoCommentary on Platorsquos Timaeus 776ndash24 Proclusrsquo commentary gives a lengthydoxography including Crantor Origen the Neoplatonist (F 12 Weber) Nume-nius (F 37 des Places = F 49 Leemans) and Iamblichus (F 7 Dillon) as follows

Others combine (or so they believe) the views of Origenes and of Nume-nius and say that it [the conflict between Athenians and Atlantines] is aconflict between souls and daemons with the daemons being a down-dragging force and the souls trying to come upwards Their view is thatthere are three kinds of daemons a divine type of daemon a type thatis lsquorelativersquo (kata schesin) which is made up of individual souls who havereceived a daemonic lot and the other corrupt kindmdashthe soul pollutersSo daemons of the final type strike up this warwith souls on their descentinto generation And they claim that just as the ancient theologians referthis to Osiris and Typhon or to Dionysus and the Titans Plato attributesit to Athenians and Atlantines out of reverence For he hands down thetradition that before they come into three-dimensional bodies there isrivalry between souls and the enmattered daemons that he assigned totheWest for theWest as Egyptians say is the region of harmful souls Thephilosopher Porphyry is of this view and indeed onewould be surprised ifhe is saying anything different from the view authorized by Numenius22

20 Sextus Empiricus Adversus Mathematicos V 136ndash8 οἷον ldquoἔσται γὰρ σαφὲς ἐπὶ παραδείγμα-τοςrdquo καρκίνου ὡροσκοποῦντος μεσουρανεῖ μὲν κριός δύνει δὲ αἰγόκερως ὑπὸ γῆν δέ ἐστι ζυγόςFor a detailed discussion of the cardinal points see Sextus Empiricus Adversus Mathe-maticos 512ndash13

21 Sodano (1964) 6ndash7 Edwards (1990) 259 lsquoThe notion that the west is the seat of daemonsis invoked in Porphyryrsquos essayrsquo Johnson (2013) 92 n 223 See Tarrant (2007) 60ndash84 for adetailed discussion of the exegetical practices on the story of Atlantis

22 Porphyry inTim F 10 SodanoΟἳ δὲ καὶ μίξαντες τὴνὨριγένουςὥσπερ οἴονται καὶ Νουμενίου

150 akcay

Porphyry interprets the story of Atlantis as an allegory of hostility betweensouls who are trying to ascend to the higher realm and debased daimonescombining the interpretations of Origen and Numenius Origen explained thestory as a conflict between daimones one group good the other evil one supe-rior in numbers the other in power with the good daimones emerging vic-torious (Procl In Tim 7632ndash773 Diehl) Numenius regarded the conflict as abattle between two different types of soul more honourable souls nurslingsof Athena an obvious symbol of practical wisdom or φρόνησις (compare DeAntro 3224)23 and the souls who have dealings with generation and are underthe protection of the god Poseidon who is the ruler of genesis (ibid 773ndash5)24Numeniusrsquo interpretation reflects the dualism in his doctrine of the humansoul which claims that the soul does not have two or three parts but that thereare two separate types of soul the rational and irrational (τὴν μὲν λογικήν τὴνδrsquoἄλογον F 44 DP = Porphyry περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων F 25318ndash21 Smith)Porphyryrsquos classification in his comment on the story of Atlantis includes

three rather than two types of daimones and according to Proclusrsquo quotationthere is an intermediate type of daimones between the divine and those at thelowest level These daimones are in fact a group of souls who have received dai-monic lots but are also in the process of generation that is to say of descendinginto the material world which is associated with moisture in De Antro Thefunction of the daimones at the lowest level is to encourage these souls thatare falling into genesis whereas the divine type of daimones seems to remainsecluded and free from the ongoing struggleAs Porphyry assigns the western region to daimones connected with matter

in De Antro 2915 it is also the place assigned to Atlantis by Plato25 If we apply

δόξανψυχῶνπρὸς δαίμονας ἐναντίωσιν εἶπον τῶν μὲν δαιμόνων καταγωγῶν ὄντων τῶν δὲψυχῶνἀναγομένων παρrsquo οἷς ὁ δαίμων τριχῶς καὶ γὰρ εἶναί φασι τὸ μὲν θείων δαιμόνων γένος τὸ δὲ κατὰσχέσιν ὃ μερικαὶ συμπληροῦσι ψυχαὶ δαιμονίας τυχοῦσαι λήξεως τὸ δὲ πονηρὸν ἄλλο καὶ λυμαν-τικὸν τῶν ψυχῶν τοὺς οὖν ἐσχάτους δαίμονας τὸν πόλεμον τοῦτον συγκροτεῖν καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐντῇ εἰς τὴν γένεσιν καθόδῳ καὶ ἅπερ οἱ παλαιοί φασι θεολόγοι εἰς Ὄσιριν καὶ Τυφῶνα ἀνήγαγονἢ εἰς Διόνυσον καὶ Τιτᾶνας ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων εἰς Ἀθηναίους καὶ Ἀτλαντίνους ἀναπέμπει διrsquo εὐσέ-βειαν πρὶν δὲ εἰς τὰ στερεὰ σώματα κατελθεῖν ⟨ἐναντίωσιν⟩ παραδίδωσι τῶν ψυχῶν πρὸς τοὺςὑλικοὺς δαίμονας οὓς τῇ δύσει προσῳκείωσεν ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ δύσις ὡς ἔλεγον Αἰγύπτιοι τόπος ἐστὶδαιμόνων κακωτικῶν ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς οἰήσεως ὁ φιλόσοφος Πορφύριος ὃν καὶ θαυμάσειενἄν τις εἰ ἕτερα λέγει τῆς Νουμενίου παραδόσεως (Trans Tarrant 2007 76) See also Dillon(2009) 268ndash270 for a summary of the relevant doxography

23 See Dillon (2009) 286 for Athena as symbolising practical wisdom24 In Crit 113c Plato calls Poseidon the domain of Atlantis See also Edwards (1990) 25825 See Tarrant (2007) 170 n 316


Porphyryrsquos tripartite division of daimones andor souls in the story of Atlantisto the region given in De Antro 2913ndash15 I propose that

(1) The South seems to be suitable to more divine souls or more divine dai-mones (θειότεροι De Antro 2924 θείων δαιμόνων F 109 Sodano = ProclIn Tim 7710 Diehl) that is to say heroic or rational souls which mightinclude Odysseus insofar as he is under the guidance of Athena associ-ated with phronesis by Porphyry in De Antro 321226 In the context of DeAntro phronesis can be defined as knowledge of the future gained fromexperience and good judgment The early warning and advice of Athenato Odysseus that every foreign possession must be put away in the cave(δεῖν τὸ ἄντρον ἀποθέσθαι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν κτῆμα) proves that the goddessmanifests herself as knowledge of the future and that the hero is in theinitial phase of ascending to the intelligible realmThis suggestion is com-patible with De Abstinentia II 4116ndash20 in which Porphyry distinguishesgood daimones from the harmful daimones Accordingly the idea that thegood daimones have the capacity to foretell potential dangers about tobe caused by the harmful ones (προσημαίνουσιν εἰς δύναμιν τοὺς ἐπηρτημέ-νους ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν κινδύνους) corroborates Porphyryrsquos identificationof Athena with phronesis that is knowledge of the future

(2) The North is appropriate to those souls who are subject to daimonic lotsand are in the process of falling into generation lsquoThe individual souls hadreceived a daimonic lotrsquo (ὃ μερικαὶ συμπληροῦσι ψυχαὶ δαιμονίας τυχοῦσαιλήξεως F 1010 Sodano = Procl In Tim 7711ndash12 Diehl) is an explicit ref-erence to the souls to which a daimon is assigned in the Republic (617e1619c5 620d8) In the context of De Antro this reference would also per-tain particularly to Odysseus

(3) The East is apparently allocated to the gods though it is difficult to pindown precisely which gods Porphyry has in mind Porphyry must alludeto the visible gods mentioned in De Abstinentia II 37 We also know fromhis Life of Plotinus that Porphyry calls Plotinusrsquo guiding spirit alternatelya god (VPlot 1022ndash25) and a more divine daimon (θείων δαιμόνων VPlot1028ndash29) which is also used in his commentary on the story of Atlantisas stated in (1) suggesting that in Porphyryrsquos view a more divine daimonmay also be called a god

26 In De Genio Socratis 580d Plutarch connects Socratesrsquo daimonion with Athena as lsquostand-ing at Odysseus and showed him the way illuminating his pathrsquo see Greenbaum (2016)22 See also Akcay (2018)

152 akcay

(4) Lastly theWest is the region of the wicked or harmful daimones who areembedded in matter such as the Naiad nymphs in De Antro They bene-fit from our thoughtlessness and stimulate our appetites (ἐπιθυμίαι) withdesire and longing for wealth power and pleasure (τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀβουλίαςἀπολαύουσι προσεταιριζόμενοι τὰ πλήθη διὰ τοῦ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπωνἐκκαίειν ἔρωσιν καὶ πόθοις πλούτων καὶ δυναστειῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν κενοδοξίαις τεαὖ De Abstinentia II 4015ndash19)

It seems difficult to distinguish the boundaries between daimones and soulsparticularly those who are allocated to the southern and northern regionswhich also correspond to daimones or souls in the intermediate condition inProclusrsquo Commentary on the Timaeus (7710ndash12 Diehl) However depending onwhich process he experiences Odysseus belongs to both regions theNorth andthe South in the sense that he is a soul who descends into the material worldbut at the same time he is one of those who are trying to attain the intelligiblerealm It is probable that the souls in the process of genesis or apogenesis canbe called daimones themselves and are also accompanied by guiding spiritswho live with the souls In fact in the Timaeus Plato separates daimones whopreside over the top part of the soul (90a2ndash5)27 whichwe liken toAthena fromthose who dwell within the soul (90c2ndash6)

Now we ought to think of the most sovereign part of our soul as godrsquos giftto us given to be our guiding spirit This of course is the type of soul thatas we maintain resides in the top part of our bodies It raises us up awayfrom the Earth and toward what is akin to us in heaven as though we arenot plants of the Earth but of heaven[hellip] And to the extent that human nature can partake of immortality

he (a man) can in no way fail to achieve this constantly caring for hisdivine part as he does keeping well-ordered the daimon that lives withinhim he must indeed be supremely happy28

27 See Plato Leg 732c for the guiding spirit as controlling power and 877a as the guardianspirit

28 Plato Timaeus 90a2ndash5 and 90c2ndash6 τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρrsquo ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδουςδιανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε ὡς ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲνἡμῶν ἐπrsquo ἄκρῳ τῷ σώματι πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ συγγένειαν ἀπὸ γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν ὡς ὄνταςφυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιον [hellip] καθrsquo ὅσον δrsquo αὖ μετασχεῖν ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει ἀθανασίαςἐνδέχεται τούτου μηδὲν μέρος ἀπολείπειν ἅτε δὲ ἀεὶ θεραπεύοντα τὸ θεῖον ἔχοντά τε αὐτὸν εὖκεκοσμημένον τὸν δαίμονα σύνοικον ἑαυτῷ διαφερόντως εὐδαίμονα εἶναι (Trans Zeyl 2000


As Dillon remarks29 the idea that human souls are daimones has its sourcein Timaeus 90c but this idea should be distinguished from the notion of guid-ing daimones which are dwelling in the highest part of the body or prop-erly speaking in the dominant part of the soul according to Timaeus 90a30In keeping with Platorsquos distinction between the divine soul and the guidingspirit Odysseus is one of those divine souls allocated to the South who passesthrough all stages of genesis and returns to the Fatherland that is to say to theintelligible realm (De Antro 348ndash10 Plot Enn I 6 816ndash20) whereas Athena asOdysseusrsquo guardian daimon rules the rational part of Odysseusrsquo soul and leadshim to the divine In his On Our Allotted Daimon (Enn III 4 3) Plotinus con-siders our guiding daimon to be an entity superior to us Alluding to Republic617e1 in which Plato discusses the choice of our own guiding daimon Ploti-nus says that if our sense perception is active the guiding daimon becomes therational principle (εἰ μὲν τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ᾗ αἰσθητικοί καὶ ὁ δαίμων τὸ λογικόν EnnIII 4 35ndash6) However if we live according to the rational principle the guidingdaimon stays above it lying idle because the guiding daimon approves of whatthe rational principle performs Plotinusrsquo remarks support the idea that Athenaoperates as Odysseusrsquo rational principle when he leads a sensible life31As regards his assignments of the gods to the East and of the daimones to

theWest Porphyryrsquos intention is to indicate two extremities divine (good) andwicked (harmful) daimones As opposed to the tripartite division of daimonesin the commentary on the story of Atlantis following Xenocratesrsquo division of

85ndash86) I have changed the last sentence of 90a2ndash5 and kept lsquodaimonrsquo in the translationof 90c2ndash6 instead of Zeylrsquos adopted lsquoguiding spiritrsquo in order to underline the differencebetween the guiding spirit given to us and daimonwhich is the soul itself

29 Dillon (1996) 319ndash320 Apuleius De Deo Socratis 15ndash16 for his tripartite division of dai-mones and identification of the human soul as a daimon

30 Plato Phaedo 107dndash108c Rep 617e 620dndashe See Alt (2005) 73ndash90 for a discussion of guid-ing and evil daimones in the Platonic tradition particularly in Plotinus and PorphyryTimotin (2012) 243ndash331 for Socratesrsquo daimon and guiding daimon starting fromPlutarch toProclus Finamore (2014) 36ndash50 on Socratesrsquo daimonion in Apuleius and Plutarch Addey(2014b) 51ndash72 for a detailed discussion of Neoplatonistsrsquo view of Socratesrsquo daimonionwhere she particularly focuses on Proclusrsquo Commentary on the First Alcibiades as a cen-tral study

31 Dillon (2012) 12 convincingly interprets Plotinusrsquo remarks on the guiding daimon as lsquotheundescended soul looked at from another anglersquo and likens our daimon to lsquosomething likeour ldquosuper-egordquorsquo For Plotinusrsquo demonology and the notion of the guiding daimon see alsoLepajoe (1998) 7ndash16 Dillon (2005b) 339ndash351 Brisson (2009) 189ndash202 Timotin (2012)286ndash300 Corrias (2013) 443ndash462 Thomas Vidartrsquos contribution in this book

154 akcay

daimones into goodandevil32 Porphyry alsodivides them into twoclasses inDeAbstinentia II 386ndash10 and II 3824ndash29 Good daimones stimulate balance andreason in a sense they lead souls to the divine by controlling their pneuma33On the other hand harmful daimones which Porphyry also calls souls are sub-ject to extravagancies in the material world due to their uncontrolled pneumarevealing anger fear and appetiteIn another passage of the commentary on the story of Atlantis Proclus

reports Porphyryrsquos interpretation of a disaster in Timaeus 22d3ndash5 (F 13Sodano)34 The disaster of which Plato speaks is a destruction of the earth byfire because of a shifting of celestial bodies Plato says that people who live inhigher and dry places perish more than those who dwell near rivers and seasProclus criticises Porphyry on the grounds that due to his ethical concernshe has a propensity to interpret discourses on natural phenomena as referringto souls (In Tim 11626ndash11718 Diehl)35 Proclusrsquo account shows other evidenceof Porphyryrsquos particular interest in the subject of the relationship between souland bodyMore importantly the passage bears a close resemblance to DeAntro108ndash25 in that Porphyry refers to the same fragment of Heraclitus 22 B 77 DKbut not 22 B 62 DK as in De Antro 1018ndash19 and he uses the same argument

The philosopher Porphyry transfers the description from the phenomenato souls and says forsooth that in these sometimes the spirited becomesoverheated and this ecpyrosis is the destruction of the lsquomenrsquo within us

lsquoand his eyes were like gleaming firersquo

Homer says of the enraged Agamemnon in a temper (Il 1104)But when the desiring part is flooded over by the creative wetness36

and is unnerved and submerged in the streams of matter then this isanother death of intelligent souls lsquobecoming wetrsquo as Heraclitus says37

32 Plutarch De Iside 361b = F 25 Heinze 229 Isnardi Parente See Dillon (2005a) 130 Schibli(1993) 147ndash148

33 Johnson (2013) 8634 Sodano (1964) 8ndash935 In the following discussion I will assume with Dillon (2009) 277 that Proclus quotes Por-

phyryrsquos text verbally except where he offers criticism For Proclusrsquo use of Porphyry see alsoTarrant (2007) 212 n 496

36 Tarrant (2007) 212 n 49737 Heraclitus 22B 77 DK lsquoit is enjoyment not death for souls to become moist falling into

genesis is a delight for themrsquo as quoted in full in De Antro 1020ndash21


And if this is asserted correctly as many as have their spirited part slack-ened and symmetrical to a concern for secondary things remain unvexedby the passions of the spirit this is themeaning of the lsquohollowplaces nearto waterrsquo And those who have their desiring part keyed up and roused upfrommatter are unvexed by those of desire for this is the meaning of thelsquohigher placesrsquo For the spirited part is somehow by nature quick of move-ment and energetic while the desiring part is slack andweak and it is thework of a man skilled in music to slacken the tension of the spirit whiletightening up the flatness of desire38

In this passagewemay findevidence to showhowNaiadnymphs (ordaimones)who are associated with wetness in De Antro have an influence or impact onthe soul Γενεσιουργός in 1175 seems to be a reference to Poseidon as symbol ofthe ruler of genesis which is also found in Proclusrsquo commentary on the storyof Atlantis (In Tim 774) Quoting from Heraclitus 22 B 77 DK Porphyry drawsanalogies between the spirited part of the soul (τὸ θυμοειδές cf Rep 439d) andthe high places and the desiring part of the soul (τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν cf Rep 439e)and the hollow places The spirited part is located in a relatively higher partof the soul manifesting itself as anger temper and so on and suffering fromoverheating The desiring part is the lower part of the soul manifesting itselfas slackness and weakness and is associated with moistnessIn accordance with Porphyryrsquos interpretation of Heraclitus 22 B 77 DK39

lsquobecomingmoistrsquo is an indication of a weakened rational part of the soul whilein De Antro 1020ndash21 Porphyry says that lsquobecomingmoistrsquo is a pleasure for soulsdue to their fall into genesis If we combine these two interpretations lsquowetnessrsquosymbolises the soulrsquos tendency to incline towardsmaterialistic pleasure and its

38 Proclus In Tim 11626ndash11718 DiehlὉ δέ γε φιλόσοφος Πορφύριος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπὸ τῶνφαινομένων μετάγει τοὺς λόγους καί φησιν ὅτι ἄρα καὶ ἐν ταύταις ποτὲ μὲν ὑπερζεῖ τὸ θυμοειδέςκαὶ ἡ ἐκπύρωσις αὕτη φθορά ἐστι τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπων

ὄσσε δέ οἱ πυρὶ λαμπετόωντι ἐίκτηνἐπὶ θυμουμένου τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἐποίησενὍμηρος ὁτὲ δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν ὑπὸ τῆς γενεσι-

ουργοῦ κατακλυζόμενον ὑγρότητος ἐκνευρίζεται καὶ βαπτίζεται τοῖς τῆς ὕλης ῥεύμασι καὶ ἄλλοςοὗτος ψυχῶν τῶν νοερῶν θάνατος ὑγρῇσι γενέσθαι φησὶν Ηράκλειτος εἰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς διατέ-τακται τῶν μὲν κατὰ θυμὸν παθῶν ἀπείρατοι μένουσιν ὅσοι ἂν κεχαλασμένον ἔχωσι τὸν θυμὸνκαὶ σύμμετρον εἰς τὴν τῶν δευτέρων ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦτο γὰρ οἱ κοῖλοι τόποι καὶ ὑδάτων γείτονεςσημαίνουσι τῶν δὲ κατrsquo ἐπιθυμίαν οἱ συντονώτερον ἔχοντες τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν καὶ ἐγηγερμένονἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης τοῦτο γὰρ οἱ ὑψηλοὶ τόποι δηλοῦσι πέφυκε γάρ πως τὸ μὲν θυμικὸν ὀξυκίνητονεἶναι καὶ δραστήριον τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἔκλυτον καὶ ἀσθενές μουσικοῦ δrsquo ἀνδρὸς χαλάσαι μὲντο θυμοῦ τὸ εὔτονον ἐπιτεῖναι δὲ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τὸ ἐκμελές (Trans Dillon 2009 276ndash277)

39 Kahn (1979) 245

156 akcay

loss of rationality andgenesis occur becauseof this tendency InDeAntro 1022ndash23 Porphyry quotes another fragment of Heraclitus 22 B 62 DK lsquowe live theirdeath they live our deathrsquo and claims that Heraclitus says that Homer callssouls in genesis lsquowetrsquo In line with Porphyryrsquos similar interpretations of Heracli-tus 22 B 77 DK in his commentary on the story of Atlantis lsquodeathrsquo in 22 B 62 DK40implies spiritual death of the rational part of the soul while living its corporeallife This death refers to the predominance of the desiring or appetitive partof the soul This idea receives support from Timaeus 88a7ndashb5 in which Platoadvocates a balanced relationship between soul and body explaining that if abody is too strong for itsweak-minded soul this leads to excessive bodily needsthat is excessive desire for food drink sex and so on and to negligence of therational part of the soul

But when on the other hand a large body too much for its soul is joinedwith a puny and feeble mind then given that human beings have twosets of natural desiresmdashdesires of the body for food and desires of themost divine part of us for wisdommdashthe motions of the stronger part willpredominate and amplify their own interest They render the functionsof the soul dull stupid and forgetful thereby bringing on the gravest dis-ease of all ignorance41

Regarding the spiritual death of the soul we find significant remarks in Sen-tentia 9 where Porphyry draws a distinction between the conventional and thephilosophical understanding of death

Death is twofold in fact the one generally understood is when the bodyunbinds itself from the soul but the other acknowledged by the philoso-phers is when the soul unbinds herself from the body The latter by nomeans follows upon the former42

40 Kahn (1979) 216ndash220 Marcovich (2001) 240ndash24141 Plato Timaeus 88a7ndashb5 σῶμά τε ὅταν αὖ μέγα καὶ ὑπέρψυχον σμικρᾷ συμφυὲς ἀσθενεῖ τε δια-

νοίᾳ γένηται διττῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐσῶν φύσει κατrsquo ἀνθρώπους διὰ σῶμα μὲν τροφῆς διὰ δὲ τὸθειότατον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν φρονήσεως αἱ τοῦ κρείττονος κινήσεις κρατοῦσαι καὶ τὸ μὲν σφέτεροναὔξουσαι τὸ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς κωφὸν καὶ δυσμαθὲς ἀμνῆμόν τε ποιοῦσαι τὴν μεγίστην νόσον ἀμαθίανἐναπεργάζονται (Trans Zeyl 2000 83ndash84)

42 Porphyry Sententia 9Ὁθάνατος διπλοῦς ὁ μὲν οὖν συνεγνωσμένος λυομένου τοῦ σώματος ἀπὸτῆς ψυχῆς ὁ δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων λυομένης τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ οὐ πάντως ὁ ἕτεροςτῷ ἑτέρῳ ἕπεται


The last sentenceof Sententia9 implies that the soulrsquos lsquoself-detachmentrsquo fromthe body does not lead to the detachment of the body from the soul therebyhinting at the ascent of the soul towards the intelligible realm while still liv-ing its corporeal life which Smith calls lsquospiritual deathrsquo43 On the other handlsquobecomingmoistrsquo may also be deemed to be the negative aspect of the spiritualdeath of the soul reflecting the dominance of the irrational part of the soulover the rational figuratively as a result of the influence of the Naiad nymphsIn conclusion because of Porphyryrsquos sophisticated interpretation of dai-

mones and his symbolic language in De Antro it is not an easy task to markprecisely the boundaries between daimones souls and gods in his doctrineAmbiguity also results from the intermediate position of daimones who arecapable of participating in the world of humans and in the world of gods andare not completely impassible having both human emotions and divine capac-ity We might however come to the conclusion that the souls in the processof genesis or apogenesis can also be called daimones until they pass throughthe sublunary region a region in which daimones dwell The souls falling intogenesis are those who have not yet completed their self-improvement and areaccompanied by a guiding spirit as in the case of Odysseus and the goddessAthena On the other hand it would appear that the souls who are in theirascent out of genesis are classified by Porphyry as lsquomore divine daimonesrsquo orheroic souls Porphyryrsquos treatment of Homerrsquos Naiad nymphs is multifacetedThey are not only defined as souls descending into genesis because of theirassociationwithwetness but also are identified asdaimones embedded inmat-ter like the Atlantians in the Timaeus in other words harmful daimones whoaffect the desiring part of individual souls and take advantage of peoplersquos weak-nesses

Bibliography

Primary SourcesArmstrong AH (1995) (trans) Plotinus Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus and The Orderof His Books Enneads I1ndash9 London

Clark Gillian (2000) (trans) Porphyry On Abstinence from Killing Animals LondonDillon JohnM (2009) (ed trans and comm) Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialo-gos Commentariorum Fragmenta UK

43 For the Neoplatonic treatment of the natural and spiritual death of the soul see Smith(1974) 22 n 6

158 akcay

Kahn Charles H (1979) The art and thought of Heraclitus An edition of the fragmentswith translation and commentary Cambridge

Lamberton Robert (1983) (trans with intr) Porphyry On the Cave of the Nymphs Bar-rytown

Lamberton Robert (2012) (text and trans with intr and notes) Proclus the Successor onPoetics and the Homeric Poems Essays 5 and 6 of His Commentary on the Republic ofPlato Atlanta

MacKenna Stephen and JohnM Dillon (1991) Plotinus The Enneads HarmondsworthRobbins Frank Egleston (1940) (trans) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos Harvard University Press(Loeb Classical Library)

Seminar Classics 609 (1969) (ed trans) Porphyry The Cave of the Nymphs in the Odys-sey Arethusa Monographs 1 Buffalo

Sodano AR (1964) Porphyrii In Platonis TimaeumCommentariorum Fragmenta Napo-li

Tarrant Harold (2007) (trans with intr and notes) Proclus Commentary on PlatorsquosTimaeus Book I Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis Vol 1 Gen Intr by DirkBaltzly and Harold Tarrant Cambridge

Wicker Kathleen OrsquoBrien (1987) (text and trans with intr and notes) Porphyry thePhilosopher ToMarcella Atlanta Georgia

Zeyl Donald J (2000) (trans with intr) Plato Timaeus IndianapolisZimmernAlice (trans) andDavidFideler (intr) (1986) Porphyryrsquos Letter tohisWifeMar-cella Concerning the Life of Philosophy and the Ascent to the Gods Grands Rapids

Secondary LiteratureAddey Crystal (2014) lsquoThe Daimonion of Socrates Daimones and Divination in Neo-platonismrsquo in The Neoplatonic Socrates eds Danielle A Layne and Harold TarrantPhiladelphia 51ndash72

Akcay Nilufer (2018) lsquoThe Goddess Athena as Symbol of Phronesis in PorphyryrsquosOn theCave of the Nymphsrsquo The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 12 1ndash12

Alt Karin (2005) lsquoMan and daimones do the daimones influence manrsquos lifersquo in ThePhilosopher and Society in Late Antiquity ed Andrew Smith Swansea 73ndash90

Beck Roger (2004) Beck onMithraism CollectedWorks with New Essays AldershotBeck Roger (2006) The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire Mysteries ofthe Unconquered Sun Oxford

Brisson Luc (2009) lsquoThe Philosopher and theMagician (Porphyry Vita Plotini 101ndash13)Magic and Sympathyrsquo in AntikeMythenMedien Transformationen undKonstruktio-nen eds U Dill and CWalde Berlin 189ndash202

Corrias Anna (2013) lsquoFrom Daemonic Reason to Daemonic Imagination Plotinus andMarsilio Ficino on the Soulrsquos Tutelary SpiritrsquoBritish Journal for the History of Philos-ophy 21 443ndash462


Dillon JohnM (1996) TheMiddle Platonists A Study of Platonism 80BC to AD220 Lon-don

Dillon JohnM (2005a)TheHeirs of PlatoAStudy of theOldAcademy (347ndash274BC) NewYork

Dillon John M (2005b) lsquoIamblichusrsquo Criticisms of Plotinusrsquo Doctrine of the Unde-scended Soulrsquo in Studi sullrsquoanima in Plotino ed Riccardo Chiaradonna Naples 337ndash351

Dillon John M (2012) Plutarch Plotinus and the Zoroastrian Concept of the Fravashia Festschrift for John Rist 1ndash12 httpswwwacademiaedu4368314Fravashi_and_Undescended_Soul

EdwardsMark J (1988) lsquoScenes from the LaterWanderings of OdysseusrsquoClassicalQuar-terly 38 509ndash521

Edwards Mark J (1990) lsquoNumenius Pherecydes and The Cave of the Nymphsrsquo ClassicalQuarterly 40 258ndash262

Finamore John F (2014) lsquoPlutarch and Apuleius on Socratesrsquo Daimonionrsquo in The Neo-platonic Socrates eds Danielle A Layne and Harold Tarrant Philadelphia 36ndash50

Greenbaum Dorian Gieseler (2016) The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology Origins andInfluence LeidenmdashBoston

Hadot Pierre (1999) lsquoLe mythe de Narcisse et son interpreacutetation par Plotinrsquo in PlotinPorphyre Eacutetudes neacuteoplatoniciennes Paris Les Belles Lettres

Johnson AaronP (2013) Religionand Identity in Porphyry of TyreTheLimits of Hellenismin Late Antiquity Cambridge

Larson Jennifer (2001) Greek Nymphs Myth Cult Lore New YorkLamberton Robert (1986) Homer the Theologian Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading andthe Growth of the Epic Tradition Berkeley and London

Lepajoe Marju (1998) lsquoOn the Demonology of PlotinusrsquoFolklore 9 7ndash16Marcovich Miroslav (2001) Heraclitus Greek text with a short commentary Sankt Au-gustin Germany

Schibli Hermann S (1993) lsquoXenocratesrsquo Daemons and the Irrational Soulrsquo ClassicalQuarterly 43 143ndash167


Smith Andrew (2007) lsquoPorphyrymdashScope for a Reassesmentrsquo in Studies on Porphyryeds George Karamanolis amp Anne Sheppard London 7ndash16

Timotin Andrei (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens Leiden and Boston

Whittaker Helene (2001) lsquoThe Purpose of Porphyryrsquos Letter to Marcellarsquo SymbolaeOsloenses 76 150ndash168


Evil Demons in the DeMysteriisAssessing the Iamblichean Critique of Porphyryrsquos Demonology

Seamus OrsquoNeill

Introduction

To the ancient and early medieval mind the position that demons possessmaterial bodies simplymade senseWhether the doctrinewas inherited philo-sophically argued divinely revealed or confirmed by practical experiencethere is a certain metaphysical simplicity and neatness in conceiving the de-mon to be an aerial being residing in the realm between mortals and godssharing elements of both cosmic extremes FromPlato toApuleiusTertullian toAugustine philosophers and theologians Hellenic and Christian relied on thedemonic body to explain various aspects of their demonologies How demonsremain invisible why they desire material sacrifice how they acquire secretknowledgewhy they live so long how they turn to evil andbywhatmeans theymight invade and possess a human body are all questions that could be enter-tained and explained in the context of the demonrsquos physical ontology whichconnected the aerial nature of the demonic body to the airy stratum of thecosmos in which it livedIn the De Mysteriis however Iamblichus repudiates this principle connect-

ing demonic ontology and agency to the hierarchical stratification of the cos-mos and its material layers as Porphyry in both the Letter to Anebo and theDe Abstinentia implements and expounds upon it The first book of the DeMysteriis raises arguments against what I will call the lsquospatio-material prin-ciplersquo which Porphyry inherited from Apuleius the Corpus Hermeticum andother sundry doctrines that make up what John Dillon has called the ldquoPla-tonic underworldrdquo1 Yet in the second book of the work dealing with divina-tion Iamblichus affirms the existence of evil demons who are deceitful pas-sionate and adversely affect people seeking their intercession This is surpris-ing given his interpretation of the positive role of demons in theurgic liturgyWhile Iamblichus undermines Porphyryrsquos account of evil demons by criti-cizing the principles upon which the latter bases his demonic ontology we

1 See Dillon (1996) 384ff Porphyryrsquos demonological views might also have been influenced byOrigen whose writings on demons in the Contra Celsum and the De Principiis accord withPorphyryrsquos demonology on many points

evil demons in the de mysteriis 161

nevertheless find Iamblichus inconsistently discussing evil demons in wayssimilar to those proposed by Porphyry and his predecessors but without anyexplanatory ground I will argue that Porphyryrsquos more consistent demonologywhich focuses specifically on the nature of the demonic relation to the mate-rial body however conceived highlights certain difficulties in the extant de-monology of Iamblichus which although denying the materiality of demonsnevertheless must account for the very demonological disputes that demonicbodieswere understood to solve If Iamblichusrsquos demons are bodiless and unaf-fectedbymatter thenhowdo somedemonsbecomeevil I cannothere addresssolutions to these difficulties but only identify them and make a case for theneed for further studies on the demonology of Iamblichus Further I wish towarn against speaking indiscriminately of lsquodemonsrsquo in general in Iamblichusrsquosthought without qualifying between good demons and evil ones what is trueof the former is not always true of the latter and vice-versa

Porphyrian Demonology Defining the Demonic in De Abstinentia

Wewill beginwith thedemonology of Porphyry in order to seehowheaccountsphilosophically for the nature and agency of demons good and evil We maythen more clearly understand Iamblichusrsquos criticisms indicate what is lackingin Iamblichusrsquos demonology and highlight his apparent inconsistencies Por-phyryrsquos demonology is grounded in a particular philosophy of nature whichwhile denied by Iamblichus explains and corrects various traditional opinionsabout demons their nature place and role2 The synthesis of philosophicalreflection on the one hand and traditional religion and myth on the otheris a defining characteristic of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism in generalgrounded in Platorsquos own philosophy3 Demonology is also a pervasive sciencewithin the religious traditions that are taken up in Platonism especially ger-mane to themediation betweenhumans and the divine Demonology developsalongside of and within philosophy as the Neoplatonic tradition grows andworks out the relation between mortals and the gods Peter Habermehl notesin his discussion of the impact of Middle Platonic demonology on the thoughtof Apuleius for example

2 OnPorphyryrsquos demonology see thepapers byL BrissonDGieselerGreenbaum andNAkcayin the present volume See alsoTimotin (2012) 208ndash215 Edwards (2006) 117ndash122 Shaw (1995)130ndash131 and Lewy (1978)

3 Cf Narbonne and Hankey (2006)

162 orsquoneill

The radical transcendence of the supreme godhead and the unbridgeabledistance between gods and humans as postulated by the Peripateticsfueled the Platonistsrsquo urge to reconcilemanwith the divine [hellip] [D]emon-ology furnished a solution It postulated a divine hierarchy in which thedemonsrsquo protean agency guarantees all interaction between men anddeity By ascribingmultiplicity andmobility to these intermediary beingsdemonology helped to preserve traditional polytheism and at the sametime the unity remoteness and serenity of the divine realm4

While much of our knowledge of Porphyryrsquos demonology comes to us throughAugustine one finds important details about Porphyryrsquos views inhis ownwordsin his De Abstinentia The second book of this work is essentially a discussionof demons their natures powers and limitations Here we see that in addi-tion to the hierarchy of the hypostases and visible gods Porphyry notes thatthere also exists a ldquomultitude of invisible gods which Plato called daimoneswithout distinctionrdquo5 As many know Platorsquos description of Eros as a ldquoΔαίμωνμέγαςrdquo in the Symposium is foundational for subsequent demonological trea-tises for Plato seems to have been the first to set out philosophically exactlywhat a demon is and what its functions are and Porphyry certainly has thistext inmind throughout his account of thedemons inDeAbstinentia6While hebasically maintains Platorsquos schema placing the demons spatially and ontologi-cally between men and the gods Porphyryrsquos doctrine on the nature of demonsis far more developed and intricate Porphyry writes

The remaining multitude is given the general name of daimones andthere is a conviction about all of them that they can do harm if they areangered by being neglected and not receiving accustomed worship andon the other hand that they can do good to those who make them well-disposed by prayer and supplication and sacrifices and all that goes withthem7

This lsquoconvictionrsquo that Porphyry propounds is held by among others Apuleiusin his De Deo Socratis demons can either help or hinder human beings inresponse to the attention or neglect with which they are treated8 Proper

4 Habermehl (1996) 134ndash1355 De Abstinentia (= De Abs) 23746 Plato Symposium (= Symp) 202e7 De Abs 23758 Although Porphyry argues against Apuleiusrsquo description of the demons he does incorporate


sacrifice and supplication ensure their succor whereas neglect procures theirwrathPorphyry maintains however that this common opinion dangerously mis-

represents an essential aspect of demonic nature9 Porphyry explicitly presentshis own views within the context of the correction of this error In De Absti-nentia at least Porphyry does not deny that humans are helped or hinderedby real powers possessed by demons that is their existence and agency is cer-tain However he denies that the same demon can both harm and help thisis the ldquoerrorrdquo of the traditional view that Porphyry intends to correct In factin the Letter to Anebo Porphyry accuses Iamblichus of committing this sameerror10 Porphyry argues that ldquoit is impossible for these daimones both to pro-vide benefits and also to cause harm to the same beingsrdquo11 He holds to theprinciple that ldquothe good never harms and the bad never benefitsrdquo a form ofthe law of non-contradiction12 Thus the harmful powers ldquomust be separatedfrom the beneficent daimones for the power which is naturally and deliber-ately harmful is the opposite of the beneficent and opposites can never occurin the samerdquo13 Thereby Porphyry distinguishes between two different classesof demons based on their morality and agency namely between the good(ἀγαθοὺς) and themaleficent (κακοεργοὶ) characterizing the latter according totheir actions thus ldquokakoergoirdquo that is ldquowicked-workingrdquo or ldquodoing evil deedsrdquoWithin the class of good demons Porphyry identifies two subclasses distin-

guished by their respective functions there are those demons that ldquodo every-thing for the benefit of those they rulerdquo and those that he calls lsquotransmittersrsquo(πορθμεύοντα)14 As for the first class everything in theworld that is everythingin the sublunary realm is assigned a demon that governs (διοιχοῦσι) its well-being15 Animals crops weather seasons skills and arts are all supervised by

some of Apuleiusrsquo developments into his own account For Apuleius the demons areldquobetweenrdquo men and the gods in that they share manrsquos slavery to the passions and emo-tions yet not his potential mortality while at the same time they enjoy the immortality ofthe gods yet not their immutability

9 De Abs 238110 The position is summarised at the end of De Abs 24011 De Abs 238212 De Abs 2411 This position is defended in Book 1 of Platorsquos Republic wherein Socrates

argues against Polymarchusrsquo definition of justice by showing the contradiction inherentin the position that someone could be made worse by the application of justice

13 De Abs 241214 De Abs 2382ndash315 De Abs 2382

164 orsquoneill

demonswhoprovide for thembenefits and supervision16 In this view Porphyryfollows Apuleius and the Corpus Hermeticum which claims that ldquoTo [hellip] dae-mons is given dominion over all things upon earthrdquo17 For Porphyry all humanendeavours are also accompaniedbydemons18 Every humanpursuit be it edu-cation medicine sailing etc is managed by a demon whose duty it is to guideand assist the human being in its fulfillment Thus the human is not alone inany of his activitiesPorphyry quotes Plato practically verbatim to explain the function of the

second group the lsquotransmittersrsquo ldquoAmong them must be numbered the lsquotrans-mittersrsquo as Plato calls them who report lsquowhat comes from people to the godsandwhat comes from the gods to peoplersquo carrying up our prayers to the gods asif to judges andcarryingback tous their advice andwarnings throughoraclesrdquo19Porphyry does not say as does Plato ldquoman with god does not mixrdquo yet follow-ing Plato he connects humans and the gods through demonic agency20 ForPorphyry however although thedemons are amediumthroughwhich commu-nication between the human and the divine occurs and demons thereby playan important anagogical role it is unclear in this text whether or not thismedi-ation is necessary for the human to attain unionwith theOne-being Accordingto Augustine Porphyry claims in other works lost to us that engaging thedemons is ultimately unnecessary for him who has the intellectual capacity toattain this unity by his own power alone which view places Porphyry more inline with Plotinus who maintains the power of the soul alone to attain unionwith Nous21

16 With regard to the first function Porphyry mentions lsquoskillsrsquo and lsquoeducation in liberal artsrsquoand lsquoother similar thingsrsquo See De Abs 2382

17 Cf Corpus Hermeticum 16 The Corpus Hermeticum also claims that evil demons are alsogiven governance over things on earth The Hermetic Corpus likens demons to troops ofsoldiersmarshaled together into bands andposted to different planets These demons notonly ldquodo everything for the benefit of those they rulerdquo but further they are ldquocompletelyengaged in this activityrdquo The Greek term here is ldquoπραγματεύεσθαιrdquomdashto treat labouriouslyexert oneself take trouble to See Liddell H and Scott R (1999) 666 De Abs 2382 Theldquobenefitrdquo (ὠφελεία) they provide can be understood as an assistance or service to human-ity Liddell H and Scott R (1999) 909 De Abs 2382

18 See De Abs 238219 De Abs 2383 Cf also the Corpus Hermeticum 16 ldquothe daemons are subject to the gods

and govern men hellipWorking through gods and demons God makes all things for himselfrdquo20 Symp 203a For Plato because man and god do not mingle directly the demons and

explicitly Eros are necessary for the salvation of the human soul The Corpus Hermeticum16 also claims that ldquomen are dependent on the demonsrdquo

21 See Augustine City of God (= civ Dei) X9 ldquoDenique animam rationalem sive quod magis


While the nature and function of good demons are similarly described bymany Platonic thinkers and appear in many scholarly treatments of Neopla-tonism and its representatives evil demons inNeoplatonic thought it seems tome receive less academic attention In his explanation of howdemons becomemaleficent Porphyry diverges from Platorsquos account of what appear only to begooddemons in the Symposium According to Porphyry themaleficent demonsare attracted to the corporeal realm and all such impediments to the ascent ofthe soul The virtuousness or viciousness of a demon depends upon its relationto the pneuma or soul-vehicle upon which its soul rests This ldquobreathrdquo acts asthe demonic body or vehicle of the demonic soul Plato inTimaeus 43a claimsthat this pneumatic body of the soul is ldquoin a state of perpetual influx and effluxrdquoandPorphyry followsPlato agreeing that ldquothe pneuma insofar as it is corporealis passible and corruptiblerdquo22While Porphyrymaintains that thepneumaof thedemon is corporeal the demon is ldquonot surrounded by a solid bodyrdquo that is thedemonrsquos soul is not in a body23 However the demonic soul has this connectionto a material entity Further because the pneuma is material ldquoit remains for along time but it is not eternalrdquo24 All physical things are wont to separate intothe parts they comprise and the pneuma is no exceptionPorphyry vividly illustrates the corporeality of the pneuma in a passage

discussing the evil demonrsquos desire for sacrifices He claims that evil demonsldquorejoice in libations and the savour of sacrifices through which their pneu-matic vehicle is fattened for this vehicle lives through vapors and exhalationsand the life of it is various through various exhalations It is likewise corrobo-rated by the savour of blood and fleshrdquo25 The airy vehicle like any other body

amat dicere intellectualem in suaposse dicit evadere etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nullatheurgica fuerit arte purgatum[hellip]rdquo Plotinus in Ennead V39 distinguishes between threeparts of the soul the perceptive the ratiocinative and the intuitive in that ascendingorder Wiesen (1968ndash2003) notes here on pp 288ndash289 that Augustine is perhaps referringto Porphyryrsquos lost treatise On the Ascent of the Soul which he claims follows the divi-sion of Plotinus On the possible identity of the Porphyrian work that Augustine knows asthe de regressu animae with Porphyryrsquos Philosophy from Oracles see OrsquoMeara (1959) and(1969)

22 De Abs 239223 Thus its ability to remain invisible to the senses See De Abs 239 The relation between

the human soul and body might not be so different It is debated in Neoplatonic thoughthow the soul and body are related whether the soul is in the body or whether it ani-mates or controls a body from lsquoafarrsquo See for example Porphyryrsquos SententiaeAd IntelligibiliaDucentes Sent 28 29 and 32

24 De Abs23925 De Abs 242

166 orsquoneill

needs sustenance and is fed by that which is like it Thus we see that althoughnot as substantial as a rock or body of flesh this breath or pneumatic vehicle ismaterial and physical Indeed Porphyryrsquos explanation of the operation of sacri-fices why the demons desire them and why they work is premised on the verycorporeal nature of the soul vehicle itselfPorphyry grounds both the virtue and constancy of the good demons and

the viciousness and passibility of evil demons in both the nature of the pneumaand the ability of the demonrsquos soul to master it First concerning the nature ofthe pneuma ldquoThe pneumatic substance [hellip] of good daemons possesses sym-metry in the same manner as the bodies of the visible Gods but the spirit ofmalefic daemons is deprivedof symmetry and in consequenceof its aboundingin passivity they are distributed about the terrestrial regionrdquo26 Here Porphyrynot only links the moral character of the demon to the nature of the pneumabut also uses it to explain its location in the cosmos uniting like with like27Thus the evil demons are affected by their material connection to their bod-iesSecond the demonrsquos soul also has a role to play in its relation to its pneuma

The good demons Porphyry claims ldquocontrol [it] according to reasonrdquo (χρατοῦσιδὲ αυτο κατὰ λόγον) whereas the evil demons are its slaves28 The evil demonsare thus bound by their passions and appetites ldquothe souls which do not controlthe pneuma adjacent to them but are mostly controlled by it are for that veryreason too much carried away when the angers and appetites of the pneumalead to impulserdquo29 Here the passions of the pneuma control the soul calling to

26 De Abs 23927 There is evidence therefore that Porphyry adheres at least to the spatial aspect of what I

will later call the lsquospatio-material principlersquo which in the Letter to Anebo is proposed onlyhypothetically as the ldquogeneral opinionrdquo and not explicitly said to be Porphyryrsquos own viewOn lsquomaterial demonsrsquo see also De Abs 246

28 De Abs 2382 The distinction between the demonologies of Apuleius and Porphyry isqualitative not merely linguistic Porphyry is aware of the confusion that arises when dif-ferent names are applied to the same gods Discussing the difference between gods andthe angels Porphyry asks ldquoWhy then do we argue about a name Are we to take it as adifference about semantics For the goddess theGreeks call Athene the Romans callMin-erva and the Egyptians Cypris and the Thracians call her by some other name Thus bythese different names nothing is annulled concerning the significance of the gods Thedifference is not vast whether one calls them gods or angelsrdquoMacarius Magnes fr 207Apokritikos 421 (Berchman 2005)

29 De Abs 2384 Porphyryrsquos discussion of the demonic soulrsquos relation to the pneumatic vehi-cle is similar in character to how he understands the human soul to become embod-ied See Sent 7 ldquoa soul binds itself to body through directing its attention towards the


mind Platorsquos image of the charioteer in the Phaedrus It is unclear whether 1)the power of the demon to control the pneuma is a function of the symmetry(or lack thereof) of the pneuma (whereby the soul of the good demon hap-pens to enjoy a symmetrical vehicle and the soul of the evil demon is helplessto alter the corrupt material conditions of its vehicle) or 2) the symmetry ofthe pneuma is a result of the demonrsquos ability to control it (whereby the gooddemon shapes and preserves the desirable nature of the pneuma while thewayward demonic soul similarly corrupts its physical vehicle) or 3) both vari-ables influence one another simultaneously It seems that in the very leastthe evil demonic soul (like the soul of the wicked human) is affected by theparticular nature of the body that is the lower negatively affects the higherThis thesis is contrary to Neoplatonic thought in general and is the very criti-cism that Iamblichus will marshal against Porphyryrsquos position as we shall seeNevertheless we see here the importance of the nature of the pneuma for Por-phyryrsquos demonology and how he explains the ontological and moral characterof demons good as well as evil by an appeal to this corporeal body which hasa capacity to affect the demonic soulBecause the evil demons are slaves to the passions rather than theirmasters

they thereby have an opposite effect on the world than that brought about bythe good demons As Habermehl notes demonology goes hand in hand withtheodicy insofar as the free will of demons takes evil out of the hands andresponsibility of the gods

Demonology enabled philosophers to account for the imperfections inthe workings of the world The problem posed by the presence of evil inthe world seemed less pressing if responsibility for it could be ascribed toa lesser divine agency In the final analysis demonology particularly itsseparation of good and evil demons was theodicy30

Porphyry says of the maleficent demons that ldquotheir character is wholly violentand deceptive and lacking the supervision of the greater divine power so theyusually make sudden intense onslaughts like ambushes sometimes trying toremain hidden and sometimes using forcerdquo31 He blamesmany instances of evil

affections which derive from it and is freed from it in turn through (the achievement of)impassibilityrdquo (Dillonrsquos translation in Brisson 2005)

30 Habermehl (1996) 13531 De Abs 2393 According to the Corpus Hermeticum ldquo[daemons] are also the authors of

the disturbances upon earth andworkmanifold trouble both for cities andnations collec-tively and for individual men For they mold our souls into another shape and pull them

168 orsquoneill

in the world on the direct actions of the evil demons who think and act in wayscontrary to the cosmic order

They themselves rejoice in everything that is likewise inconsistent andincompatible [hellip] they profit from our lack of sense winning over themasses because they inflame peoplersquos appetites with lust and longingfor wealth and power and pleasure and also with empty ambition fromwhich arises civil conflicts and wars and kindred events32

The maleficent demons encourage human beings to seek out and satisfy theirlusts and desires which they too hold in common In this way they are respon-sible for separating man from the divine as they too are separated Porphyryattributes the evil nature of certain demons to their relation to the materialworld they desire material things draw pleasure from matter and are nega-tively affected by thematerial pneuma That is demonic ontology is invoked inorder to explain the nature and activity of evil demonsIn the Letter to Anebo Porphyry sets forth general assumptions about the

nature of demons but he does not explicitly claim them to be his own In factthe whole letter conveys a tone of rationalism skepticism reductionism andpsychologism However many of the positions he raises as the ldquogeneral viewsof certain peoplerdquo regarding popular demonology are in agreement with whathe himself affirms in DeAbstinentia At the forefront is the distinction betweengood and evil demons Indeed Porphyry begins the letter by invoking in partic-ular the ldquogood demonsrdquo (δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶν)33 As for evil demons he claims thatthere are those who believe that there is a faction of evil demons who deceivemortals by claiming to be gods or beneficent demons who though they can beforced into servitude by mortals seek to corrupt them

hellip there is a class of beings whose special function is to hear prayers crea-tures by nature deceitful capable of adopting any form versatile assum-ing the semblance of gods demons and the ghosts of dead men and it isthis class of being that performs all these acts that appear to us to be goodor perverted But where really good things are in question they render noassistance On the contrary they are not even aware of such goodness No

away to themselves being seated in our nerves and marrow and veins and arteries andpenetrating even to our inmost organsrdquo (Corpus Hermeticum 16 Cf De Abs 2401) AgainPorphyry seems to be drawing upon an established tradition

32 De Abs 2403 See also De Abs2401 Cf Lewy (1978) footnote 2 p 25933 See Porphyry Letter to Anebo ed SaffreymdashSegonds fr 1


they win men over to evil ways accuse them falsely and sometimes putobstacles in the path of persistent seekers after virtue Full of presump-tion and arrogance they take pleasure in the odour of sacrifice and are aneasy prey to flattery34

This text from the Letter to Anebo is basically a summary of the main demono-logical sections of the DeAbstinentia wherein again the evil demons appear asimpediments toward the salvation of the human soulAlso while Porphyry does not claim the views to be his own there are mul-

tiple places in the Letterwhere Porphyry refers to lsquoaerialrsquo lsquophysicalrsquo and lsquocorpo-realrsquo demons The existence of such beings is consistent with his explicit claimsin his De Abstintentia wherein he is clear that there are good and evil demonsand the latter are vicious because of their relation to the corporeal pneumathey are affected and overcome by its inconstancy and they have the power toassault influence and deceive humanity

Iamblichean Demonology The Critique of the Spatio-MaterialPrinciple

When reading the De Mysteriis with a view to understanding Iamblichusrsquosdemonology the reader is often left wishing that Iamblichus had said more35Much of what Iamblichus provides by way of describing ontologically the dis-tinctions between the levels of the intelligible hierarchy regards specifically theextreme poles of the higher genera of beings gods and souls He informs thereader that he will treat only the extremities and by doing so expects that thenatures of the intermediaries that is demons andheroeswill be clarified sincethese latter ldquoserve to fill out the indivisible mutuality of the two extremesrdquo36Often Iamblichus does speak specifically of the intermediary classes and ingeneral one can apply what Iamblichus says inclusively about the ldquohigher gen-erardquo to all four classes However not all of his claims are consistent especiallythose concerning evil demons37

34 Ibid fr 62 [= Augustine Civ Dei X 11] The English translation is fromWiesen (1968)35 On Iamblichean demonology generally see Timotin (2012) 141ndash146 215ndash228 309ndash317

Shaw (1995) and Lewy (1978) especially 273ndash30936 DeMysteriis (= DeMyst) I637 Attempting to avoid the contradictions between what Iamblichus says about the lsquogreater

kindsrsquo and demons (or heroes for that matter) by claiming that Iamblichus is not talkingabout demonswhen he discusses the higher genera together but rather is focusing on the

170 orsquoneill

Iamblichus attempts to correct the doctrine concerning the intelligible hier-archy of beings raised by Porphyry in the Letter concerning in particular whatI will call the lsquospatio-material principlersquo and the account of evil demons thatrelies upon it Porphyry writes

[hellip] the cause of the distinction now being investigated is the assignmentof these entities to different bodies for example that of the gods to aethe-rial bodies that of daemons to aerial ones and that of souls to earthlybodies38

Porphyry is referring here without explicitly claiming to hold it himself to adoctrine evident in Platorsquos Epinomis and Apuleiusrsquos De Deo Socratis whichmaintains that the cosmos is spatially divided according to the hierarchy of theelements earth at the nadir and ether at the acme39 The doctrine places crea-tures within this cosmic schema according to the dominant element in theirbodily composition so that their bodies are cognate with the elemental level ofthe hierarchy in which they reside humans with their earthly bodies reside inthe lowest level of earth while demons possessing aerial bodies dwell in the

gods alone is not a tenable position Not only is this view contrary to his explicitly statedmethod whereby the reader should be able to apply the claims about the lsquohigher generarsquoto all classes but further there are a number of passages in the text where Iamblichus isclear that when he is writing about the lsquohigher generarsquo he is including demons heroesand souls For example he writes ldquoAnd I make the same argument to you also as regardsthe superior classes of being which follow upon the gods I mean the daemons and heroesand pure souls for in respect of them also one should always assume one definite accountof their essence and reject the indeterminacy and instability characteristic of the humancondition [hellip]rdquo (DeMyst I3) See also DeMyst I5 and I6 where Iamblichus again reiter-ates that the lsquodivine classesrsquo comprise four groups (gods demons heroes and pure souls)Each subclass has its own characteristics but Iamblichus is generally very clear whenhe means to point these out in distinction from what he writes about the higher classestogether as a group

38 Porphyry Letter to Anebo ed SaffreymdashSegonds fr 9 [= Iamblichus De Myst I 8] TheEnglish translation is from Clark et al (2003)

39 See for example Plato Symp 202eTim 32 ff and Epin 984ff aswell as ApuleiusrsquosDeDeoSocratis (= Soc) 1 ff Habermehl (1996) notes ldquoThe foundationof Apuleiusrsquo theory as in factof all demonology is the notion of a hierarchical partition of the cosmos and accordinglyof the lsquorational beingsrsquo (animalia praecipua) within it With its explanation the text com-mences The world is structured in space (loci dispositio) but also in quality (lsquodignityrsquo inApuleian terminology naturae dignitas)rdquo (118) Augustine also addresses the doctrine inBook 8 of the City of God


higher realm of air and so on40 As Apuleius explains ldquothe inhabitantsrsquo natureconforms with the nature of the regionrdquo41Iamblichus spurns the spatio-material principle according to which the cos-

mos comprises distinct locales or places of residence for the various levels ofintelligible beings the material composition of which also contributes to theirontological nature Andrei Timotin has outlined Iamblichusrsquos problems withthis view and groups his rebuttals into three claims i) incorporeal natures arenot able to be confined in space and are separate frombodies ii) incorporealityis more noble than corporeality and thus is not affected by the latter and iii)the principle presumes a misconception of how demons and gods are actuallypresent throughout the cosmos and engaged in theurgic ritual42To take Platorsquos famous claim that ldquoGod with man does not mixrdquo in a spa-

tial sense in order to preserve the gods from being contaminated by contactwith the physical world is for Iamblichus to misunderstand how the intelligi-ble hierarchy is divided Iamblichus contends that banishing the gods from thephysical world sets the human realm apart from divinity and exacerbates thedifficulties of bridging the Platonic chorismos43 Rather than being due to anylimitation of divine agency the division of the emanative power of the godsis a function of the physical world itself ldquo[hellip] the world as a whole spatiallydivided as it is brings about division throughout itself of the single indivisi-ble light of the godsrdquo44 Where there is limitation the lower order limits itselfin relation to what is higher However while the physical world establishes itsown divided relation to the gods the gods themselves are ever-present wholeand undivided throughout the cosmos Indeed it is the higher order that pro-duces the very lower order itself and so in no way should it be barred fromattending to it45 The intermediary classes of higher beings communicate the

40 Origen also claims that demons have aerial bodies See for example De Princ I7441 Soc 942 See Timotin (2012) 142ff43 See De Myst I8 ldquoin fact none of this is valid For neither is it the case that the gods are

confined to certain parts of the cosmos nor is the earthly realm devoid of them On thecontrary it is true of the superior beings in it that even as they are not contained by any-thing so they contain everything within themselves and earthly things possessing theirbeing in virtue of the totalities of the gods whenever they come to be ready for participa-tion in the divine straight away find the gods pre-existing in it prior to their own properessencerdquo Note here that Iamblichus begins writing about the gods in particular but thenalso claims that the same is true of all the lsquosuperior beingsrsquo that is demons heroes andpure souls

44 DeMyst I945 See DeMyst I8

172 orsquoneill

power of the gods throughout the whole of the cosmos and bind it togetherensuring between all things a perpetual communion46Iamblichus also considers the spatio-material principle to be unworthy of

the higher classes of being47 Because he applies the typical Platonic rule thatthe lower cannot affect the higher which Porphyry seems to break in his expla-nationof demonicmalevolence Iamblichus sees noway inwhichdivinebeingscan be affected either by a body or by the matter of a particular spatial localeRegardless of whether or not the higher beings are embodied or related to bod-ies in some other way ldquothere is no question of their sharing in the changes towhich bodies are subjectrdquomdashthey emphatically do not48 Iamblichus contendsthat a principle that would divide superior beings among and compartmen-talize them within the material divisions of the cosmos and apply to themcharacteristics of the matter in which they dwell is simply wrong Becausespatial location and quantitative division do not apply to non-material enti-ties Iamblichus considers Porphyryrsquos ldquowhole method of division false and thiseffort to ferret out distinctive properties is absurd and the confining of the godsto a particular location does not properly reflect the totality of their essence orpotencyrdquo49 Whether or not this position expressed in the Letter is Porphyryrsquosown view is as we have seen unclear Iamblichus says that Porphyry does notclaim that all the details of this position are his own yet nevertheless we haveseen that Porphyry explains themalevolence of certain demons with referenceto their relation to their material bodies insofar as they are affected by matter

46 See De Myst I5 ldquoThese classes of being then bring to completion as intermediaries thecommon bond that connects gods with souls and causes their linkage to be indissolubleThey bind together a single continuity from top to bottom and render the communionof all things indivisible They constitute the best possible blending and proportionatemixture for everything contriving in pretty well equal measure a progression from thesuperior to the lesser and a re-ascent from the inferior to the prior They implant orderandmeasure into the participation descending from the better and the receptivity engen-dered in less perfect beings andmake all things amenable and concordantwith all othersas they receive from the gods on high the causal principles of all these thingsrdquo See alsoIamblichus De Anima VIII40 where Iamblichus seems to agree with ldquoThe more ancientauthorities [who] maintain that [hellip] the visible gods (especially the Sun) the invisibledemiurgic causes and all the superior classes by which I mean heroes daemons angelsand gods [hellip] themselves preside over the whole systemrdquo Again Iamblichus includesdemons heroes and angels along with the gods within the superior classes

47 See DeMyst I848 DeMyst I8 Note too that the same applies to the other superior classes as well as is evi-

dent from the texts cited49 DeMyst I8


Iamblichusrsquos emphatic rejection of this element of the spatio-material princi-ple will create problems for how we are to understand evil demons within hisaccount The explanatory apparatus has been excised and nothing is put in itsplace50

Iamblichean Demonology The Demonic Body

Let us look at how Iamblichus applies this general criticism to the particu-lar question of the demonic body remembering that Porphyry relied uponthe corporeal pneuma to account for the passibility and malevolence of evildemons Upon close inspection of the text it is actually unclear whether ornot Iamblichus thinks that demons have bodies Having listed all the possibili-ties regarding demonic embodiment or a demonrsquos soulrsquos relation to a body andhaving put all the options on the table Iamblichus withholds his own opinion

For neither point is clearly defined whether they [ie demons] are to beregarded as possessing bodies or being mounted upon them or envelop-ing them or making use of them or just as being the same as a bodyBut perhaps one should not examine this distinction too closely for you[Porphyry] are not proposing it as your own view but are stating it as theopinion of others51

Because of Iamblichusrsquos routinely oblique method of dealing with demons inthe DeMysteriis the reader seeking to clarify his demonology here typically isleft unsatisfied It is crucial to note here that in this passage Iamblichus saysnothing about his own position on demonic embodiment He claims ratherthat the view Porphyry proposes (that demons have bodies) which again isnot explicitly purported to be Porphyryrsquos own stance but the opinions of somecan be interpreted in many ways Iamblichus lists five possibilities here butneither explores nor endorses any of them Iamblichusrsquos own position on the

50 One cannot expect any text to answer all the questions a reader might have about itand thus Iamblichus might not be faulted for not providing an account of evil demonsspecifically in the De Mysteriis Nevertheless we shall see that what he does provide isinconsistent on various levels

51 De Myst I16 See also Iamblichus De Anima VI33 While Porphyry does not explicitlyendorse the views proposed in the Letter we nevertheless have seen that Porphyry doesappeal tomaterial pneuma and therefore amaterial component of the demonic substancein his demonology in the De Abstinentia

174 orsquoneill

demonic body I believe is ultimately unsettled however by looking at othertexts within the work we can glean more about Iamblichusrsquos position thoughconflicts emergeAt issue here is the extent to which if at all embodiment or contact with

a body and matter can affect the higher classes of being including demonswhether or not they have bodies52 Iamblichus is open to the possibility thatthe higher beings ldquoif in fact they were corporeal either in the way of beingstates of bodies or as being enmattered forms or in any other such way thenthey could perhaps associate themselves with the various changes of bodiesrdquo53That is to say if the higher genera were akin to human beings in possessinga body then perhaps they too like the human composite of soul and bodycould be affected by the states of the body suffer passions and ultimately besundered54 Iamblichus mentions the views of others who assert that demonslike humans are embodied souls but he explicitly concludes that ldquothe generaof superior entities are not even present in bodies but rule them from out-side so there is no question of their sharing in the changes to which bodiesare subjectrdquo55 That is the superior beings (including demons) exist prior toare separate from and are not mixed with bodies56 Therefore they cannot beaffected by embodiment or by any relation theymight have either to a body orto thematerial divisions of the cosmos generally they do not ldquoassimilate them-selves to the nature of their receptaclerdquo57 So far we can deduce that demons

52 Clarke et al (2003) write ldquoThe point of differentiation here is the degree of contactinvolved Similarly in the case of the heavenly bodies it remained a point of controversyin Platonism whether they were souls inhabiting fiery bodies or simply mounted uponthemrdquo (63 footnote 93)

53 DeMyst I854 The Aristotelian influence is evident here whereby in the composite of body and soul

that is the enmattered form body and soul are defined through one another The soul isthe form of a particular type of organisedmaterial body and the organised material bodyis actualised and made to be what it is by its form The contention over the interpreta-tion of this position aside as Aristotle says in the De Anima it is a pointless question toask whether or not the soul can exist without the body Iamblichus says in his De Animathat ldquoIndividual souls [hellip] attach themselves to bodies fall under the control of bodiesand come to dwell in bodies that are already overcome by the nature of the Universerdquo (DeAnima VI28)

55 DeMyst I856 DeMyst I857 DeMyst I8 See also DeMyst p 35 See also DeMysteriis I8 ldquoAnd how would that which

is not locally present to bodies be distinguished by bodily locations and that which is notconstricted by the particular circumscriptions of subjects to be contained individually bythe various parts of the cosmosrdquo See too Finamore (1985) 32 ff


are neither enmattered forms nor are they locally present to bodies Neitherare they materially confined to the matter of the various strata of the cosmosIamblichusmakes one interesting reference to the ldquodaemons of the airrdquo (τῶν

ἀρίων [hellip] δαιμόνων) Onemight think here that there is something of Porphyryin this phrase but Iamblichus seems to be referring to the area of a particu-lar class of demonsrsquo rule and not to its material composition or spatial loca-tion or limitation Unlike the gods demons have partial rather than universalpower and Iamblichusmaintains that the demons can govern a particular areaof the cosmos without being subject to the spatial limits and material influ-ence of that district their administrative domain has nothing to do with theiressence nature or composition58 Thus against Porphyryrsquos suggestion in theLetter to Anebo (and what he might be understood to assert in De Abstinentia)Iamblichus holds that nothing can be gleaned of demonic ontology by investi-gating the nature of the air that demons are said to inhabit and out of whichtheir bodies might be believed to be fashioned Finally Iamblichus expresseselsewhere that the essence of demons is eternal and incorporeal and thusunaffected by bodies whatever the demonic essencersquos relation to corporeal-ity or locality of administrationmight be59 He writes ldquoI declare then that theclass of daemons is multiplied in unity and undergoes mixture without con-tamination helliprdquo60 Contra Porphyry for Iamblichus the demons are unaffectedby the lower whether it be matter or any other lower principle61Iamblichus holds however like Porphyry that demons do have a pneumatic

vehicle He says that the pneumatic spirits of demons and heroes (Τὰ δαιμό-νια δὲ καὶ τὰ ἡρωϊκὰ αὐτοπτικὰ πνεύματα) appear in direct visions62 According

58 In fact when defining demons Iamblichus points to their partial power as the essentialdistinction between them and the gods See Dillon (2009) 50ff

59 Discussing whether or not theurgic ritual is meant to affect the passions of demonsIamblichus writes ldquoOne would not [hellip] agree that some part of our ritual is directedtowards the gods or daemons which are the subjects of our cult as subject to passionsfor that essence which is in itself eternal and incorporeal cannot itself admit any alter-ation emanating from bodiesrdquo (DeMyst I11)

60 DeMyst I661 As we shall see this claimwill become problematic later in the text when evil demons are

introduced62 De Myst II3 For a detailed list describing how demons appear locally see the whole of

II3 Iamblichus says that demons appear 1) uniform 2) frightening 3) in different forms atdifferent times 4) changeable in form 5) in tumult and disorder 6) possessing beauty inform 7) arranged in proportions determining their essence 8) swifter than they actuallyare 9) divided and unequal regarding light 10) obscure in images and visions 11) glowingwith smouldering fire that appears divided It is unclear exactlywhat all these descriptions

176 orsquoneill

to Finamore all the higher genera have such vehicles but the relationshipbetween the pneuma and the soul differs for each kind63 However whereasPorphyry determines the character of demons by their ability to control thesoul vehicle not only does nothing of the sort appear in the De Mysteriis butwhat Iamblichus has said about the nature of demons thus far precludes thispossibility In any case as Finamorehaspointedout Iamblichus fundamentallyldquodisagreed with Porphyryrdquo on the nature of the pneuma64Whether demons according to Iamblichus ought to be regarded as

1) possessing bodies or2) being mounted upon bodies or3) enveloping bodies or4) making use of bodies or5) just as being the same as a body

Iamblichus asserts that they like all the divine classes are utterly unaffected bythe body or by corporeality65 Despite demonic invulnerability to bodily andmaterial inconstancy Iamblichus will maintain however that there are evildemons As we shall see he paints himself into a kind of corner Whatever theorigin and account of evil demons he has sealed off one avenue of explanationby denying a demonrsquos proclivity for passion due either to its body or to its rela-tion to corporealitymdashthe cause advanced by Porphyry66 In fact Iamblichusflatly denies that demons suffer at all67

actually mean but one is tempted to think that Iamblichus is writing from experiencehere attempting to put into words visions that resist such linguistic description

63 See Finamore (1985) 36 ff See also Iamblichus De Anima VII3864 Finamore (1985) 1165 I suspect that given Iamblichusrsquos account of the passibility of humans (because they are

composites of soul and material fleshy bodies and thus suffer qua body and compositenot qua soul) it is reasonable that one can rule out option number one as being possi-ble for the demon The demon cannot here be an enmattered form unless it actualisedsome body unlike that of a human which was immune to passibility Otherwise eitherthe human also will not suffer passions because its soul qua soul is beyond them (whichis not the case since humans suffer qua composite) or demons will similarly suffer quacomposite or body because of their embodiment in something lower than their essence(which Iamblichus explicitly says does not happen)

66 See also Sent 767 DeMyst I10


Iamblichean Demonology Demonic Impassibility and Agency

While he is unclear about how or even if demons are related to a bodyIamblichus is nevertheless explicit that demons remain impassable to themand to the materiality of the divisions of the cosmos through which they exe-cute their assignments Iamblichus asserts that ldquoin fact none of the superiorclasses is subject to passionsrdquo68 Indeed the superior classes transcend the verydistinction between passibility and impassibility

It is rather because they completely transcend the distinction betweenpassible and impassible because they do not even possess a nature thatis susceptible to passion and because they are endowed by their essencewith inflexible firmness that I postulate impassibility and inflexibility inrespect to all of them69

According to the logic here the higher classes are impassible not because theyresist the passions but because they are beyond the very possibility of suf-fering passions As Dillon notes ldquoTo none of the κρείττονα γένη [Iamblichus]maintains can either of those terms [passionate and dispassionate] be prop-erly applied they are above such distinctionsrdquo70Nor is the impassivity of the soul dependent upon any act that could poten-

tially fail to actualise this impassibility The very nature of the soul is to tran-scend passions it cannot even suffer them potentially71 Rather it is the bodythat participates in soul that suffers passions for Iamblichus only bodies andcomposites are capable of undergoing such changes Even the embodied souldoes not suffer qua soul but rather it suffers qua body or qua composite ldquothesoul in itself is unchangeable as being superior in its essence to passionrdquo72Iamblichus also explicitly refers to the impassibility of demons in particular

If even souls do not qua soul suffer passions then this is even truer for thosebeings that are superior

68 DeMyst I1069 DeMyst I1070 Dillon (2009) 49 Again as usual demons are included among the higher genera71 See De Myst I10 Strangely however in the De Anima Iamblichus does maintain that

there are (perhaps human) souls that are passionate even before they are embodied ldquoAsto those [souls] on the other hand who are sated with desires and full of passions it iswith passions that they first encounter bodiesrdquo (De Anima VI30)

72 DeMyst I10

178 orsquoneill

Since then we have shown in the case of the lowest class of the superiorbeings that is the soul that it is impossible that it have any part in experi-encing passion how can one attribute any such participation to daemonsand heroes who are eternal and constantly in attendance upon the godsandwho themselves preserve on the same terms an image of the admin-istration of the gods do not cease tomaintain the divine order and neverdepart from it73

Elsewhere Iamblichus clearly states that ldquothe demons are also impassible andso are all those of the superior classes who follow along with themrdquo74 Finallyto cite another passage Iamblichus writes the genera of superior entities ldquogivefrom themselves to bodies everything in the way of goodness that bodies canreceive while they themselves accept nothing from bodiesrdquo75 Iamblichus isclear that whatever relation a demon or any member of the classes of supe-rior genera might have to anything below it it remains unaffected by itThus far Iamblichus has struck down two of Porphyryrsquos ontological argu-

ments explaining themalevolence of evil demons by asserting that a) themate-rial location of the cosmos over which demons preside says nothing of theirontological nature in general the nature of their bodies or pneuma or theirrelation to matter in particular and b) because demons are impassible andunaffected by any relation to matter the viciousness of evil demons cannot beexplained by passions a loss of control or the negative effects of any kind ofrelation to the lower orderIamblichus expands the duties of demons beyond the Platonic transmitting

activity detailed in the Symposium In general demonic activity according toIamblichus remains nevertheless good and benevolent According to DillonldquoGenerally daemons are revealed as active principles of the godsrdquo76 Clarke etal here note that ldquoIamblichus divides the tribe of demons below themoon intothree classes those nearest the earth are punitive those in the air are purifica-tory and those in the zone of the moon itself are concerned with salvationrdquo77Summarising their essential mediative role between and within the genera ofhigher beings John Finamore adds that

73 DeMyst I1074 DeMyst I1075 DeMyst I876 Dillon (2009) 5077 DeMyst p 97 On the classes of demons in Iamblichus see also Shaw (1995) 140


Demons are not primary but subservient to the gods and make the godsrsquoGood evident Both demons and heroes complete the bond between godsand souls making a single continuity from the highest to the lowest Theycarry both the procession from the gods to souls and ascent from souls togods and make all things agreeable and harmonious for all by receivingthe causes of all things from the gods78

There is no malevolence indicated or implied in demonic activity thus farIamblichus also contends that demons play a crucial role in cosmogene-

sis79 In fact in the beginning of Book 2 of De Mysteriis he defines demonsin terms of this very function80 Specifically Iamblichus assigns ldquoto daemonsproductive powers that oversee nature and the bond uniting souls to bodiesrdquo81Demonic activity is opposed to that of angels which ldquodo no more than loosenthe bonds of matter whereas daemons draw down the soul towards naturerdquo82The demon not only oversees the movement but is in fact responsible for fer-rying the soul into the material realm He writes ldquo[the advent] of daemonsweighs down the body and afflicts it with diseases and drags the soul downto the realm of nature and does not remove from bodies their innate sense-perceptions detains here in this region those who are hastening towards thedivine fire and does not free them from the chains of faterdquo83 In this particularrole one begins to sense a negativity in demonic agency which is rather at oddswith what Iamblichus has said so far about the benevolence of demonsGiven the positive assessment of demons thus far the reader might begin

to feel a little perplexed at this point The soulrsquos desire for and contact withmatter has typically been understood negatively going back to the Orphicand Pythagorean influences upon Plato evident in dialogues like the Phaedowherein philosophy herself becomes the practise of dying84 These anticosmic

78 Finamore (1985) 45ndash4679 See Shaw (1995) 40ff80 De Myst II1 ldquoBy lsquodaemonsrsquo I mean the generative and creative powers of the gods in the

furthest extremity of their emanations and in its last stages of divisionrdquo81 DeMyst II182 DeMyst II483 De MystII6 See also Shaw (1995) 40 Further he writes ldquodaimons were the personi-

fied powers of matter entities whose centrifugal influence on souls was encountered andturned around in theurgic ritualsrdquo Shaw 40 See also Shaw (1995) 131ndash133

84 Plato Phaedo 64a See Dodds (1968) 138 146ndash147 Further both the Orphics and thePythagoreans considered that ldquothe body is the prisonhouse of the soul that vegetarianismis an essential rule of life and that the unpleasant consequences of sin both in this world

180 orsquoneill

tendencies are evident throughout the Platonic and Neoplatonic traditionsOne knows fromPlotinus though thematter is debated that tolma is the causeof the fall of the soul and its movement towards matter85 Iamblichus alsosays that genesis is the cause of human suffering since ldquoevils attach them-selves to [the soul] because of generationrdquo86 He calls these maladies the ldquowoesof generationrdquo (τῶν ἐν τῇ γενέσει συμφορῶν) in which the demons are com-plicit87The demons are the cosmic forces responsible for overseeing andmaintain-

ing the soulrsquos negative bond to the material world Iamblichus writes ldquoBut thesoul that tends downward drags in its train signs of chains and punishmentsis weighed down by concretions of material spirits and held fast by the disor-derly inequalities of matter and is seen submitting itself to the authority ofdaemons concerned with generationrdquo88 Elsewhere Iamblichus is even morespecific about the demonrsquos active role in the process whereby the demon doesnot just oversee the process but further is responsible for dragging the soulinto the material realm89 Shaw explains that

In the De Mysteriis daimons were portrayed both as agents of the Demi-urge and as powers that defiled the soul by tying it tomatter This ambiva-lencewasdue to their centrifugal activity in being agents of theDemiurgein the lsquoprocessionrsquo of the gods it was their task to exteriorize specificaspects of the divine and in disseminating the divine presence into mat-ter daimons also led the attention of particular souls into a centrifugaland extroverted attitude This was what bound them to their bodies andcaused them to suffer90

and in the next can be washed away by ritual meansrdquo (Ibid 149) On the notion that σῶμα= σῆμα (body equals tomb) cf Ibid 148 and thehelpful endnote 87 onpp 169ndash170 See alsoArmstrong (1959) 6 ff Proclus agreed that the origin of this idea lieswithOrpheus but thatPythagoras independently discovered the same doctrine ldquowhat Orpheus deliveredmysti-cally through arcane narrations this Pythagoras learned when he celebrated orgies in theThracian Libethra being initiated by Aglaophemus in the mystic wisdomwhich Orpheusderived from his mother Calliope in the mountain Pangaeusrdquo (qtd in Taylor (1824) vii)

85 On this see Madjumdar (2005) See also Narbonne (2007 a) and (2007 b)86 DeMyst I11 See Finamore (1985) 50ndash5387 DeMyst I1188 DeMyst II789 See DeMyst II690 Shaw (1995) 40 See also Shaw (1995) 131ndash133


Again this demonic function seems to be at odds with the general benevo-lence of Iamblichusrsquos characterization of the demonsHowever as negative as this sounds one might interpret this species of

demonic activity in a positive light Generative activity perhaps accords withthe necessity of emanation within the cosmos Finamore and Dillon note thatin his De Anima as well Iamblichus follows Platorsquos Timaeus by arguing thatldquothere is a certain necessity to the descent and the order though which thesouls are brought to generationrdquo91 Even if the humanrsquos suffering is a result ofhis attachment to matter generation itself and the demonic role in its proces-sion are not evil qua evil Demonic activity initially sounds detrimental butagain this is an essential role that needs to be played in the process of ema-nation Demons need not be considered wicked because of their particularallotmentHowever things grow curiouser Although Iamblichus explicitly states that

demons are impassible his position on the impassibility of explicitly evil de-mons is obscure Distinguishing the demons from the Gods Iamblichus writesldquoit is attachment to generative nature and necessarily suffering division be-cause of that that bestows an inferior rank upon demonsrdquo92 And further ldquoThegods then are removed from those powers which incline towards genera-tion demons on the other hand are not entirely uncontaminated by theserdquo93Though demons are not explicitly said to be evil because of this contami-nation one now wonders exactly what Iamblichus means here and how farhe in fact is from Porphyryrsquos position on the relation between the demonrsquossoul and the pneuma As Finamore explains echoing Iamblichusrsquos languageldquoDemons therefore are enmeshed in matter [hellip] Demons and other inferiorsouls therefore become contaminated bymatterrdquo94 Can one become contam-inatedwithout being affected Is the lowerherenegatively affecting thehigherAre demons as unassailable as Iamblichus has previously statedWhat exactlyis this contamination and is it enough to corrupt a demon which heretoforehas been portrayed as explicitly incorruptible

91 Finamore and Dillon (2002) 1692 DeMyst I2093 DeMyst I2094 Finamore (1985) 50 51

182 orsquoneill

Iamblichean Demonology Evil Demons Evil Spirits

On occasion Iamblichus explicitly writes of that which is both ldquoτὸ κακὸν καὶδαιμόνιονrdquo (evil and demonic)95 It has been shown that much of Iamblichusrsquosunderstanding of the existence nature and role of demons stems from Chal-daeandemonologyHans Lewywrites for example ldquoIamblichus sets forth inhiswork On the Mysteries (III 31) a theory concerning the nature and activity ofthe evil demonswhich according to his own statement derives from the lsquoChal-daean prophetsrsquo rdquo96 However the ldquodemonistic dualismrdquo between good and evilspiritswhich in fact grounds theChaldaean ldquobeliefs feelings andmodeof con-ductrdquo is in fundamental tension with Iamblichean demonology on a numberof fronts97 As Timotin has pointed out ldquoil srsquoagit bien de cette doctrine dualisteadopteacutee dans la tradition platonicienne par Plutarque dans leDeEdelphico etleDe Iside et par Porphyre et qui contredit sur unnombre de points la doctrinetheacuteologique du Demysteriisrdquo98InBook2of DeMysteriis one finds the first explicitmentionof ldquoevil demonsrdquo

who instead of just performing ordained roles in the process of cosmic gener-ation and carrying out various and just punishments appear to be engaged inmalicious activities Writing about divine visions Iamblichus describes whataccompanies the appearances of the various levels of intelligible beings Henotes that ldquogood daemons [present] for contemplation their own productionsand the goods which they bestowrdquo99 He also refers to the ldquopunitive demonsrdquowho display their respective forms of punishment100 In a footnote EmmaClarke et al highlight this reference to punitive demons as the ldquofirst mention ofevil demons in the De Mysteriisrdquo and list two other places where evil demonsare discussed though bymy count there are at least five in total among a num-ber of allusions as well101 However Clarkersquos footnote marker should perhapsbe pushed further along in the sentence for it is not entirely clear whetherthe punitive activity of demons is actually evil or rather like their generative

95 DeMyst III31 On evil demons in Iamblichus see H Sengrsquos paper in the present volumeTimotin (2012) 225ndash228 and Lewy (1978) 273ndash309

96 Lewy (1978) 27397 Lewy (1978) 267 27998 Timotin (2012) 226 See also Timotin (2012) 225ndash22899 DeMyst II7100 DeMyst II7101 Clarke et al (2003) list De Myst III31178 and X7293 but see also III31176 III31180

IX7282 and II10 generally


function necessary and beneficial102 In the Christian tradition even Satancan be put to good use as an instrument of Godrsquos divine justice The termtranslated as lsquopunitiversquo here is from ldquoτιμωρέωrdquo lsquoto helprsquo or lsquoaidrsquo as well as lsquototake vengeance uponrsquo Further when discussing the descent of souls into bod-ies in the De Anima Iamblichus suggests that despite the fact that ldquothe soulthat comes down here for punishment and judgement seems somehow to bedragged and forcedrdquo it is nevertheless for its own good that is for the purposeof purification103 The punitive function could be seen as entirely just neces-sary and even catharticThe attempt to maintain what Iamblichus has said to this point about the

benevolence and impassibility of demons and thehigher genera becomesmoredifficult however as Iamblichus continues in this same sentence to claim thatldquothe other demons who are wicked in whatsoever way [appear] surrounded byharmful beasts greedy for blood and savagerdquo104The term translated as ldquowickedrdquois ldquoπονηρόςrdquo lsquotoilsomersquo lsquogrievousrsquo or just plain lsquobadrsquo and is used a number oftimes in the text Also in the sentence appear the words ldquoθηρίονrdquo (lsquosavagersquo orlsquowildrsquo) ldquoβλαβερόςrdquo (lsquohurtfulrsquo or lsquonoxiousrsquo) and ldquoαἱμοβόροςrdquo (lsquoblood-suckingrsquo)mdashterms one might more readily associate with Count Dracula than with benev-olent divinities This sudden appearance of such demons should not sit wellwith the reader who has been paying attention to Iamblichusrsquos claims so farconcerning demonic nature generallyIt grows stranger too Like Augustine who believes that evil demons attach

themselves to vicious people whom they find like themselves Iamblichusclaims

[Those who are guilty of crime] as they are excluded from associationwith undefiled spirits because of these pollutions [hellip] thus attach them-selves to evil spirits and being filled by them with the most evil inspira-tion they become evil and unholy gorged with licentious pleasures fullof vice eager for habits foreign to the gods and to sum up they becomeakin to the wicked daemons to whom they have become attached105

102 DeMyst II7103 Iamblichus De Anima VI29 See also Finamore and Dillon (2002) 16ndash17 190ndash194104 DeMyst II7105 De Myst III3 Note here that Iamblichus practically identifies the ldquoevil spiritsrdquo with the

ldquowicked demonsrdquo Porphyry toomakes a similar connection ldquoBut now since every sensiblebody is attended with an efflux of material daemons hence together with the impurityproduced from flesh and blood the power which is friendly to and familiar with thisimpurity is at the same time present through similitude and alliancerdquo (De Abs 246) On

184 orsquoneill

There is an intimate association between sorcerers evil demons and spiritslicentiousness and the impurities of matter in each other they all recognisesomething like themselves106 As the evil demon attaches itself to the vicioushuman so too does the nefarious human secure himself to the demon107If as Iamblichus writes those ldquowho associate with daemons who are deceit-

ful and causes of licentiousness are obviously in conflict with the theurgistsrdquothen there must in fact be deceitful demons who share these similar charac-teristics and desires with the vicious sorcerers with whom they collaborate108Iamblichus does not deny that these collusions transpire or that such activ-ity is efficacious Rather he seeks to dissociate theurgy from these demoniccovenants since evil demons ldquoare in no case assigned an administrative [ortheurgical] rolerdquo109 If however evil demons are (akin to the sorcerers whoinvoke them) explicitly ldquofull of passionrdquo (παθῶν μεστοὶ) and Dillon is right topoint out that one of the Porphyrian heresies that Iamblichus tries to correct isthe attempt to ldquointroduce a distinction between those [demons]which are sub-ject to passions (ἐμπαθές) and thosewhich are not (ἀπαθές)rdquo then Iamblichus issimply begging the question in favour of Porphyry110 He draws the very samedistinction between evil and passionate versus good and impassible demons

Augustine see for example Confessions 1036(59) and his accounts of Julian the Apostate(civ Dei 521) and Numa Pompilius (civ Dei 734 ff)

106 See too De Myst III31 ldquoThese then being full of passion and evil draw evil spirits tothemselves because of kinship and are excited by them toward every vice and so growingtogether just like some kind of circle joining beginning to end they render in like man-ner an equal exchangerdquo In the same section in which Iamblichus mentions these ldquoevilspiritsrdquo (τοῖς κακοῖς πνεὗμασι) to whom vicious people become attached he also makesmultiple references to ldquoevil demonsrdquo (πονηροῖς δαίμοσι for example) to which such peoplealso annex themselves It seems as though Iamblichus is drawing a connectionbetween orperhaps even identifying these ldquoevil spiritsrdquo with ldquoevil demonsrdquo He draws a similar connec-tion inDeMyst III31 mentioning both evil demons and evil spirits in the same paragraphin the same context in the same role

107 Lewy (1978)writes concerning Iamblichusrsquos own adoption of certain Chaldaean demono-logical principles ldquoIf moreover [the impious] are prevented by some taint from holdingintercourse with pure spirits they come in contact with evil demons whom they beginto resemble filled as they are under their influence with sacrilegious thoughts and lustsrdquo(274)

108 De Myst III31 On the deceitful nature of evil demons see also De Myst II10 On Por-phyryrsquos warnings against sorcery and collusions with evil demons see De Abst 243 ff

109 DeMyst IX7 Here there is a clear division between good and evil demons Demons havebeen said to have administrative roles yet evil demons do not

110 DeMyst III31 Dillon (2009) 49


for which he condemns Porphyry for deducing Either evil demons are impas-sible and sorcerers do not interact with them (yet Iamblichus claims that theydo) or evil demons are passible thus negating Iamblichusrsquos earlier and explicitand numerous claims that demons are impassible (thereby siding with Por-phyry)Iamblichus is also explicit that evil demons have no administrative function

to play in the guiding of the cosmos Thus he too like Porphyry distinguishesbetween good demons and evil demons according to their activity He writesconcerning Porphyryrsquos letter ldquoYou also set up an opposition between themas of good against evil whereas in fact evil daemons are in no case assignedan administrative role nor are they set over against the good on a footing ofequalityrdquo111 Clarke et al note referring to the lack of an administrative rolethat ldquoHere again lsquoAbamonrsquo is concerned not to reject but rather to lsquopurifyrsquothe beliefs in vulgar magic in this case that there are evil as well as good spir-its related to all bodily parts and functions He wishes to downgrade the evilspirits to the rank of lsquospoilersrsquo or incidental entitiesrdquo112 If it is true that evildemons have no administrative or theurgical roles then perhaps wemust readthe roles of generation and punishment in a positive light as not referring toevil demons since clearly there we have i) demons ii) with clear administra-tive roles Thus although Iamblichus speaks of ldquogood demonsrdquo I suggest thatwhenhe speaksof demonswithoutqualification it is to the goodvariety thathegenerally refers Nevertheless since evil demons exist it becomes unclear howmuchof what Iamblichus says about demonswithout qualification applies alsoto evil demons

Conclusion

The following summarises what Iamblichus says about 1) the higher genera ofdivine beings 2) demons generally and 3) evil demons specifically

1) The genera of higher beings generally (including demons)ndash are incorporeal and separable from bodies and matterndash are more noble than and unaffected by materialityndash are not susceptible to or affected by spatial locality

111 DeMyst IX7112 DeMyst IX7

186 orsquoneill

ndash rule bodies from outside and do not share in bodily changesndash are not susceptible to passions (transcend the distinctionbetweenpas-sible and impassible)

2) Demons generallyndash are unaffected by any relation to a body (however construed)ndash have partial powerndash have pneumatic vehiclesndash are impassiblendash oversee generation within the cosmos binding souls to bodiesndash have a punitive functionndash are lsquosomewhatrsquo contaminated by matter113

3) Evil demons specificallyndash are wicked savage noxious and bloodthirstyndash vicious and licentiousndash deceitfulndash cause licentiousness in humansndash attach to and lead to ruin humans who engage them through sorceryndash have absolutely no administrative role in the cosmos

None of these specific characteristics of evil demons is compatible with whatIamblichus has said about the higher genera collectively and demons gener-ally which nevertheless are the genera under which one assumes evil demonsto be a species Since we have shown the conflict in certain instances in the DeMysteriis between what is said of the higher genera and demons simpliciterand what is said of evil demons we must be careful when applying what istrueof demons generally to evil demons specificallyThus although Iamblichusspeaks of ldquogood demonsrdquo too I suggest that when he discusses demonswithoutqualification it is to the good variety that he generally refersWhile some schol-ars havenoted these tensions aswehave seen in the scholarshipon Iamblichusthatmentions his demonology one generally finds explanations of the demonrsquosroles in generation and theurgy but the distinction that Iamblichus makesbetween good and evil demons and the resulting textual conflicts are oftenpassed overWe cannot speak of lsquodemonsrsquo in Iamblichus without qualification

113 See DeMyst I20 Here it is unclear when Iamblichus writes that demons ldquoare not entirelyuncontaminated byrdquo ldquothose powers which incline towards generationrdquo whether hemeansthat inclining towards these powers is the contamination itself or that inclining towardsthese powers leads to other contaminations If it is the latter then there is a tension evenwithin his claims about demons generally insofar as the assertion seems incompatiblewith the position that demons generally are impassible and remain unaffected by matter


or without at least making this distinction between the good and the evil rec-ognizing that whatever one says about the former the samemight not apply tothe latterIt seems as though there should be nothing that is demonicwhich is also evil

within Iamblichusrsquos view of the cosmos given his description of the nature ofthe higher genera Indeed according to Finamore ldquothe point of these numer-ous [divine] entities is to fill the encosmic realm with beings helpful to hu-mansrdquo not harmful114 If evil demons are a part of Iamblichusrsquos cosmos whichthey explicitly are then what are they doing there How did they get that wayHow given what is said about demons in general above could there even beevil demonsWhat place in the hierarchy do they hold Does Iamblichus sim-ply inherit them from the tradition Does his personal experience confirm inhis view their existence Dillon says that Iamblichus delves into speculationabout evil demons more than he needs to but can we entertain the possibilitythat Iamblichus is speaking from experience115 Would Iamblichus have writ-ten very different things about evil demons were they the explicit subject of atreatiseRegardless the origin nature and function of evil demons in Iamblichusrsquos

thought all require an account Porphyryrsquos entire explanation of evil demonshas been excised based on Iamblichusrsquos criticism of the spatio-material prin-ciple and on what he says about the relation between the essence of thehigher classes and any relation they might have to a body whatever if anythat might be Because Iamblichus repudiates Porphyryrsquos demonic ontologyand further denies that demons could be affected by amaterial body he needsother ways to account for evil demons Then we need an account of why forIamblichus other than the spatio-material principle or an appeal to the effectsof matter on the soul some demons are evil Iamblichus denies demonic pas-sibility to maintain demonic dignity their procession from the gods and therespectability of the theurgical rites that align the practitioner to their suc-cours However in doing so he raises a number of other questions that needto be addressedTo show that this is an important area of study calling for more scholarly

attention one need only point to where Iamblichus apparently and perhapsmost fundamentally agrees with Porphyry about the dangers that arise whenone remains ignorant of the true natures of divine beings Iamblichus writes

114 Finamore (1985) 34115 See Dillon (2009) 51

188 orsquoneill

Your next remarks in which you [ie Porphyry] express the view thatldquoignorance and deception about these matters contribute to impiety andimpurityrdquo and in which you exhort us toward true traditional teachingadmit of no dispute but may be agreed on alike by all116

Bibliography

Primary SourcesBerchman R (2005) Porphyry Against the Christians Studies in Platonism Neoplaton-ism and the Platonic Tradition Leiden

Brisson Luc (eacuted) (2005) Porphyre Sentences Eacutetudes drsquo introduction texte grec et tra-duction franccedilaise commentaire 2 tomesHistoire desdoctrinesde lrsquoantiquiteacute classique33 Paris

Clark G (trans) (2000) On Abstinence From Killing Animals Ithaca New YorkClarke E Dillon M and Hershbell J (eds) (2003) On theMysteriesWritings from theGreco-RomanWorld Atlanta

Diehl E (ed) (1965) Proclus Diadochus In Platonis Timaeum commentaria Leipzig1903ndash1906 [Reprint Amserdam 1965]

Dillon J (trans) (2009) Iamblichus the Platonic Commentaries Great BritainFinamore J and Dillon J (trans) (2002) Iamblichus De Anima Text Translation andCommentary Leiden

Fowler HN (1996) Plato Euthyphro Apology Crito Phaedo Phaedrus Loeb ClassicalLibrary Cambridge

Hamilton E and Cairns H (eds) (1989) Plato The CollectedDialogues Princeton NewJersey

Navck A (ed) (1963) Philosophi Platonici Opuscula Selecta Biblioteca ScriptorumGraecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana Hildesheim

Parthey G (ed) (1965) Jamblichus DeMisteriis Liber AmsterdamSaffrey Henri Dominique and Segonds Alain-Philippe (eds) (2012) Porphyre Lettre agraveAneacutebon LrsquoEacutegyptien Paris

ScottW (ed) (1985)Hermetica theWritingsAttributed toHermesTrismegistus BostonWiesen D (trans) (1968ndash2003) City of God Loeb Classical Library Cambridge Mass

Secondary LiteratureDillon J (1996) TheMiddle Platonists Ithaca New YorkDodds ER (1968) The Greeks and the Irrational Berkeley amp Los Angeles

116 DeMyst II11 (see Porphyry Letter to Anebo fr 31 SaffreymdashSegonds)


Edwards Mark (2006) Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus Great BritainHabermehl P (1996) ldquoQuaedam divinae potestates Demonology in Apuleiusrsquo De DeoSocratisrdquo in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel Groningen (117ndash142)

Lewy H (1978) Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy Mysticism Magic and Platonism in theLater Roman Empire Paris

Liddell H and Scott R (eds) (1999) An Intermediate GreekmdashEnglish Lexicon OxfordMadjumdar D (2005) ldquoIs Tolma Cause of First Otherness for PlotinusrdquoDionysius 2331ndash48

Narbonne J-M (2007) ldquoA Doctrinal Evolution in Plotinus The Weakness of the Soulin its Relation to EvilrdquoDionysius 25 77ndash92

Narbonne J-M (2007) ldquoLa controverse agrave propos de la geacuteneacuteration de la matiegravere chezPlotin lrsquo eacutenigme reacutesoluerdquo Quaestio 7 123ndash163

Narbonne J-M and Hankey W (2006) Levinas and the Greek Heritage by Jean-MarcNarbonne (pp 1ndash96) followed by One Hundred Years of Neoplatonism in France ABrief Philosophical History byWayne Hankey (pp 97ndash248) Studies in PhilosophicalTheology LeuvenParisDudley

OrsquoMeara John J (1959) Porphyryrsquos Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine ParisOrsquoMeara John J (1969) ldquoPorphyryrsquos Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebiusrsquo PraeparatioEvangelica and Augustinersquos Dialogues of Cassiciaumrdquo Recherhes augustiniennes 6103ndash139

Shaw G (1995) Theurgy and the Soul The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus PennsylvaniaTimotin A (2012) Ladeacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Pla-ton aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens Leiden


Proclusrsquo Critique of Plotinusrsquo Demonology

Andrei Timotin

Νοῦς as a Daimon (Timaeus 90andashc)

In Timaeus Plato describes the constitution of the human soul by making adistinction between its immortal part which is the work of the Demiurge andits mortal ones which are the result of the work of his co-operators1 The mor-tal soul is composed of two parts θυμός (70bndashc) and ἐπιθυμία (70b) while theimmortal one νοῦς (41cndashd) the divine part of the soul is composed like thesoul of the world of a mixture of two elements the circles of the ldquosamerdquo andthe ldquootherrdquo it is animated by a circular movement which reproduces the rev-olution (περίοδος) of the soul of the world and its physical manifestation thecircularmovement (περιφορά) of the stars2Νοῦς is compared to a daimon allot-ted to each one of us

As concerning the most sovereign form of soul in us we must conceivethat heaven has given it to each man as a daimon that part which we saydwells in the summit of our body and lifts us fromearth towards our celes-tial affinity like a plant whose roots are not in earth but in the heavens3

trans Cornford

The individual daimon that Plato compares with the immortal part of the soulis to be confused neither with Socratesrsquo ldquodaemonic signrdquo nor with the daimonattached to the soul at birth a traditional belief that Plato modified in themyth of Er4 According to this myth at the moment of their rebirth the soulschoose their future earthly destiny according to their conduct in their previous

1 PlatoTimaeus 34andash44d and 69dndash73b For a clear account of Timaeusrsquo psychology see Brisson(21998) 415ndash465 On the mortal parts of the soul see also Brisson (2011)

2 Cf Plato Timaeus 47bndashc and 69cndashd See Sedley (1997) 329ndash3303 Plato Timaeus 90a τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρrsquo ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε ὡς

ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲν ἡμῶν ἐπrsquo ἄκρῳ τῷ σώματιπρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ συγγένειαν ἀπὸ γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν ὡς ὄντας φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιονὀρθότατα λέγοντες Cf ibid 90c On the image of man as heavenly plant in later sources (egPlutarch Amatorius 757E) see Aubriot (2001)

4 Plato Republic X 617dndashe and 620dndashe cf Phaedo 107d On this belief before Plato see Timotin(2012) 23ndash24

proclusrsquo critique of plotinusrsquo demonology 191

lives and the expression of this choice is their daimon which does not protectthe soul but only fulfills the relentless destiny that the soul has already cho-senThe daimon in Timaeus has a different nature and function It is located

inside the soul being identified with its upper part which is immortal anddivine It represents at the same time an ideal status to which the human soulaspires in so far as it tends to escape the state of servitude and disequilibriumtowhich it is held by itsmortal parts by restoring the right proportion betweenthe circles of the ldquosamerdquo and the ldquootherrdquo and by reproducing the circular move-ment of the soul of the world Through the natural exercise of νοῦς the humansoul tends to be gradually reabsorbed into the soul of the world through a pro-cess that culminates in the termination of its cycle of reincarnations It is thusonly after death that the human soul can really become a daimon although itcanbedescribed thus by synecdoche already from its earthly life as inCratylus(398c) wherein man who exercises the divine part of his soul is called daimonalready in his lifetime5On the basis of the prejudice that any contradiction or divergence in Platorsquos

dialogues is only apparent and hides a deeper doctrinal unity the Middle-Platonists have tried to harmonise the νοῦςndashdaimon with the other daemonicfigures in Platorsquos dialogues and in particular with Socratesrsquo ldquodaemonic signrdquo6This exegetical approachdevelopedunder the sign of a lasting tensionbetweenthe external (as in Republic and Phaedo) or internal (as in Timaeus and Craty-lus) aspects of the personal daimon

Plotinusrsquo Demonology

The harmonisation of the two aspects of the personal daimon is also the sub-ject of one of Plotinusrsquo Enneads (III 4) Plotinus is not interested howeverunlike his Middle-Platonic predecessors in the topic of Socratesrsquo daimon Theinnovative perspective from which Plotinus interpreted the Platonic demono-logical texts and above allTimaeus90andashcwill have a significant impact onLate

5 Plato Cratylus 398c See Robin (31964) 111 for the relationship between this passage andTimaeus 90a On the possible Pythagoric origins of this idea see Detienne (1963) 62ndash67 andmore cautiously Timotin (2012) 32ndash34

6 See especially Plutarch De genio Socratis Apuleius De deo Socratis and Maximus of TyreOr 8 and 9 On Middle-Platonic demonology see recently Timotin (2012) 86ndash141 164ndash208244ndash286 and (2015) with previous bibliography Finamore (2014) Fletcher (2015)

192 timotin

Neoplatonists and especially on Proclus whowill criticise as wewill see Ploti-nusrsquo demonology Before examining the Late Neoplatonic criticism of this par-ticular aspect of Plotinusrsquo thought it is appropriate first to describe briefly thePlotinian approach7Ennead III 4 begins with a summary of the Plotinian conception of the soul

(sect1) and then goes on to study the human soul and its various powers8 in orderto establish a correspondence between the different kinds of life according tothe predominance in the soul of one of its powers and the different kinds ofreincarnation9 (sect2) The next chapter deals with the kind of life correspondingto the quality of daimon scil the daimon that one becomes after death (Craty-lus 398 c) and defines the relation between this daimon and the one that wehave as a companion (sect3) The last three chapters deal with the relationshipbetween the human soul and the soul of the world (sect4) the choice of the dai-mon by the soul (Republic 617 dndashe 620dndashe) (sect5) and the definition of the wisein relation to the daimon (sect6)Only the third chapterwill occupy us here In attempting to harmonise three

different Platonic notions the daimon that one becomes after death (Cratylus398c) the daimon equated with the νοῦς (Timaeus 90andashc) and the one thatthe soul chooses before reincarnating (Republic 617dndashe 620dndashe Phaedo 107d)Plotinus draws here a distinction between two kinds of daimones the daimonthat one can become after death and in some way already is from the time ofhis earthly life and the daimon alloted to each man during his life The firstkind which corresponds to the definition of a daimon in Cratylus andTimaeusis equated with the divine part of the soul which guides it during its earthly lifeand which will continue to guide it after death The second one which corre-sponds to the personal daimon of Republic and Phaedo designates accordingto Plotinus a level of reality immediately superior to that which is active in thesoul the Intellect if the rational principle prevails in the soul or its rationalpart if the sensitive part prevails

mdashWho then becomes a daimonmdashHewhowas one here toomdashAndwhoa godmdashCertainly he who was one here For what worked in a man leadshim (after death) since it was his ruler and guide here toomdashIs this then

7 On Plotinusrsquo demonology see Rist (1963) Aubry (2008) 264ndash268 Timotin (2012) 286ndash300and Thomas Vidartrsquos contribution in this volume

8 On the Plotinian doctrine of the powers of the soul see Blumenthal (1971) 20ndash44 Szlezaacutek(2000) BlumenthalmdashDillon (2015)

9 Plato Republic 614bndash621b Phaedo 81endash82c 107 d and 113 a On Plotinusrsquo interpretation of thePlatonic doctrine of reincarnation see Rich (1957) Laurent (1999)


ldquothe daimon to whom it was allotted while he livedrdquo [Phaedo 107d]mdashNobut that which is before the working principle for this presides inactiveover the man but that which comes after it acts If the working princi-ple is that by which we have sense-perception the daimon is the rationalprinciple (τὸ λογικόν) but if we live by the rational principle the daimonis what is above this presiding inactive and giving its consent to the prin-ciple which works So it is rightly said that ldquowe shall chooserdquo [Republic617e] For we choose the principle which stands above us according toour choice of life10

The first kind of daimon is the result of an adaptation of Cratylusrsquo theory of thewise-daimon aiming to bring it into harmony with Timaeusrsquo notion of νοῦςndashdaimon The wise man becomes a daimon after death since he already wasone during his lifetime insofar as he lets himself be guided by his νοῦς whichaccording to the Timaeus is a kind of daimon This exegetical montage is fairlytransparent and raises no particular problems of interpretationThe second kind of daimon on the other hand is the result of a more inno-

vative reading of Platorsquos demonological texts The idea that the daimon standsldquoinactiverdquo above the soul is no doubt an echo of Republic 620e a passage wherethe daimon that the soul chooses before reincarnating is presented as an entitythat ldquoensures the fulfillment of their choicesrdquo without actively intervening inthe lives of men whose destiny is sealed from birth by the choice that hasbeen made before This theory has in Platorsquos philosophy the role of preserv-ing individual responsibility in a polemical context in relation to traditionalnotions of destiny and daimon illustrated in particular in tragedy and lyricpoetry11The idea that this daimon is on an ontological level immediately superior

to that of the active part in the soul is not however the product of an exe-gesis of Platorsquos demonological text Plotinusrsquo doctrinal innovation can be wellexplained by the Plotinian doctrine of the undescended soul according to

10 Plotinus Enn III 4 [15] 31ndash9 (trans Armstrong) Τίς οὖν δαίμων ὁ καὶ ἐνταῦθα Τίς δὲ θεόςἢ ὁ ἐνταῦθα Τὸ γὰρ ἐνεργῆσαν τοῦτο ἕκαστον ἄγει ἅτε καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡγούμενον Ἆρrsquo οὖν τοῦτόἐστιν ὁ δαίμων ὅσπερ ζῶντα εἰλήχει [Phaed 107d]Ἢοὔ ἀλλὰ τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο γὰρ ἐφέστη-κεν ἀργοῦν ἐνεργεῖ δὲ τὸ μετrsquo αὐτόνΚαὶ εἰ μὲν τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ᾗ αἰσθητικοί καὶ ὁ δαίμων τὸ λογικόνεἰ δὲ κατὰ τὸ λογικὸν ζῴημεν ὁ δαίμων τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο ἐφεστὼς ἀργὸς συγχωρῶν τῷ ἐργαζομένῳὈρθῶς οὖν λέγεται ἡ ἡμᾶς αἱρήσεσθαι [Rep 617e] Τὸν γὰρ ὑπερκείμενον κατὰ τὴν ζωὴν αἱρού-μεθα For the quotations from the Enneads I follow the standard edition of P Henry andH-R Schwyzer Plotini Opera 3 vols Oxford 1964ndash1982 (editio minor)

11 See Timotin (2012) 61ndash62

194 timotin

which there is a part of the soul that always remains in the intelligible worldwithout descending into the world below12According to a famous definition of Ennead III 4 ldquothe soul is many things

and all things both the things above and the things below down to the limits ofall life and we are each one of us an intelligible universe making contact withthis lower world by the powers of soul below but with the intelligible world byits powers above and thepowers of the universe andwe remainwith all the restof our intelligible part above but by its ultimate fringe we are tied to the worldbelowrdquo13 This part of the soul which stands in the intelligible world and whichonersquos soul most often ignores is a kind of inactive daimon residing above thepart that is active in the soul This daimon is therefore at the same time insideand outside the soul The exteriority or interiority of the levels of reality is infact a matter of perception14 A higher level of reality is thus external insofaras we do not perceive it but it is ldquooursrdquo insofar as our soul is a reality that goesbeyond the level of perception being in a certain sensewider than ldquoourselvesrdquo15

12 See eg Plotinus Enn IV 8 [6] 8 V 1 [10] 10 Cf Szlezaacutek (2000) On the critical receptionof this theory in Late Neoplatonism see Steel (1978) 45ndash51 Dillon (2005) and (2013a)Opsomer (2006) Taormina (2012)

13 Plotinus Enn III 4 [15] 321ndash25 (trans Armstrong)Ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πολλὰ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ πάντακαὶ τὰ ἄνω καὶ τὰ κάτω αὖ μέχρι πάσης ζωῆς καὶ ἐσμὲν ἕκαστος κόσμος νοητός τοῖς μὲν κάτωσυνάπτοντες τῷδε τοῖς δὲ ἄνω καὶ τοῖς κόσμου τῷ νοητῷ καὶ μένομεν τῷ μὲν ἄλλῳ παντὶ νοητῷἄνω τῷ δὲ ἐσχάτῳ αὐτοῦ πεπεδήμεθα τῷ κάτω

14 Ibid V 1 [10] 121ndash10 Πῶς οὖν ἔχοντες τὰ τηλικαῦτα οὐκ ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα ἀλλrsquo ἀργοῦμεν ταῖςτοιαύταις ἐνεργείαις τὰ πολλά οἱ δὲ οὐδrsquo ὅλως ἐνεργοῦσιν Ἐκεῖνα μέν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς αὐτῶν ἐνερ-γείαις ἀεί νοῦς καὶ τὸ πρὸ νοῦ ἀεὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ψυχὴ δέmdashτὸ ἀεικίνητονmdashοὕτως Οὐ γὰρ πᾶν ὃἐν ψυχῇ ἤδη αἰσθητόν ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται εἰς ἡμᾶς ὅταν εἰς αἴσθησιν ἴῃ ὅταν δὲ ἐνεργοῦν ἕκαστον μὴμεταδιδῷ τῷ αἰσθανομένῳ οὔπω διrsquo ὅλης ψυχῆς ἐλήλυθενΟὔπω οὖν γιγνώσκομεν ἅτε μετὰ τοῦαἰσθητικοῦ ὄντες καὶ οὐ μόριον ψυχῆς ἀλλrsquo ἡ ἅπασαψυχὴ ὄντες ldquoWhy thenwhenwehave suchgreat possessions dowenot consciously grasp them but aremostly inactive in thesewaysand some of us are never active at allmdashThey are always occupied in their own activitiesIntellect and that which is before Intellect always in itself and soul which is in this senselsquoever-movingrsquo For not everything which is in the soul is immediately perceptible but itreaches us when it enters into perception but when a particular active power does notgive a share in its activity to the perceiving power that activity has not yet pervaded thewhole soul We do not therefore yet know it since we are accompanied by the perceptivepower and are not a part of soul but the whole soulrdquo

15 Strictly speaking there is nothing in Plotinus that could be ldquoexternalrdquo to the soul for theintelligible realities ldquoare present also in ourselvesrdquo (παρrsquo ἡμῖν ταῦτα εἶναι ibid V 1 [10] 106)On the relationship between perception and identity see ibid I 1 [53] 11 and the com-mentary of Aubry (2004) 45ndash49 and 208ndash214 Cf also Hadot (1963) 25ndash39 Blumenthal(1971) 109ndash111


According to this view there is a level of soul to which we do not havepermanent access a level deeper than the ordinary consciousness on whichcommon personal identity is based The Plotinian daimon designates preciselythis different usually ignored level of consciousness and an alternative pointof reference for personal identity


Plotinian demonology has found few defenders in Late Neoplatonism al-though it had considerable influence Before Proclus who undertook a system-atic criticism of Plotinusrsquo theory the latter was also rejected by Iamblichus andHermias Starting from Iamblichus in fact the philosophical reflection on theposition and function of the daimones took a different turn in relation to theprevious Platonic tradition A line of thought based on the exegesis of Timaeus90andashc and Cratylus 398c thus gives way to a different demonological reflectionbased on passages such as Phaedrus 246e and especially Symposium 202dndash203a16 according to which the daemonic class intermediate between humananddivine is superior to human souls and subordinate to the class of gods Thistheory authorized by other Platonic texts like Phaedo 107d and Republic 617dndashe assigns to the personal daimon the status of a divine being distinct from andsuperior to the class of human soulsIn the frame of his polemic with Porphyry Iamblichus criticised the the-

ory inspired mainly by Timaeus 90andashc according to which the upper part ofthe soul can be equated with a daimon This theory illustrated in Ennead III 4(cf sect31ndash5 and 61ndash5) was apparently also accepted by Porphyry in his Letter toAnebo17

Then leaving aside these questions you [scil Porphyry] slide off into phi-losophy and in the process subvert the whole basis of the doctrine of thepersonal daimon For if [scil daimon] is merely a part of the soul (μέροςhellip

16 It is worth reminding that Symposium and Phaedrus are read as ldquotheologicalrdquo dialoguesin Late Neoplatonism an exegetical practice based on the reading order of Platorsquos dia-logues systematised by Iamblichus see Festugiegravere (1969) Dunn (1976) The importance ofTimaeusrsquo theological reading in theMiddle-Platonic demonology was first emphasized byDonini (1990) 37ndash39

17 This is in fact rather common place in post-Plotinian Neoplatonism Cf also Julian Onroyalty 68dndash69a Against the Cynics 196d 197b Themistius XXXIII 365dndash366a For a list ofrelevant texts see Puiggali (1982) 304ndash305 and (1984) 109ndash110

196 timotin

τῆς ψυχῆς) as for instance the intellectual part (τὸ νοερόν) and that personis ldquohappyrdquo (εὐδαίμων) who has intellect (νοῦς) in a sound state there willno longer be any need to postulate any other order greater or daemonicto preside over the human order as its superior18

Iamblichus opposes in this passage the philosophical approach to the theurgi-cal one the theurgist being credited with a thorough knowledge of the divineaboutwhich the philosopher can only express a δόξα lacking theological rigor19In this context the philosophical view on the personal daimon is identifiedwith the theory according to which the latter could be equated with a partof the soul and especially with its intellective part (τὸ νοερόν) This theory isalso related to the wordplay δαίμωνmdashεὐδαιμονία (cf Cratylus 398c)20 To thisphilosophical δόξα on the personal daimon Iamblichus opposes a theologicaldemonology based on Phaedrus 246e and mainly on Symposium 202dndash203awhich firmly distinguishes the daemonic τάξις from the class of human souls21Hermias in his Phaedrus commentary also criticises the theory of daimonndash

νοῦς perhaps under the influence of Iamblichusrsquo commentary In a contextdealing with the nature of Socratesrsquo daimon he thus refutes the idea that thelatter could be equated with a part of the soul (μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς) on the basisof a rather common remark that the soul always tends to accomplish some-thing and cannot therefore be limited to an inhibitory activity such as thatattributed by Plato to Socratesrsquo daimon

18 IamblichusDemysteriis IX 8 2825ndash9 Parthey = 2093ndash9 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (transClarkemdashDillonmdashHershbell) Ἔπειτα τούτων ἀποστὰς ἐπὶ μὲν τὴν φιλόσοφον ἀπολισθάνειςδόξαν ἀνατρέπεις δὲ τὴν ὅλην περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου δαίμονος ὑπόθεσιν Εἰ γὰρ μέρος ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆςοἷον τὸ νοερόν καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν εὐδαίμων ὁ τὸν νοῦν ἔχων ἔμφρονα οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἑτέρα τάξις οὐδε-μία κρείττων ἢ δαιμόνιος ἐπιβεβηκυῖα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ὡς ὑπερέχουσα On Iamblichusrsquo viewson the personal daimon see Dillon (2001) Timotin (2012) 309ndash318

19 A fine example of Iamblichusrsquo views on the relation between philosophy and theurgy Cfibid II 11 p 971ndash9 P = 738ndash16 SndashSndashL On the latter passage see Saffrey (1981) 160 [=(1990) 40]

20 Cf Xenocrates fr 236ndash238 Isnardi Parente On thiswordplay inMiddle-Platonism and Sto-icism see Mikalson (2002)

21 The idea that the personal daimon is a divine being distinct from the soul is also sup-ported by SallustiusOn the gods and the universe 20 p 3426ndash28NockΑἱ δὲ μετεμψυχώσειςεἰ μὲν εἰς λογικὰ γένοιντο αὐτὸ τοῦτο ψυχαὶ γίνονται τῶν σωμάτων εἰ δὲ εἰς ἄλογα ἔξωθενἕπονται ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμῖν οἱ εἰληχότες ἡμᾶς δαίμονες [Phaedo 107d] ldquoIf transmigration of asoul happens into a rational creature the soul becomes precisely that bodyrsquos soul if intoan unreasoning creature the soul accompanies it from outside as our guardian daimonaccompany usrdquo (trans Nock)


The fact that Socratesrsquo daimonion is neither a part of the soul nor thephilosophy itself as many have believed is mentioned in many passagesand is evidently also asserted here ldquo lsquoThe accustomed daemonic sign hasset me freersquo and I have heard lsquoa voice from therersquo which alwaysrdquo he saysldquoturns me away (from doing something)rdquo Philosophy on the other handoften turns towards something and the part of the soul strives to do it Sothat this is not Socratesrsquo daimonion is manifestly stated [hellip]22

Proclus develops this criticismmainly in his Commentary on the Alcibiades I23His more elaborate view is deployed in three stages (1) first the theory thatequates νοῦς or the rational soul with a daimon is refuted on the basis of argu-ments borrowed fromDiotimarsquos speech and from Alcibiades I (2) secondly thedifference betweenPlatorsquos demonological accounts inTimaeus 90andashc and Sym-posium 202dndash203a is explained by the distinction between three kinds of dai-mones ldquothe daimon by essential naturerdquo (ὁ τῇ οὐσίᾳ δαίμων) ldquoby analogyrdquo (κατὰἀναλογίαν) and ldquoby relationshiprdquo (κατὰ σχέσιν)24 3) thirdly Proclus refutes onthe basis of this distinction Plotinusrsquo theory according to which the daimon isldquowhat lies immediately superior to the motive force of our liferdquo (τὸ προσεχῶςὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος)

(1) Should we be correct in putting forward this opinion no one wouldaccept the view of those who make the rational soul (λογικὴ ψυχή) ourdaimon for daimon is different fromman as bothDiotima observeswhenshe places the daimones midway between gods and men [Symposium202ddndashe] and Socrates points out by contrasting the spiritual with thehuman (for he says ldquonohumancause but a certaindaemonic oppositionrdquo)

22 Hermias Commentary on the Phaedrus I p 703ndash10 LucarinimdashMoreschiniΠερὶ δὲ τοῦ δαι-μονίου Σωκράτους ὅτι μὲν οὔτε μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστιν οὔτε ἡ φιλοσοφία αὐτήὥς τινες ᾠήθησανπολλάκις μὲν εἴρηται ἐναργῶς δὲ λέγεται παρrsquo αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνταῦθα laquoΤὸ εἰωθὸς σημεῖόν μοι ἐγένετοδαιμόνιον καί τινα φωνὴν ἤκουσα αὐτόθεν ὃ ἀεί φησίν ἀποτρέπει raquo φιλοσοφία δὲ καὶ ἐπιτρέπειπολλάκις καὶ τὸ μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς ἐφίεται τοῦτο ποιεῖνὍτι μὲν οὖν ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστι τὸ δαιμόνιονΣωκράτους ἐναργῶς λέγεται [hellip]

23 On Proclusrsquo demonology in his commentaries on theTimaeus the Republic and the Alcib-iades I see Timotin (2012) 153ndash158 228ndash237 and 311ndash317 Dillon (2013b) Addey (2014) Seealso Luc Brissonrsquos second contribution in this volume

24 Olympiodorus (Commentary on the Alcibiades I 155ndash166 p 13Westerink)makes a similardistinction between different kinds of daimones but like A-Ph Segonds showed rela-tively incoherent because of the misunderstanding of the theory of Proclus see Segonds(1986) 163 On Olympiodorusrsquo Commentary on the Alcibiades I see also Renaud (2014)

198 timotin

[Alcibiades 103a] but man is a soul using a body as will be shown Dai-mon then is not the same as the rational soul25

(2) However this too is clear that Plato himself in the Timaeus says thatreason has come to dwell in us as daimon of the living organism [Timaeus90andashc] but this is true only as far as analogy will go since what is daimonby essential nature by analogy and by relationship differs in each case

(3)Oftenwhat lies immediately superior (προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον) andhasbeen assigned the position of a daimon as regards its inferior people areaccustomedactually to call adaimon as indeed in thewritings of Orpheus[Orph fr 155 Kern] Zeus I think says to his own father Kronos ldquoRaise upour race O glorious spiritrdquo Plato himself in the Timaeus called the godswho immediately regulate birth ldquodaimonesrdquo ldquobut to speak of the rest ofthe daimones and to ascertain their origin is beyond usrdquo [Timaeus 40d]Now the daimon by analogy is such ie it makes immediate provisionfor each individual whether it be a god or one of those beings stationedbeneath the gods26

Proclusrsquo strategy thus has a double aspect He first delineates a clear separationbetween the psychic and daemonic classes basedmainly on Symposium 202dndash203a Then he uses the distinction between daimones ldquoby essential naturerdquo andldquoby analogyrdquo which not only allows him to account forTimaeus 90andashc but alsoto refute the Plotinian theory of the daimon as τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦἐνεργοῦντος

25 Proclus Commentary on the Alcibiades I p 7310ndash18 CreuzerSegonds (Trans OrsquoNeill) Εἰδὴ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς λέγοιμεν οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀποδέξαιτο τοὺς τὴν λογικὴν ψυχὴν τὴν ἡμετέραν δαίμοναποιοῦντας ὁ μὲν γὰρ δαίμων ἕτερος ἀνθρώπου καθάπερ ἥ τε Διοτίμα λέγει μέσους τιθεμένη τοὺςδαίμονας θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ ὁ Σωκράτης ἐνδείκνυται ἀντιδιαστέλλων τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ τὸ δαι-μόνιον (laquoοὐκ ἀνθρώπειονraquo γάρφησι laquoτὸ αἴτιονἀλλάτι δαιμόνιον ἐναντίωμαraquo) ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωποςψυχήἐστι σώματι χρωμένη ὡς δειχθήσεται οὐκ ἄρα ὁ δαίμων ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ

26 Ibid p 7319ndash7411 καίτοι καὶ τοῦτοφανερόν ὅτι καὶ ὁΠλάτων αὐτὸς ἐν τῷΤιμαίῳ δαίμονάφησινἐν ἡμῖν τοῦ ζώου κατῳκῆσθαι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μέχρι τῆς ἀναλογίας μόνον ἀληθές ἄλλος γάρἐστιν ὁ τῇ οὐσίᾳ δαίμων ἄλλος ὁ κατὰ ἀναλογίαν δαίμων ἄλλος ὁ κατὰ σχέσιν δαίμων πολλαχοῦγὰρ τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον ἐν δαίμονος τάξει πρὸς τὸ καταδεέστερον τεταγμένον δαίμονακαλεῖν εἰώθασιν ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ὀρφεῖ λέγει που πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα τὸν Κρόνονὁ Ζεύς laquoὄρθου δrsquo ἡμετέρην γενεήν ἀριδείκετε δαῖμονraquo [Orph fr 155] καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Πλάτων ἐνΤιμαίῳ δαίμονας ἐκάλεσε τοὺς προσεχῶς διακοσμοῦντας τὴν γένεσιν θεούς laquoπερὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλωνδαιμόνων εἰπεῖν καὶ γνῶναι τὴν γένεσιν μεῖζον ἢ καθrsquo ἡμᾶςraquo [Tim 40d] ὁ μὲν δὴ κατὰ ἀναλογίανδαίμων τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ὁ προσεχῶς ἑκάστου προνοῶν κἂν θεὸς ᾖ κἂν τῶν μετὰ θεοὺς τεταγμένων


The Theory of Daimon-ΝοῦςIt is remarkable in Proclusrsquo strategy that in support of the refutation of theequation lsquopersonal daimon = νοῦς (ἡ λογικὴ ψυχή)rsquo he connects the Sympo-siumrsquos notion of daimonndashμεταξύ with the topic of Socratesrsquo daimon througha reference to Alcibiades 103a The topic of Socratesrsquo daimon is the result ofan exegetical deformation of the notion of ldquodaemonic signrdquo (δαιμόνιον σημεῖον)recurring in Platorsquos dialogues27 aiming to harmonise it with the other Platonicfigures of the personal daimon Proclusrsquo strategy is far from being impartial forthe daimonndashνοῦς notion plays an essential part in the Middle-Platonic debateon the nature of Socratesrsquo daimon By bringing Socratesrsquo daimon closer to Sym-posiumrsquos daimonndashμεταξύ Proclus thus seems to have aimed to disconnect thetopic of Socratesrsquo daimon from its traditional relationship with the topic of thedaimonndashνοῦς by placing it in a different context governed by the interpretationof Symposiumrsquos demonological passageThe distinction between the personal daimon and νοῦς is also highlighted

by Proclus in relation to the distinction between the intellective and daemonicclasses

Further those who equate the individual intellect (νοῦς) with the daimonof man seem tomebadly to confuse the specific character of intellectwiththe substantial reality of daimon For all the daimones subsist on the levelof souls and are secondary to the divine souls but the rank of intellect isother than that of souls and they have received neither the same essentialnature nor faculty nor activity28

This passage supposes Proclusrsquo distinction between the three kinds of soulsmdashdivine enjoying perpetual intellection (inferior to the divine souls) and sub-ject to change (from intelligence to unintelligence)29mdash in which the second

27 See Plato Apology 31d and 40andashb Euthyphro 3b Alcibiades 103a and 105d Euthydemus272e Phaedrus 242b etc On the ldquodaemonic signrdquo in the Platonic dialogues see recentlyTimotin (2012) 52ndash60 with previous bibliography

28 ProclusCommentary on theAlcibiades I p 7620ndash24 CreuzerSegonds (Trans OrsquoNeill)Καὶμὴν καὶ ὅσοι τὸν νοῦν τὸν μερικὸν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἄγουσι τῷ λαχόντι δαίμονι τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ καλῶςδοκοῦσί μοι συγχεῖν τὴν νοερὰν ἰδιότητα πρὸς τὴν δαιμονίαν ὕπαρξιν ἅπαντες γὰρ οἱ δαίμονες ἐντῷ πλάτει τῶν ψυχῶν ὑφεστήκασι καὶ δεύτεροι τῶν θείων εἰσὶ ψυχῶν ἄλλη δὲ ἡ νοερὰ τάξις τῆςψυχικῆς καὶ οὔτε οὐσίαν ἔλαχον τὴν αὐτὴν οὔτε δύναμιν οὔτε ἐνέργειαν

29 Proclus Elements of Theology 184Πᾶσαψυχὴ ἢ θεία ἐστίν ἢ μεταβάλλουσα ἀπὸ νοῦ εἰς ἄνοιανἢ μεταξὺ τούτων ἀεὶ μὲν νοοῦσα καταδεεστέρα δὲ τῶν θείωνψυχῶν ldquoEvery soul is either divineor subject to change from intelligence to unintelligence or else intermediate between

200 timotin

element is to be related to the class of daimones also subdivided into angelsdaimones and heroes30 This intermediate class of souls which can be quali-fied as ldquodaemonicrdquo participates intellectually in the divine intellect31 since theintellective is by definition different from the daemonic class For this reasonthe personal daimon cannot be equated with νοῦςThis point established Proclus had nevertheless to account for Timaeus

90andashc a passage wherein Plato literally equates them Proclus thus distin-guishes the daimones ldquoby essential naturerdquo from those ldquoby analogyrdquo to whichthe name of daimones is only analogically applied To the latter kind belongsprecisely that kind of daimon that Plato had analogically equated with νοῦςThe latterwould on the contrary be ldquoby essential naturerdquo distinct from the dae-monic class

The Theory of Daimon as τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντοςThe distinction between the varieties of daimones also allows Proclus to ac-count for Plotinusrsquo distinction (Enn III 4) between the daimon equated withthe part of the soul which guides us during life and the daimon that ldquolies imme-diately superior to the motive force of our liferdquo (τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦἐνεργοῦντος)Proclus contests the relevance of Plotinusrsquo distinction between these two

kinds of daimones insofar as they are understood as daimones ldquoby essentialnaturerdquo they would be only daimones ldquoby analogyrdquo ie they would not desig-nate an autonomous class of divine beings but rather a function that can befulfilled by several kinds of divine beings (daimones or gods)

But not even if some should lay aside the rational soul and assert thatdaimon is what is active in the soul (τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς) eg rea-son (λόγος) in those that live according to reason temper (τὸ θυμικόν) inthe mettlesome nor again if some should posit what lies immediatelysuperior to themotive force of our life (τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνερ-γοῦντος) eg reason (λόγος) in the case of the mettlesome and temper

these orders enjoying perpetual intellection although inferior to the divine soulsrdquo (transER Dodds) On this distinction see Dodds (1933) 160 note ad locum and 294ndash296

30 On the series lsquoangels daimones heroesrsquo in Neoplatonism see Timotin (2012) 154ndash155 andHelmut Sengrsquos contribution in this volume

31 Proclus Elements of Theology 183 Πᾶς νοῦς μετεχόμενος μέν νοερὸς δὲ μόνον ὤν μετέχεταιὑπὸ ψυχῶν οὔτε θείων οὔτε νοῦ καὶ ἀνοίας ἐν μεταβολῇ γινομένων ldquoEvery intelligence which isparticipated but purely intellectual is participated by souls which are neither divine noryet subject to the alternative of intelligence and unintelligencerdquo (trans Dodds)


(θυμός) in the case of those who live according to sense desire (κατrsquo ἐπιθυ-μίαν) not even these seem to me to get at the truth of the matter For inthe first place tomake daimones parts of souls (μόρια τῶν ψυχῶν) is exces-sively to admire the life of men and take no account of Socrates in theRepublic [469andashb] when he ranks the race of heroes and men after godsand daimones [hellip]32

There is no doubt that this passage is inspired by Plotinusrsquo account in EnneadIII 4 (sect3 lines 1ndash8) Proclusrsquo first argument according to which the personaldaimon is equated with τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς corresponds to the first Plo-tinian kindof daimon equatedwith theupper anddivinepart of the soulwhichguides us during life (sect3 lines 1ndash3) while the second argument according towhich the daimon is equated with τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντοςcorresponds literally to the definition of the daimon given by Plotinus in sect3lines 3ndash8It is important to note however that Proclusrsquo presentation of both argu-

ments is far from being faithful to the letter of the Plotinian text As regards thefirst kind of daimon Plotinus merely reformulates the Platonic interpretationof the Hesiodic myth of the races in Cratylus 398c according to which the onewho has always exercised the best part of himself during his life becomes afterdeath a daimon This affirmation can in no way lead to the idea that the onewho has exercised a part of himself other than the best can become posthu-mously a daimon as Proclus asserts His interpretation of Plotinusrsquo text is ofcourse not impartial for it evidently tends to reduce the daimon to any part ofthe soul in order to facilitate the refutation of the Plotinian definitionThat the true significance of the Plotinian text was however obvious to Pro-

clus is shown by his interpretation of Cratylus 398c33 and Republic 468endash469b

32 Proclus Commentary on the Alcibiades I p 7514ndash25 CreuzerSegonds (trans OrsquoNeill)Ἀλλrsquoοὐδὲ εἴ τινες τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς ἀποστάντες δαίμονα λέγοιεν εἶναι τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆςοἷον ἐν μὲν τοῖς ζῶσι κατὰ λόγον τὸν λόγον ἐν δὲ τοῖς θυμοειδέσι τὸ θυμικόν ἢ εἴ τινες αὖ τὸπροσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος τίθενται τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν οἷον τῶν θυμοειδῶν τὸν λόγονκαὶ τῶν κατrsquo ἐπιθυμίαν ζώντων τὸν θυμόν οὐδὲ οὗτοί μοι δοκοῦσι στοχάζεσθαι τῆς τῶν πραγμά-των ἀληθείας πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τὸ τοὺς δαίμονας μόρια τῶν ψυχῶν ποιεῖν πάνυ θαυμαζόντων ἐστὶτὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ζωὴν καὶ οὐδαμοῦ προσποιουμένων τὸν ἐν Πολιτείᾳ Σωκράτην μετὰ θεοὺς καὶδαίμονας τάττοντα τό τε ἡρωϊκὸν καὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπειον γένος [hellip]

33 Ibid p 703ndash9 οὐκ ἄρα ἀποδεξόμεθα τῶν λεγόντων ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων εἶναι τοὺς δαίμονας μετα-βαλούσας τὸν τῇδε βίον οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸ κατὰ σχέσιν δαιμόνιον εἰς ταὐτὸν ἄγειν τῷ κατrsquo οὐσίαν οὐδὲτὴν ἀΐδιον μεσότητα τῶν ἐγκοσμίων πάντων ἐκ τῆς μεταβαλλούσης ἑαυτὴν πολυειδῶς ὑφιστά-νειν ζωῆς ἕστηκε γὰρ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἡ δαιμονία φρουρὰ συνέχουσα τὰ ὅλα ldquoWe shall not then

202 timotin

passages concerning human souls becoming daimones after leaving this worldThese soulswould not be daimones ldquoby essential naturerdquo but ldquoby relationrdquo (κατὰσχέσιν) so called according to Proclus because of their ldquolikeness to the classof daimonesrdquo their actions here below being ldquotoo wonderful to be humanrdquo34One can then ask why Proclus did not interpret Plotinusrsquo text correspondingto the first argument from the same perspective if its refutation was indeedso easy The most probable explanation is that Proclus has chosen to con-nect the two equations daimon = τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς and daimon = τὸπροσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος to facilitate their refutation If Proclusthus interprets τὸ ἐνεργοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς as referring to any part of the soul itis precisely because he also interprets τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦν-τος as designating any part of the soul among its two active parts νοῦς andθυμόςUnderlying Proclusrsquo interpretation of two Plotinian passages is the idea that

Plotinus equates demons with parts of souls (μόρια τῶν ψυχῶν) an idea thatdistorts the meaning of Plotinusrsquo text in two ways On the one hand Proclusignores one of the two examples that Plotinus gives as equivalent realities forτὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος ie τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο (scil τὸ λογικόν) ἐφε-στὼς ἀργὸς (the Intellect or the One) retaining only the individual νοῦς nodoubt because it could be conceived as a part of the soul on the other handProclus adds θυμός along with νοῦς which Plotinus does not mention in thiscontext for according to Plotinusrsquo view daimon can only be a reality at leastequivalent to the rational part of the soul If Proclus has slightly distorted themeaning of Plotinusrsquo text to facilitate his task it must be said at the same timethat the Plotinian text by its lack of clarity could legitimate such an interpre-tation

admit the opinion of those [cf Crat 398c] who assert that the daimones are souls of menwhohave exchanged their life here wemust not accountwhat is daemonic by relation thesame as what is daemonic by essential nature nor constitute the everlasting medium ofall the intramundane from a life that undergoes many changes of form For the daemonicguard that holds together the universe has ever stood the samerdquo (Trans OrsquoNeill)

34 Ibid p 7412ndash17 ὁ δὲ κατὰ σχέσιν δαίμων λέγοιτο ἂν ὁ διrsquo ὁμοιότητος τῆς πρὸς τὸ δαιμόνιον γένοςθαυμασιωτέρας ἢ κατrsquo ἄνθρωπον ἐνεργείας προβεβλημένος καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ζωὴν ὅλην ἐξάψας τῶνδαιμόνων (οὕτω γὰρ οἶμαι καὶ ὁ ἐν Πολιτείᾳ Σωκράτης δαίμονας ἐκάλεσε τοὺς εὖ βεβιωκότας καὶἐς ἀμείνω λῆξιν μεταστάντας καὶ τόπον ἁγιώτερον) ldquoBut the daimon by relation would betermed one who through likeness to the class of daimones exercised activities too won-derful to be human and made his whole life dependent on the daimones (in this way Ithink that Socrates in the Republic [468endash469b] called those who had led a good life andlsquoremoved to a better lot and holier placersquo daimones)rdquo


However the difference between the respective views of Plotinus and Pro-clus on the personal daimon is considerable and it could be surprising thatProclus used this biased and rather easy means of refutation whereas the dis-similarities between the two views are substantial and concern the very core ofPlotinusrsquo psychology Plotinian demonology is closely related as we have seento Plotinusrsquo theory of the undescended soul a theory firmly contested by theLate Neoplatonists among others particularly by Proclus The clearest expres-sion of his position is perhaps the last sentence of the Elements of TheologyldquoEvery particular soulwhen it descends into temporal process descends entirethere is not a part of it which remains above and a part which descendsrdquo35Plotinusrsquo idea according to which the personal daimon can be located in dif-

ferent positions according to the prevalent power in the soul is based preciselyon this fundamental indeterminacy of the soul which covers all levels of thereality Challenging this ideawould necessarily have led to the refutation of thenotion of a ldquodaimon over the intellectrdquo (ὑπὲρ νοῦν δαίμων Plotinus III 4 [15] 65)If the soul descends entirely it would be impossible that τὸ προσεχῶς ὑπερκείμε-νονbe located ldquoover the intellectrdquo and therewould be noneed to forcibly reducethe Plotinian daimon to a part of the soul It is rather strange that Proclus didnot choose this more accessible and logical approach to refute the PlotinianviewA reason for that could be that Proclus has simply followed as elsewhere

Iamblichusrsquo exegesis but other elements of his interpretation of Plotiniandemonology differ from the exegesis of his predecessor To refute for instancePlotinusrsquo idea that the soul can have more than one daimon during one life-time by changing its guiding principle36 Proclus relies solely on the authorityof Phaedo 107d

The changes of life will introduce many kinds of variation in the [guard-ian] daimones since the money-loving way of life often changes to theambitious this to the life of correct opinion and this to the life of scien-tific knowledge hencedaimoneswill also vary since the operative portionof the soul (τὸ ἐνεργοῦν μόριον) varies Whether therefore this itself is dai-mon or what precedes it in rank the daimones will change along with

35 Proclus Elements of theology 211 (trans ER Dodds)Πᾶσα μερικὴ ψυχὴ κατιοῦσα εἰς γένεσινὅλη κάτεισι καὶ οὐ τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς ἄνω μένει τὸ δὲ κάτεισιν Cf also Proclus Commentary on theTimaeus III p 24519ndash24628 Kroll For further references see Saffrey (1984) 165 [= (1990)55]

36 Cf Plotinus Ennead III 4 [15] 318ndash20 cf ibid III 5 [50] 732ndash33 The same idea is attestedin Hermias Commentary on the Phaedrus I p 744ndash13 LucarinimdashMoreschini

204 timotin

the change in manrsquos way of life and within one lifetime the same manwill havemany daimones which is absolutely impossible for a soul neverchanges the guardianship of the daimon during one lifetime but he whoacts as helmsman to us is the same frombirth until the journey before thejudges as Socrates observes in the Phaedo [107d]37

On the contrary in his refutation of the same idea Iamblichus quotes no spe-cific Platonic text and relies on a different argument according to which theunity of the individual demands a unitary cause that is appointed to him

You make mention then after this of another approach to the questionof the personal daimon one which directs worship towards it either as adouble entity or even as a triple one But this whole approach is totallymisguided To divide the causal principles which preside over us and notto bring them together into one is quite false and errs against the unitythat prevails over all things [hellip] No the personal daimon that presidesover each one of us is one and one should not conceive of it as beingcommon or the same for all men nor yet common but attached in a par-ticular way to each individual38

Under these conditions the reason for the exegetical strategy adopted by Pro-clus in criticising Plotinusrsquo demonological theory probably has to be searchedfor elsewhere

37 ProclusCommentary on theAlcibiades I p 767ndash19 CreuzerSegonds (trans OrsquoNeill) αἱ τῶνζωῶν μεταβολαὶ καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων εἰσάξουσι [τὰς] πολυειδεῖς ἐξαλλαγάς ὁ γὰρ φιλοχρήματοςμεταπίπτει πολλάκις εἰς φιλότιμον βίον καὶ οὗτος εἰς ὀρθοδοξαστικὸν καὶ οὗτος εἰς ἐπιστήμονακαὶ δαίμων τοίνυν ἄλλοτε ἄλλος ἔσται καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν μόριον ἄλλοτε ἄλλο ἐστίν εἴτε οὖναὐτὸ δαίμων ἐστὶν εἴτε τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τεταγμένον ὁμοῦ τῇ μεταβολῇ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς καὶ οἱδαίμονες μεταβαλοῦσι καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ βίῳ πολλοὺς ἕξει δαίμονας ὁ αὐτός ὃ δὴ πάντων ἐστὶν ἀδυνατώ-τατον οὐδέποτε γὰρ ψυχὴ μεταβάλλει καθrsquo ἕνα βίον τὴν τοῦ δαίμονος προστασίαν ἀλλrsquo ὁ αὐτόςἐστιν ἐκ γενετῆς μέχρι τῆς πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς πορείας ὁ κυβερνῶν ἡμᾶς ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦτό φησινὁ ἐν Φαίδωνι Σωκράτης

38 Iamblichus De mysteriis IX 9 p 2831ndash14 Parthey = 20914ndash2105 SaffreymdashSegondsmdashLecerf (trans Clarke Dillon Hershbell)Μνημονεύεις τοίνυν μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄλλης πραγμα-τείας περὶ τὸν ἴδιον δαίμονα τῆς μὲν ὡς πρὸς δύο τῆς δὲ ὡς πρὸς τρεῖς ποιουμένης τὴν θεραπείανΑὕτη δrsquo ἐστὶ πᾶσα διημαρτημένη Τὸ γὰρ διαιρεῖν ἀλλὰ μὴ εἰς ἓν ἀνάγειν τὰ ἐφεστηκότα ἡμῖναἴτια ψεῦδός ἐστι καὶ διαμαρτάνει τῆς ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπικρατούσης ἑνώσεως [hellip] εἷς μὲν οὖν ἐστικαθrsquo ἕκαστον ἡμῶν ὁ οἰκεῖος προστάτης δαίμων κοινὸν δὲ ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν πάντων ἀνθρώπων οὐ δεῖαὐτὸν ὑπολαμβάνειν οὐδrsquo αὖ κοινὸν μὲν ἰδίως δὲ ἑκάστῳ συνόντα Cf ibid IX 7 p 28114ndash16 P= 20820ndash22 SndashSndashL


In my opinion his choice not to mention the doctrine of the undescendedsoul in the refutation of the Plotinian views on the personaldaimon shows veryprobably that his goal was precisely to avoid understanding the personal dai-mon on the basis of a theory of the soul as does Plotinus By assigning to thepersonal daimon following Iamblichus the status of a distinct class of beingssuperior to the human soul and inferior to the gods Proclus has modified thetheological framework of Plotinusrsquo theory following the essential change intro-duced by Iamblichus in the reading and interpretation programme of Platorsquosdialogues by substituting the Symposium and the Phaedrus for the Timaeus astheological dialogues par excellence This could explain why Diotimarsquos speechis placed at the core of the refutation of Plotinusrsquo demonology and why theequation νοῦςndashdaimon in Timaeus 90andashc a passage which enjoyed consider-able authority in theMiddle-Platonic tradition was interpreted by Proclus onlyas a mere analogy without theological value

Bibliography

Primary SourcesHermias Alexandrinus In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia Edited by CM Lucarini andC Moreschini Berlin 2012

Iamblichus De mysteriis Translated with an Introduction and Notes by EC ClarkeJM Dillon and JP Hershbell Atlanta GA 2003

Jamblique Reacuteponse agrave Porphyre (De mysteriis) Texte eacutetabli traduit et annoteacute par HDSaffrey et A-Ph Segonds avec la collaboration drsquoA Lecerf Paris 2013

Plotini Opera ediderunt P Henry et H-R Schwyzer 3 vols Oxford 1964ndash1982Plotin Enneads Trans AH Armstrong Cambridge (Mass) 7 vols 1980ndash1989Plotin Traiteacute 53 (I 1) Introduction traduction commentaire et notes par G AubryParis 2004

Plotin Ennead IV 3ndash429 Problems Concerning the Soul Translation Introduction andCommentary by John M Dillon and Henry J Blumenthal Las Vegas 2015

Proclus The Elements of Theology A Revised Text with Translation Introduction andCommentary by ER Dodds Oxford 1933

Proclus Sur le premier Alcibiade de Platon Texte eacutetabli et traduit par A-Ph Segonds 2vols Paris 1985ndash1986

Proclus Alcibiades I A Translation and Commentary by William OrsquoNeill The Hague1965

Sallustius Concerning the Gods and the Universe Edited and translated by AD NockCambridge 1926

Senocrate e ErmodoroTestimonianze e frammenti Edizione traduzione e commento a

206 timotin

cura di M Isnardi Parente edizione rivista e aggiornata a cura di T Dorandi Napoli2012 (1st edition 1982)

Secondary LiteratureAddey Crystal (2014) ldquoThe Daimonion of Socrates Daimones and Divination in Neo-platonismrdquo in LaynemdashTarrant (2014) 51ndash72

Aubriot Daniegravele (2001) ldquoLrsquohomme-veacutegeacutetal meacutetamorphose symbole meacutetaphorerdquo in EacutedDelruelle V Pirenne-Delforge (eds) Kecircpoi De la religion agrave la philosophie Meacutelangesofferts agrave Andreacute Motte Liegravege 51ndash62

Aubry G (2008) ldquoDeacutemon et inteacuterioriteacute drsquoHomegravere agrave Plotin Esquisse drsquoune histoirerdquo inG Aubry F Ildefonse (eds) Le moi et lrsquo inteacuterioriteacute Paris 255ndash268

BlumenthalHenry J (1971) Plotinusrsquo PsychologyHisDoctrines of theEmbodiedSoul TheHague

Brisson Luc (1998) LeMecircme et lrsquoAutre dans la structure ontologiqueduTimeacutee dePlatonUn commentaire systeacutematique du Timeacutee de Platon Sankt Augustin (1st ed 1974)

Brisson Luc (2011) ldquoThe mortal parts of the soul or Death as forgetting the bodyrdquo inM Migliori LM Napolitano Valditara A Fermani (eds) The Inner Soul Psychē inPlato Sankt Augustin 63ndash70

Cornford Francis M (1997) Platorsquos Cosmology The Timaeus of Plato Translated with arunning commentary Indianopolis-Cambridge (1st ed 1935)

Detienne Marcel (1963) De la penseacutee religieuse agrave la penseacutee philosophique La notion delaquodaiumlmocircnraquo dans le pythagorisme ancien Paris

Dillon John (2001) ldquoIamblichus on the Personal Daemonrdquo The AncientWorld 32 3ndash9Dillon John (2005) ldquoIamblichusrsquo Criticisms of Plotinusrsquo Doctrine of the UndescendedSoulrdquo in R Chiaradonna (ed) Studi sullrsquo anima in Plotino Naples 339ndash351

Dillon John (2013a) ldquoIamblichusrsquo Doctrine of the Soul Revisitedrdquo in John F FinamoreJohn Phillips (eds) Literary Philosophical and Religious Studies in the Platonic Tra-dition Papers from the 7th Annual Conference of the ISNS Sankt Augustin 107ndash113

Dillon John (2013b) ldquoThe ubiquity of divinity according to Iamblichus and Syrianusrdquoin International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 72 145ndash155

Donini Pierluigi (1990) ldquoNozioni di daimon et di intermediario nella filosofia tra il I eil II secolo DCrdquo in E Corsini et al (eds) Lrsquoautunno del diavolo Diabolos DialogosDaimon (Convegno di Torino 17ndash21 ottobre 1988) vol I Milano 37ndash50

Dunn Michael (1976) ldquoIamblichus Thrasyllus and the Reading Order of the PlatonicDialoguesrdquo in The Significance of Neoplatonism (Studies in Neoplatonism 1) pub-lished by ISNS New York 59ndash80

Festugiegravere Andreacute-Jean (1969) ldquoLrsquoordre de lecture des dialogues de Platon aux VendashVIesiegraveclesrdquo Museum Helveticum 26 281ndash296 [reprinted in A-J Festugiegravere Eacutetudes dephilosophie grecque Paris 1971 535ndash550]


Finamore John (2014) ldquoPlutarch and Apuleius on Socratesrsquo Daimonionrdquo in LaynemdashTarrant (2014) 36ndash50

Fletcher Richard (2015) ldquoEx alienis uocibus Platonic demonology and Socratic super-stition in ApuleiusrsquoMetamorphosesrdquo in Mariacutelia P Futre Pinheiro Silvia Montiglio(eds) Philosophy and the ancient novel Lisbon 93ndash107

Hadot Pierre (1963) Plotin ou la simpliciteacute du regard ParisLaurent Jeacuterocircme (1999) ldquoLa reacuteincarnation chez Plotin et avant Plotinrdquo in J LaurentLrsquohomme et le monde selon Plotin Fontenay-aux-Roses 115ndash137

Layne DA Tarrant H (eds) (2014) The Neoplatonic Socrates PhiladelphiaMikalson JD (2002) ldquoDaimon of Eudaimoniardquo in JF Miller C Damon K Sara Mey-ers (eds) Vertis in usum Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney MuumlnchenmdashLeipzig250ndash258

Opsomer J (2006) ldquoProclus et le statut ontologique de lrsquoacircme plotiniennerdquo Eacutetudes pla-toniciennes 3 (= Lrsquoacircme amphibie Eacutetudes sur lrsquoacircme chez Plotin) 195ndash207

Puiggali Jacques (1982) ldquoLa deacutemonologie de lrsquoempereur Julien eacutetudieacutee en elle-mecircme et dans ses rapports avec celle de Saloustiosrdquo Les Eacutetudes Classiques 50 293ndash314

Puiggali Jacques (1984) ldquoLa deacutemonologie de Dion Chrysostomerdquo Les Eacutetudes classiques52 103ndash114

Renaud F (2014) ldquoThe Elenctic Strategies of Socrates The Alcibiades I and the Com-mentary of Olympiodorusrdquo in LaynemdashTarrant (2014) 118ndash126

Rich ANM (1957) ldquoReincarnation in PlotinusrdquoMnemosyne 10 (NS) 232ndash238Rist JM (1963) ldquoPlotinus and the Daimonion of Socratesrdquo Phoenix 17 13ndash24Robin Leacuteon (1964) La theacuteorie platonicienne de lrsquoamour preacuteface de P-M Schuhl Paris(1st ed 1908)

Saffrey Henri Dominique (1981) ldquoLa theacuteurgie comme peacuteneacutetration drsquoeacuteleacutements extra-rationnels dans la philosophie grecque tardiverdquo inWissenschaftliche und auszligerwis-senschaftliche Rationalitaumlt Referate undTexte des 4 InternationalenHumanistischenSymposiums 1978 Athens 153ndash169 (reprinted in HD Saffrey Recherches sur le neacuteo-platonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 1990 33ndash49)

Saffrey Henri Dominique (1984) ldquoLa theacuteurgie comme pheacutenomegravene culturel chez lesneacuteoplatoniciens (IVendashVe siegravecles)rdquo Koinocircnia 8 161ndash171 [reprinted in HD Saffrey Re-cherches sur le neacuteoplatonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 1990 51ndash61]

Sedley D (1997) ldquo lsquoBecoming like Godrsquo in theTimaeus and Aristotlerdquo in T Calvo L Bris-son (eds) Interpreting the Timaios-Critias Proceedings of the Fourth SymposiumPlatonicum Sankt Augustin 327ndash339

Steel CG (1978) The Changing Self A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism Iambli-chus Damascius Priscianus Bruxelles

Szlezaacutek Thomas A (2000) ldquoLrsquo interpreacutetation plotinienne de la theacuteorie platoniciennede lrsquoacircmerdquo in M Fattal (ed) Eacutetudes sur Plotin Paris-Montreacuteal 173ndash191

208 timotin

TaorminaDaniela (2012) ldquoIamblichusTheTwo-FoldNature of the Soul and theCausesof the Human Agencyrdquo in E Afonasin J Dillon J Finamore (eds) Iamblichus andthe Foundations of Late Platonism Leiden 63ndash73


Timotin Andrei (2015) ldquoLa deacutemonologie meacutedio-platoniciennerdquo Rivista di storia dellafilosofia 702 381ndash398


The Angels in Proclus Messengers of the Gods

Luc Brisson

It is fashionable to say that Neoplatonism neglects the sensible world to devoteitself to the construction of a gigantic metaphysical edifice as extravagant as itis useless However this philosophical venture canbeunderstooddifferently asan attempt to account for the fact that our world in which everything changescontinually exhibits enough permanence and regularity for one to be able tothink about talk about and act within it In that complex network the angelsplay a role at the level of the Soul which depends on the Intelligible fashionedby the Henads which manifest the One filling the gap between the Intelligibleand bodies In this domain the souls that are associated with a body have therole of administering it whether they are divine souls intellective souls soulsof angels demons and heroes or human souls These classes of souls are foundin the interpretation of the central myth of Platorsquos Phaedrus As messengers ofthe gods angels are the paradigmatic intermediaries between gods and humanbeings they manifest the divine excellence and enable human souls to riseback up toward their origin

Beyond everything there is the First separated from all else the One evokedin the second book of the Platonic Theology The One produces units that aresimilar to It that is the Henads The Henads or lsquothe whole number of godsrsquoare described in the first part (chapters 1ndash6) of the third book of the PlatonicTheology and in propositions 113ndash165 of the Elements of Theology The Henadscomprise 14 orders of gods a number that corresponds to the conclusions ofthe second hypothesis of the Parmenides1 From the two principles of limit andthe unlimited comes an inferior class of gods that of the Intelligible The par-ticipation of the Intelligible in the Henads is a participation of similarity as isthe case for all the rest2The domain of the Intelligible described in the second part of the third

book in the fourth book and in the fifth book of the Platonic Theology andin propositions 166ndash183 of the Elements of Theology is the result of a com-bination of limit and unlimited This domain includes three triads each of

I would like to thank Michael Chase for translating this article into English1 Proclus Platonic Theology III 1 67ndash12 cf ibid I 11 471ndash559 more specifically 532ndash62 On the Henads see SaffreymdashWesterink (1978) Chlup (2012) 119ndash136 Van Riel (2017)

210 brisson

which contains three other triads which are distributed according to being life(power) and intellect (activity) each of these elements predominates in thisprecise order The intelligible gods (Plat Theol III 7ndash28) which correspond tobeing have within them in a hidden way the primordial causes of all that fol-lows Then there comes a triad of intelligible-intellective gods (Plat Theol IV)they have as their essence life which proceeds from being with the power thatcorresponds to it the fourth book of the Platonic Theology describes this classof gods which provides the link between the intelligible and the intellectiveFinally there are the intellective gods described in the fifth book of the Pla-tonic Theology who are organized into a hebdomad (Plat Theol V 1ndash4) Theyinclude 1) the triad of parents (Theol Plat V 5ndash32) Kronos or the pure intel-lect Rheia or the intellective life and Zeus or the demiurgic intellect 2) thetriad of immaculate gods (Plat Theol V 33ndash35) to whom the intellect whichis protected by them owes its ability to remain identical and similar to itselfand 3) themonad (PlatTheol V 37) whichmaintains all these intellective godsseparate from the domain of the soul The intellective gods who depend on thegods above them and dominate the lower gods have the goal of producing allthe intellects and divine beings that depend on them and of converting themtoward the intelligible3Then comes the domain of the Soul which includes three triads the hyper-

cosmic gods the hypercosmic-encosmic gods and the encosmic gods4 Thisdomain is described in book VI of the Platonic Theology which however dealsonly with the first triad and in the last section of the Elements of Theology(propositions 184ndash211) At this level souls are distributed among hypercosmicsouls (outside the world) hypercosmic-encosmic souls (outside the world andin the world) and encosmic souls (in the world) The first of these which aredivine are not associated with a body in the world the second are but remaindivine whereas the third which are located within the world are merely fol-lowers permanent or occasional of the divine souls

The Hypercosmic Souls

The hypercosmic souls form the first triad described in the sixth book of thePlatonic Theology They come immediately after the intelligible realm fromwhich they are separated by the seventh divinity the separative monad The

3 See drsquoHoine (2017)4 See FinamoremdashKutash (2017)

the angels in proclus messengers of the gods 211

hypercosmic souls are the leader-gods of the Chaldaean Oracles that is theassimilative gods that produce sympathy and communion among all beingsAssimilation has two aspects procession and conversion There are twelve ofthese gods which contain four triads In the first the paternal or demiurgictriad (Plat Theol VI 6) we find the three sons of Kronos (the first of the intel-lective gods) these are Zeus Poseidon and Hades (Plat Theol VI 11) Thencomes the koric triad (PlatTheol VI 11) named after Korecirc (= Persephone) whocoming after her mother Demeter fills everything that follows with life ForOrpheus it is made up of Artemis Persephone and Athena for the ChaldaeanOracles of Hecate the Soul and Virtue and for Plato of Artemis who is at thesummit Persephone the vivifying power and Athena a divine intellect Thethird triad the elevating triad is the triad of Apollo identified with the sun(Plat Theol VI 12) which is linked to the demiurge It is in the demiurge thatone finds the source of the intelligibles the source of souls and the source ofthe sun which fills all things with light Finally comes the corybantic triad ofthe immaculate or guardian gods (Plat Theol VI 13) who are the guardians ofthe demiurge and maintain difference within similarity

The Hypercosmic-Encosmic Souls or Gods Separatedfrom theWorld

The second triad that of the souls separated from the world are the hyper-cosmic-encosmic souls which provide the link between the hypercosmic andencosmic orders (Plat Theol VI 15) These gods ensure order in the world andthey make the beings from this world rise toward the intelligible (Plat TheolVI 16) These are the twelve gods of the Phaedrus (PlatTheol VI 19) distributedinto four triads (Plat Theol VI 22) The demiurgic triad includes Zeus whotakes care of all things Poseidon who governs the world of souls and Hep-haestuswho fashions stars andbodiesThe guardian triad ismadeupof Hestiawho keeps souls identical and immaculate Athena who keeps lives inflexibleand Ares who makes power shine upon bodies The vivifying triad includesDemeter who engenders life in the world Hera whomakes the classes of soulsproceed forth and Artemis who perfects the imperfection of nature Finallywe must mention the elevating triad of Hermes who dispenses philosophyand leads souls toward the Good Aphrodite who inspires love and familiar-izes souls with the Beautiful and Apollo who directs all things by the art of theMuses and attracts them toward the intellective light With this class of godsthe Platonic Theology ends

212 brisson

The Souls within theWorld

It is in proposition 185 of the Elements of Theology that we find the tripartitionof encosmic souls which are not described in the Platonic Theology

All divine souls are gods upon the psychic level all those which partic-ipate the intellective intellect are perpetually attendant upon gods allthose which admit of change are at certain times attendant upon godsFor if some souls have the divine light illuminating them from above

while others have perpetual intellection and others again participate thisperfection at certain times (prop 184) then the first order occupies a sta-tion in the psychic series analogous to that of gods the second having anintellectual activity at all times is at all times in the company of gods andis linked to the divine souls bearing its relation to them which the intel-lective has to the divine and those which enjoy intermittent intellectionare intermittently in the company of gods being unable perpetually andwithout change to participate intellect or perpetually to consort with thedivine soulsmdashfor that which shares in intelligence only at certain timeshas no means to be conjoined perpetually with the god5

The classes of souls that are present in the world derive from an exegesis of apassage of the central myth of the Phaedrus (246endash247e) which describes theprocession which following Zeus and ten other gods of the pantheon rises upto the heavens to contemplate the intelligible forms on the outside envelope ofthe sphere of the world6

NowZeus the great commander in heaven drives his winged chariot firstin the procession looking after everything and putting all things in orderFollowinghim is an armyof gods anddemons arranged in eleven sectionsHestia is the only one who remains at the home of the gods all the restof the twelve are lined up in formation each god in command of the unitto which he is assigned Inside heaven are many wonderful places fromwhich to look and many aisles which the blessed gods take up and backeach seeing to his own work while anyone who is able and wishes to doso follows along since jealousy has no place in the godrsquos chorus Whenthey go to feast at the banquet they have a steep climb to the higher at

5 Proclus Elements of Theology 185 (trans Dodds modified)6 For Proclusrsquo description of the procession of the gods see Proclus Theol Plat VI 4 p 2421ndash

2514 In Tim I p 26921 ff p 36926ndash29 Diehl


the rim of heaven on this slope the godsrsquo chariots move easily since theyare balanced and well under control but the other chariots barely makeit The heaviness of the bad horse drags its charioteer toward the earthand weighs him down if he has failed to train it well and this causes themost extreme toil and struggle that a soul will face7

Proclus follows Syrianus8 in the allegorical interpretation of this myth9 Eachgod is followed by an escort of angels demons heroes and human souls allmounted on chariots drawn by two horses Proclus interprets this passage asfollows

For the agencies that order the life of souls in the world of generationare other than those that bring them into contact with the gods and fillthem with divine blessings these we ordinarily call divine demons Theoccupation of horsemanship is a fitting symbol of their activity in thatthey look after secondary matters holding nature together by serving asfront-runners or bodyguards or followers of the gods For they are in awaycharioteers and in them there are lsquohorsesrsquo as there are among the gods10This is in Platorsquos mindwhen he says that Antiphon11 takes after the grand-father for whom he is named For above the demons are the angels andthey are so to speak fathers of the demons and the gods their forefathersbearing the samenames sincedemons are often addressed as gods on thedemonic levelmdashbut this is an homonymous designation derived from thedemonsrsquo participation in the godsrsquo nature12

The hierarchy is clearmdashgods angels demonsmdashand is analogous to the gene-alogical order grandfather father son the angels may be considered as thefathers of the demons and the gods as their grandfathers Two kinds of demonsare distinguished the divine demons the highest ones who are the closest to

7 Plato Phaedrus 246endash247b (trans Nehamas andWoodruff)8 See Hermias In Phaedr 1278 ff Couvreur9 See Brisson (2009)10 The ἐν in καὶ γὰρ ἡνίοχοί τινές εἰσι καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἵπποι καθὰ δὴ καὶ ἐν θεοῖςmust be translated

correctly The gods angels demons and heroes have a soul which must be described as adriver with two horses like the souls of human beings On the horses and drivers of thegods see Proclus Theol Plat IV 15 p 4614ndash22

11 According to this order of succession Antiphon (grandfather) Pyrilampus (father) thesecond husband of Platorsquos mother Antiphon (junior) Platorsquos half-brother traditionallynamed after his grandfather

12 Proclus In Parm I p 67413ndash24 Steel = 67318ndash33 Luna-Segonds (trans Morrow-Dillon)

214 brisson

the gods13 and those who take care of souls in the world of becoming14 Thehighest demons form the advance guard of the gods escort them as body-guards15 and follow them

The Divine SoulsFirst of all one finds the divine souls that is the godswho are in theworld Thedivine souls in the world are all attached to the hypercosmic or unparticipatedsoulwhich is outside theworld (ElemTheol prop 164) andwhich correspondsto the hypostasis Soul in Plotinus that is to the soul as such before any partic-ularization associated with a vehicleThe divine souls that are in theworld possess a divine intellect and the body

to which they are attached cannot be destroyed There are two kinds of divinesouls those that are above the moon and those that are below it In the firstgroup we find the soul of the world (In Tim II p 2903ndash23 Diehl) on the onehand as a totality and on the other as parts that is the circle of the Samewhichcarries the fixed stars and the circles of theOther which carry the planets con-sidered as themasters of theworld In the second group we find the traditionalgods who circulate beneath the moon and must also be taken into account16

The Intellective SoulsThe intellective souls are not divine but follow the gods eternally (Elem Theol175 184 185) Their hierarchy includes three classes angels which correspondto being demons which correspond to power and heroes which correspondto activity (In Tim I p 25613ndash30 Diehl) Moreover they are dependent onthe higher gods Angels are linked to the Intelligible gods demons to theIntelligible-Intellective gods heroes to the intellective gods In addition thesethree groups are linked to the gods associated with the hypostasis Soul thehypercosmic gods the hypercosmic-encosmic gods and the encosmic gods (InTim III p 1653ndash16630 Diehl) Thus there is a continuum from the Intelligibledown to human soulsIn Proclus there are numerous references to these classes of souls viz the

angels demons and heroes who form the procession17 that follows each of the

13 Proclus In Alc p 613ndash11 and 15815ndash17 Segonds In Tim III p 10918ndash22 Diehl14 See below the section on the demons15 Note the image in which some demons are ldquolance-bearersrdquo (δορυφοροῦσιν) see Proclus In

Tim III p 26216ndash17 Diehl16 Proclus In Tim III p 25510ndash26 Diehl see Plato Timaeus 40e17 This procession includes the gods the demons the heroes and the human souls Proclus

In Tim II p 11219ndash25 Diehl ibid III p 10914ndash11022


twelve gods This procession which is hierarchical (In Tim III p 19630ndash1975Diehl) makes its rounds around the Earth (ibid p 14028ndash33 16422 and 1663)All are associatedwith twogodsOkeanos (ibid p 17818ndash29)18 andEros (InAlcp 324 Segonds)19 who provide them with their powers

The AngelsThe angels depend directly on the gods (In Tim III p 22322ndash24 Diehl) forwhom they act as messengers They interpret and transmit the godsrsquo plans tothe inferior entities and in the first instance to the demons whom they com-mand

What indeed are the angels other than those who reveal the intentionsof other beings Andwhat are thosewho on the one hand serve the godsand on the other hand direct the demons if not the angelsWhat ismorethename ldquoangelrdquo is not foreign toGreece anddoesnot come from theBar-barian Theosophy alone but Plato too in the Cratylus (407endash408b) saysthat Hermes and Iris are ldquoangelsrdquo of the gods and he openly declares thattheir name was derived from eiacuterein ldquoto speakrdquo20

The angels are situated between the gods whose messages they bear and thedemons whom they guide They take the name of the gods they follow andthey even borrow the godsrsquo vehiclesmdashthat is they assume their appearanceor lsquobodyrsquomdashas is shown not only in the Greek myths but also in the ChaldaeanOracles (abbreviated CO)

Indeed they (the initiations21 of the Barbarians22) say that the angelswhodepend on the gods rejoice eminently to be invoked by the same namesas the gods that they put on the ldquovehiclesrdquo of the leaders of their series

18 In Greek traditional mythology Okeanos is represented as a river of water encircling theearth on a horizontal plane

19 With the endnotes by Alain Segonds On Eros see Hoffmann (2011)20 Proclus In Remp II p 25518ndash24 Kroll21 The initiation (τελετή) was a religious ceremonymodelled after the Eleusinian Mysteries

This ceremony enabled a person to pass from a profane state to a life devoted to one ormore divinities Initiation was individual It consisted of two degrees the preliminaries atthe ldquoLesser mysteriesrdquo and initiation properly so called on the occasion of the ldquoGreatermysteriesrdquo The initiate described as a μύστης was guided by the μυσταγογός The highestdegree was the ἐποπτεία that is the vision of the sacred objects

22 Probably the Chaldaeans SeeW Kroll (1894) p 58

216 brisson

that they show themselves to the theurgists in the place of their leadersIf then when Athena Hera Hephaestus wage war down here below ingenesis and likewise Leto Artemis the river Xanthus (Il XX 67ndash74) werefer them to other classes to secondary classes that are contiguous topartial andmaterial things one ought not to be surprised since there is acommonality of names23

In another context Proclus evokes the angels associated with Ares the god ofwar

For instance whereas the series of the Arean ones by its immaculate anddivinizing powers on the one hand extirpates matter and on the otherhand raises up souls through the intermediary of the angels who removematerial life and of their leaderwho gives the signal for the cutting as theoracle has said (CO 179)mdashfor there is a certain ldquoleader of cuttingrdquo amongthe angels who separatematter from the souls (εἶναι γάρ τινα τμήσεως ἀγὸντῶν ἐκτεμνόντων τὴν ὕλην ἀπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν ἀγγέλων)mdashArean demons per-versely imitate their series hellip24

The last lines of this passage evoke the punishing demons who disguisingthemselves as Ares the god of war promote violent death andmurder whereasunder the guidanceof the angelswhoare their leaders their function is to stripthrough initiations the souls of the stains (κηλῖδας) attached to life inmatter25in order to make them rise back up to the place whence they have come Theangels allow the human soul to separate itself from matter washing away thestains that depend on generation (In Tim I p 15530ndash31 and 22130ndash31 Diehlsee also In Crat p 7117ndash18 Pasquali) and matter (In Tim I p 382ndash3 Diehl)The vocabulary of cutting or removal no doubt refers to the Chaldaean Oracles(fragments 1 4 and 223 des Places) By so doing they promote the human soulrsquosrise back up toward the Father (Phil Chald I 2066ndash13 des Places)

The Messengers of the GodsThe term ἄγγελος here translated by ldquoangelrdquo means ldquomessengerrdquo in ordinarylanguage Sensation is the messenger of the intellect (In Tim I 25118ndash20 see

23 Proclus In Remp I p 9121ndash924 Kroll24 Ibid II p 2965ndash1225 See CO 122 123 des Places and Proclus In Tim III p 30016ndash19 Kroll The telestic life is the

one that is devoted to initiation


Enn V 3 344ndash45) Speech is the messenger of the inner speech that is thought(In Tim I 1941ndash2 34111ndash13 III 10429ndash31) Personages both gods and humanbeings are also described as ldquoangelsrdquo In Greek mythology Hermes and Iriswho are gods are described as ldquoangelsrdquo because they are charged with bear-ing the messages of the gods (In Remp II p 25518ndash24 Kroll) In the myth ofthe Protagoras moreover Zeus sends Hermes to bring restraint and justice tomankind26 what is more the Theologians27 describe the planet Hermes asldquomessenger of the godsrdquo (In Tim II p 26923ndash25 Diehl) Nemesis who is anancient divinity is described as an ldquoangelrdquo for she is the messenger of Dikegrave (InAlc p 1035 Segonds)28 In the Timaeus and the Critias Solon is the messen-ger for the myth of Atlantis (In Tim I p 9214ndash17 Diehl lemma 21d7ndash8) whichhe has heard from Egyptian priests In the Parmenides Pythodorus reports theencounter between Parmenides and Socrates (In Parm I p 66219ndash20 Steel =66225ndash26 Luna-Segonds 68510ndash14 Steel = 68514ndash18 Luna-Segonds 6925ndash11Steel = 69211ndash15 Luna-Segonds) The same naturally holds true of Antiphonwho is Platorsquos half-brother (In Parm I p 67419ndash24 Steel = 67421ndash33 Luna-Segonds) Yet two figures who appear in the final myth of the Republic deserveour attention Er and the prophet of Lachesis

ErThe souls of angels are worthy of seeing the souls of the gods and the periodicjourneys of human souls which are invisible by nature They can therefore beassimilated to the epopts those who having reached the last degree of initia-tion into theMysteries have seen the sacred objects and who acting as priestsdirecting the initiation can communicate them to human beings In the myththat concludes the Republic Errsquos soul is assimilated to an angel who has beeninitiated by the universe itself As such he is superior to the priests who haveonly a partial soul and who therefore is able to reveal the hidden truth of theuniverse

In this particular case then the Universe initiated (ἐτέλει μὲν τὸ πᾶν) thesoul of this Er at the appropriate times such a blessed initiation being dueto this soul in justice therefore initiated into this vision by the Universethis soul was raised to an angelic rank In fact it is to this class that theinitiates down here below belong

26 See Proclus In Alc p 18717ndash1883 Segonds and Theol Plat V 24 p 882127 It is impossible to know who they are28 See Plato Laws V 728c2

218 brisson

Whoever is truly hieratic

shines like an angel living in power

as the Oracle says (CO 137 cf 138 des Places)He therefore becomes on the one hand he to whom the invisible

things are shown and on the other the messenger to visible beings29

The context is that of theMysteries The quotation from the ChaldaeanOraclesdescribes in general terms the theurgist who is endowed with the power thatis the domain of angels and of Er in particular Er has seen the structure of theUniverse and the journeyof souls and gives an account of them tomankindHeis therefore an angelmessenger of the gods tomankindmessenger of mankindto the gods30Er is able to describe the celestial revolutions and the spindle in the lap of

Necessity through which all the circular motions continue their revolutions

The spindle itself turned on the lap of Necessity And up above on eachof the rims of the circles stood a Siren who accompanied its revolutionuttering a single sound one single note And the concord of the eightnotes produced a simple harmony And there were three other beings sit-ting at equal distances from one another each on a throne There werethe Fates the daughters of Necessity Lachesis Clotho and Atropos Theywere dressed in white with garlands on their heads and they sang to themusic of the Sirens Lachesis sang of the past Clotho of the present andAtropos of the future With her right hand Clotho touched the outer cir-cumference of the spindle and helped turn but left off doing so from timeto time Atropos did the same to the inner ones and Lachesis helped bothmotions in turn one with the one hand and one with the other31

On the upper part of each circle there was a Siren each of which emitteda unique sound and in a circle sat the three Fates (Moirai) daughters of

29 Proclus In Remp II p 15414ndash20 Kroll On CO 137 see H Seng in this volume30 Ibid II p 974 11020 11722 1201 12112 20 23 12317 12410 12517 1532 [lemma Rep

X 614d1ndash3] 18818 28018 30428 3273 32816 21 3305 3421 34613 3531931 Plato Republic X 616bndash617b Proclus offers an allegorical interpretation on themyth or Er

in the Essay XVI of his commentary on the Republic dedicated to Marinus and at the endof the PlatonicTheology (VI 23) Necessity (Anagke) is an intellectivemonad and the Fates(Moirai) are a hypercosmic-encosmic triad


Necessity In the course of this narration Er describes the three Fates who pre-side overmankindrsquos destiny spinning their fate Lachesis concerns herself withthe past Clotho with the present and Atropos with the future Er sees thesedivinities as if they were earthly women

This too the gods have said to the theurgists (πρὸς τοὺς θεουργούς)Although we are incorporeal (ἀσωμάτων γὰρ ὄντων)

Bodies have been attached to our self-revealed apparitions because ofyou (= the theurgists) (CO 142 see also 101)

Indeed it is because bodies participate in them that the incorporealsshow themselves in a bodily form making themselves seen spatially (δια-στατῶς) in the ether (ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι) If then this is the way in which thedivine beings are seen face to face (αὐτοπτεῖται) by the theurgists (θεουρ-γοῖς) no one should be surprised that themessenger of these visions (τῶνθεαμάτων τούτων ἄγγελος=Er) aswas natural for a partial soul (ψυχὴν μερι-κὴν)making use of representation (φαντασίᾳ χρωμένην) and havingwithinit the faculty of perceiving bodies (ἔτι σώματος ἔννοιαν ἔχουσαν) graspedthe incorporeals in this way and had seen corporeally in the aspect of anethereal body the forms of existence of the incorporeals that is insteadof the divine immaterial life white tunics that is the Fates dressed inwhite instead of the immutable fixed stability of the divine the Fatesseated instead of the distinctive property of the Fates with regard to theother gods particularized contours situated in a place For visible fea-tures are the symbol of invisible powers the symbol of formless entitiesAll this then as I have said is familiar thanks to the hieratic operationsto whomever is not entirely ignorant of these things32

This passage allows us to understand the context in which the Chaldaean ritestook place The person in possession of the hieratic art that is the priest whoknows the operations that concern the sacred beingsmdashor the theurgist that isthe priest who knows how to act on the godsmdash is able to see the gods who areincorporeal beings as if theywere corporeal beings It is because of their partic-ipation in bodies that the gods who are incorporeal appear with dimensionsin the ether Since the theurgists are men endowedwith a partial soul which isconnected to an earthly body they can only grasp the gods who are manifest

32 Proclus In Remp II p 2428ndash27 Kroll On CO 142 see H Seng in this volume

220 brisson

spatially in the ether by the faculty of representation whose starting-point issensation This is how Er sees the FatesAll the details of this are rendered more explicitly in the Platonic Theology

(VI 23 1085ndash10917) particularly the fact that the Fates are dressed in whitetunicsThis is because the visible is a symbol of the invisibleThisGreek term ofwhich the English word ldquosymbolrdquo is merely a transliteration and which is com-posed etymologically from a nominal derivative of the verb βάλλω ldquoto throwplace energeticallyrdquo and the prefix σύν ldquotogetherrdquo designates in its primarymeaning an object cut into two pieces the reunification of which constitutesa sign of recognition In a secondary sense any object or message capable ofa double level of interpretation can be described as a ldquosymbolrdquo whereas thedeepest level is reserved for a small number of initiates the superficial levelremains accessible to anyoneFrom vision we move on to the sense of hearing Er hears the Fates as he

hears the Sirens

Let no one think it impossible when the Fates (Moirai) sing intellectivelythat their thoughts make a sensible impression on Er and his compan-ions that noiseless motion ends up as noise that the life that does notstrike the ear should be represented by a striking in the ear and movefrom intellectual consciousness to apprehension by hearing For as theknowable object is so is knowledge if the former is intelligible the lat-ter is intellection if the former is audible the latter is hearing and whenthe intelligible has become something audible that is a reflection of itintellection has also become hearing and Er heard what he previouslyintelligised All this however as I have said is illuminated from our hier-atic art It must merely be added that the angels hear the gods in one waythe demons in another and human souls in yet another way Some hearthe intellective gods intellectively the others in the mode of reason theothers in a sensible mode each species receiving the knowledge of thegods and the operation that proceeds from the gods to it according to themeasures of its own receptivity33

All this refers to the Chaldaean Oracles Er was initiated by the Universe itselfAs an ldquoepoptrdquo he has seen the invisible realities and as an initiate he is able tomanifest what he has seen to those who are in the midst of visible reality

33 In Remp II p 2437ndash22


The ProphetThe prophet of Lachesis is an angelic demon whose proclamation he sets forthas her spokesman

When moreover the prophet said that the proclamation he is to revealto the souls is that of Lachesis he very clearly attributed to himself anangelic rank with regard to Lachesis For since he is reporting the wordsof someone else he is above all I suppose the ldquoangelrdquo of that beingwhosewords he makes known Thus he has indicated in a word what kind heis that is a member of the class of the angels of Destiny the distributorof lots revealer of types of existence overseer of the demons towhomwehave been assigned34

This prophet is an angel associated with Lachesis who is responsible for thedistribution of the lots containing the demons that each soul will choose35Our demon is an angel and a prophet and can therefore escape Fatality

It is said then that the demon is something that belongs properly toeach individual and that Fortune is the pilot that governs the life of eachperson That the demon on the one hand is one of those whom the The-ologians call ldquoangelic demonsrdquo (ἀγγελικῶν δαιμόνων) I have said above36This is why the prophet (προφήτης) made him preside over the souls thatprophet whomwe have shown37 is an angel (ἄγγελον)With regard to thisFortune (τὴν δὲ τύχην ταύτην) it is not correct to say that it is a goddesssince it corresponds to the demon but one must at any rate say that it isdemonic and that it is distinct from the demon insofar as one supervisesinner motions the other those that move toward the outside38

In the Timaeus (90a) the demon who is assigned to us and who correspondsto a choice of life is identified with the intellect Proclus describes him as anldquoangelic demonrdquo for he presides over the movements of the soul while for-tune which Proclus refuses to describe as a goddess for she is at the level ofa demon presides over the movements of the body The personal demon canbe described as a prophet for he is the spokesman of the gods Some angels

34 Ibid II p 2704ndash13 cf p 2887ndash9 (= Rep X 619b)35 In reference to Timaeus 90a36 Proclus In Remp II p 25530 and 27123 Kroll37 Ibid II p 2704ndash1338 Ibid II p 29812ndash21

222 brisson

dissolve material bodies whereas others preside over the descent of souls intobodies (In Remp II p 5226ndash28 Kroll) Insofar as the angel enables the sepa-ration of the soul from its immaterial substrate it allows that soul to escapefortune or fatality which is already associated with the world of bodies in theTimaeus The angel reveals the hidden goodness of the gods and it washes thesouls of their stains (In Crat 128 p 7514ndash19 Pasquali) His role is thus that of apriest

The PriestsWe can therefore understand why the priests are assimilated to angels (InCrat 121 p 7117ndash21 Pasquali) The priest is the intermediary between god andmankind he is their messenger and therefore their angel The priest is an ini-tiator who has heard and seen the gods As an initiator that is as a master ofinitiation he can invoke what he has seen and heard Indeed there are evenrites that allow the gods to be evoked

Well then not only havewe said above (20425)whatmust be understoodby Anankecirc but we have testifying in our favor the hieratic art which hastransmitted to us an invocation to see that most powerful goddess face-to-face (αὐτοπτικὴν κλῆσιν)39 and taught us how shemust be approachedwhen she is seen (πῶς ὀφθείσῃ προσιέναι) In fact it is in a more extraor-dinary way than when one approaches the other gods if it is true thatPetosiris40 who indicates it in his work is a sure respondent for anyonehe who has had contact with all kinds of classes of gods and angels41

The theurgists who aremasters of the hieratic art that is the knowledge of therites that enable one to enter into relations with the gods know an invocationthat allows one to see the divinity face to face and enter into relation with itThis is why they are considered as angels who enable the soul to rise back uptoward its source

39 In the term αὐτοψία used only three times in Proclus (In Remp II p 1244 Kroll In Alcp 927 and 18813ndash15 Segonds see also the end note) an allusion to a theurgical ritual canbe detected the invocations (κλήσεις) enable apparitions (αὐτοψίαι) See also Proclus InTim III p 413ndash4 Diehl

40 Petosiris called Acircnkhefenkhonsou is ldquoone of the five greatrdquo (djw wr) priests of Thothat Hermopolis He rose through the various degrees of the priesthood in the service ofSekhmet Khnoum Amon Recirc and Hathor Proclus associates himwith Hathor in In RempII p 593 Kroll A work was attributed to him (see Festugiegravere 2014)

41 Proclus In Remp II p 34426ndash3454 Kroll


And that there occurs in us through the action of the higher beings aknowledge of realities the apparitions of the gods and their instructionsshow it sufficiently Some reveal to souls the order of all things othersshow the way to the journey toward the intelligible and light the elevat-ing fires (CO 190)42

The πράγματα are the higher realities that is the intelligible The apparitionsare associated with instructions (In Tim III p 24728 Diehl) that were appar-ently given in a written work (Ὑφηγητικοί ibid III p 12433) and fulfilled thetwo objectives mentioned above to provide an understanding of the order ofthings and to ensure the soulrsquos rise toward its sourceWe can therefore understand why Julian Senior asks the demiurge for an

archangelic soul for his son

His father when about to engender him asked that being who containsthe universe for an archangelic soul for the being of his son After heengendered him he commended him to all the gods and to the soul ofPlato who lives in the company of Apollo and Hermes By questioningthis soul by a hieratic art he consulted him on whatever question hewished43

In fact the hieratic art is theurgy44 which is attached to the theurgical virtuespracticed by Proclus as we can see from the Life of Proclus (sect26ndash33)

But since as I have said following his studies of these theologies hehad acquired the theurgical virtue even greater and more perfect sincehe had not limited himself to the contemplative virtue and no longerlived according to only one of the two specific properties of the divinebeings by contenting himself with exercising an intellectual activity45and tending toward the higher beings henceforth he began to exercise apre-intellective activity with regard to the lower beings in a more divinemanner not only according to the political manner wementioned aboveIndeed hemade use of the conjurings (ταῖς συστάσεσι) proper to theChal-daeans of their prayers for intercession (ταῖς ἐντυχίαις) and of their divineand ineffable magic wheels (τοῖς θείοις καὶ ἀφθέγκτοις στροφάλοις) In fact

42 Proclus In Alc p 18813ndash18 Segonds43 Aurea Catena 217 (Sathas 546)44 Proclus On the Hieratic Art p 15024ndash1515 Bidez45 That is a providential activity (πρόνοια)

224 brisson

he had received all this from Asclepigeneia daughter of Plutarch whohad also taught him the vocal utterances (τὰς ἐκφωνήσεις) as well as allthe other practices (τὴν ἄλλην χρῆσιν)46

Proclus is the paradigmatic angel He is not content to contemplate the intel-ligible with his intellect and to teach but he intervenes in the realm of thesensible by means of the hieratic art of the theurgists which was transmittedto him by Aclepigeneia the daughter of Plutarch of Athens and which camefrom Nestorius He is thus the mediator par excellence In the continuation ofthis chapter Marinus enumerates a series of miracles that result from Proclusrsquotheurgical activityFinally it should be noted that the angels have command over several de-

mons

Linked with the divine lots are those of angels and demons with a morevaried distribution since a single divine lot is inclusive of several angeliclots and of even more demonic onesmdashas each angel also governs moredemons and every angelic lot has more demonic lots relating to it Forwhat the unity is among gods this a number is among angels and whateach number is among the latter this among demons is a tribe corre-sponding to each47

In short themore one descends along the scale of souls themore their numberincreases

Archangels and ArchonsAt both extremities of the class of the angels Porphyry and Iamblichus wantedto add the archangels and the archons perhaps under the influence of theChaldean Oracles To Porphyryrsquos question ldquoFor you ask lsquowhat is the sign of thepresence of a god an angel an archangel a demon or of some archon or asoulrsquordquo48 Iamblichus specifies the mode of apparition of each of these beingsre-establishing the hierarchy of archangel and angel

46 Marinus Life of Proclus sect28 1ndash1347 Proclus In Tim I p 1377ndash15 Diehl trans Tarrant modified48 Iamblichus De mysteriis II 3 p 708ndash11 Parthey = p 5220ndash532 SaffreymdashSegonds (= Por-

phyry Letter to Anebo 70 SaffreymdashSegonds) On the archons for the Gnostics see thecontribution of M Scopello in this volume On Iamblichis see S OrsquoNeillrsquos contributionin this volume


The archangels are a higher species of angel they are close to the divine prin-ciplesThis iswhy Julian Senior asks the demiurge for an archangelic soul for hisson (see infra p 223)The archons also called ldquomasters of theworldrdquo (κοσμοκρά-τορες)49 are added for the first time here by Porphyry According to Iamblichusthey are of two kinds those who govern the sublunary elements (De mystp 5314ndash16 SaffreymdashSegonds) and thosewho preside overmatter (ibid p 617)In the first book of the Timaeus Proclus shows that he knows these distinc-tions for he evokes the analogies made by Porphyry and Iamblichus with thefunctional groups that are taken into consideration in the myth of AtlantisHowever he does not take into account either the archangels ldquowhich are turnedtowards the godswhosemessengers they arerdquo (InTim I p 15214Diehl) perhapsbecause as Iamblichus himself admits he considers that they ldquowere never con-sidered worthy of mention by Platordquo (ibid I p 15230) the samemust hold truefor the archons Moreover the archons as ldquomasters of the worldrdquo (κοσμοκράτο-ρες) are in Proclus the equivalent of the highest class of the divine souls50

The DemonsThe demonsmaintain the order of the world and ensure the connection of thewhole with itself (In Crat 128 p 7519ndash25 Pasquali) And since there are six lev-els of the whole the divinity the intellect the rational soul the irrational soulform andmatter therewill be six classes of demons51 Because they participateto the highest degree in the Intellect and hence in the divine (Elem Theol 112)the most venerable demons are described as ldquodivinerdquo because of their similar-ity to the gods who precede them and particularly to the One (In Alc p 714ndash11Segonds)52 Those who belong to the second class and participate in the Intel-lect preside over the rise and descent of souls and transmit to the lower beingsall that comes from the gods (ibid p 7111ndash15 cf Republic X 614andash621d) Thethird class distributes among lower beings the productions of the divine souls(InAlc p 7115ndash721) The fourth class ensures the transmission of the powers ofthe intelligible to the beings subject to generation and corruption by breathing

49 The κοσμοκράτορες play an important role in the Chaldaean oracles see Seng (2009)50 They are associated with the seven planets (In Remp II p 175ndash7 22025ndash2211 Kroll)

associated with time ἀποκαταστάσις an ideal revolution which according to the ancientphilosophers brings the stars back to a specific point taken to be the initial point Theseare the seven planets (In Tim I p 1012 Diehl)

51 Olympiodorus In Alc p 1710ndash1910 Westerink On the demons in Syrianus and Proclussee Timotin (2012) 141ndash161 228ndash237 and 311ndash317

52 See supra p 226

226 brisson

ldquolife order and reasonrdquo into them (ibid p 721ndash4)53The fifth class described asldquocorporiformrdquo makes eternal bodies compatible with perishable bodies (ibidp 725ndash10)54 Finally the sixth class presides over the transfer of power fromcelestial matter toward thematter down here below (ibid p 7210ndash14)55 Theselast two classesmay comprise the irrational demons (InTim III p 15727ndash15813Kroll) fashioned by the demiurgersquos assistants which Proclus borrows from thetheurgists (CO 88 149 215 223)

The HeroesIn the Commentary on the Cratylus we find the following summary

Now of the classes of being inferior to the godswhich always follow thembut at the same time assist in themaking of all things in the cosmos fromthe highest all the way down to the lowest some are revelatory of unityothers are conveyors of power and still others call forth knowledge of thegods and of intellectual essence Those who are expert in theology callsome of these angelic because they are established according to the veryessence of the gods and make the uniform aspect of their nature con-cordant with subsequent entities On that account the angelic class isboniform in that it reveals the occult goodness of the godsThey call others demonic because they bind together (συνδέοντα) the

median aspect of the universe divide the divine power and lead it forthall theway to the lowest level of things For to divide is to ldquosunderrdquo (δαῖσαι)This genus is polyvalent andmanifold with the result that it embraces asits lowest class even the material demons that lead souls down [into therealm of generation] and proceeds to the most particular and materiallyconnected form of activityThey call others heroic (ἡρωικά) because they raise (αἴροντα) human

souls on high and elevate them through love (διrsquo ἔρωτος) They are alsoguides of intellectual life both magnificent and magnanimous and ingeneral they are allotted the order of reversion of providential care and

53 There are therefore demiurgic powers among the recent gods by which they give formto what is created vivifying powers by which they produce life of the second rank per-fective powers by means of which they complete what is missing in genesis and manyother powers whose description transcends our feeble concepts (In Tim III p 31221ndash25Diehl)

54 Olympiodorus calls this class of demons εἴδητικοίou εἴδικοί but it corresponds to theσωμα-τικοί in Damascius (In Phaed I sect4785 or II sect955Westerink)

55 SeeOlympiodorus InAlc 198ndash10Westerink On these demons seeH Seng in this volume


kinship with the divine Intellect to which they cause secondary entitiesto revert Thus the heroic have been allotted this name because they areable to ldquoraiserdquo (αἴρειν) and extend souls toward the gods56

The function of the heroes is to convert and to raise up human souls

hellip and amagnificent armyof heroes previously repressing all the disorderarising from matter keeping together the divine vehicles and the partialones (= those of human souls) which revolve about these and purifyingthe latter and assimilating them to the former hellip57

Because they stay at the lowest level of the intellective souls heroes play animportant role in connection with human souls

The Human SoulsThe human souls follow the gods only intermittently

For the form of life originating from on high pervades so far to the lastattendants (τελευταίων ὁπαδῶν) and establishes a similitudewith the lead-ing god (εἰς ὁμοιότητα πρὸς τὸν ἡγούμενονον θέον) For about every god thereare more partial gods (θέοι μερικώτεροι) angelic orders unfolding divinelight demons proceeding together with or being the guards or atten-dants of the god and a magnificent army of heroes previously repress-ing all the disorder arising from matter connecting the divine vehiclesand purifying the partial vehicles which revolve about these assimilatingthe latter to the former and a choir of undefiled souls resplendent withpurity and a multitude of other souls at one time elevating the head ofthe charioteer to the intelligible and at another co-arranging themselveswith themundane powers of the gods And of these some are distributedabout one but others about another power of their leading god On thisaccount also in solar souls some are suspended from the Paeonian oth-ers from the demiurgic and others from the elevating power of the god58In other gods likewise all the souls which are the attendants of the samedivinity have not the sameorder but some are distributed about differentpowers of the god and others participate more nearly or more remotely

56 Proclus In Crat 128 p 759ndash764 Pasquali (trans Duvick modified)57 Proclus In Tim III p 26217ndash21 Diehl (trans Runia and Share)58 A reference to the third triad of the encosmic souls the triad of Apollo (see supra p 211)

228 brisson

of the same power For in the gods themselves unification precedes mul-titude and sameness which is unique precedes the difference resultingfrom separate powers59

In other words the souls all of which are associated with one or another ofthe celestial bodies in which they are first implanted (see Timaeus 41d8ndashe2)manifest the powers attached to these celestial bodies but to different degreesThey alsomanifest other powers which accrue to them from various divinities

Similarity and ConversionAll these classes are linked to one another through similarity which plays anessential role in procession and conversion At all levels the higher membersof a lower class are similar to the lower limits of the higher class This is whatmakes sympathy possible that is the communion or participation of all beingsamong themselves The chain of beings descends from the top to the bottomof the universe until the last ones which for their part can rise back up (seeTheol Plat VI 3 1322ndash1417) Proposition 140 of the Elements of Theology givesa good explanation of this phenomenon

All the powers of the gods taking their origin above and proceedingthrough the appropriate intermediaries descend even to the last exis-tents and the terrestrial regions [hellip] And hence it is that even in theseappear reflections of the first principles and there is sympathy betweenall things the derivative pre-existing in the primal the primal reflected inthe derivativemdashfor we saw that all characters have three modes of exis-tence in their causes substantially and by participation60

In short from top to bottom the same powers are exerted with decreasingintensity We also find this idea in the Commentary on the Timaeus (In TimIII p 26212ndash2635 Diehl cited supra p XX) considered this time from theviewpoint of souls in the world The gods who lead this procession transmita way of life to those who are part of their retinue They are accompanied firstby particular gods who are lower gods because they are farther from unityand hence difficult to define The angels for their part are considered as mir-rors of the gods The demons form the advance guard of the procession theyare the bodyguards or servants of the gods In conformity with their popular

59 Proclus In Tim III p 26212ndash2635 (trans Runia and Share)60 Proclus Elem Theol prop 140 (trans Dodds) cf prop 65


representation as civilizers the heroes presented as an army master the dis-order that comes frommatter maintaining the coherence of the procession ofdivine andhumanvehiclesTheyhave apurifying function Last come the soulsof which two groups are distinguished those who devote themselves to thecontemplation of the intelligible and those whose contemplation is intermit-tent with their intellectmdashthat is the charioteer of the Phaedrusmdashraising hishead toward the intelligible or casting his gaze toward the world Even withintheworld the power proper to each godmanifests itself in each soul andhencein every living being every plant and even every stoneAll things are connectedto each other by a link of assimilation and of sympathy This explains the effi-cacy of the theurgical rites

According to this interpretation of the centralmyth in the Phaedrus angels arefor Proclus following Syrianus the messengers of the gods Such is the role ofdivine personages as Hermes and Iris as well as mythical characters such asEr and the prophet of Lachesis in the eschatological myth that concludes theRepublic How in our world can one ensure genuine communication betweengods and human beings By invoking through the skill of priests the troops ofangels and demons who allow human beings to see the gods and to hear themwho fix their destiny and who transmit their prayers said during rituals Thisexplains why angels play such an important role in the theurgical rituals

Bibliography

Primary SourcesThe Chaldean Oracles Text Translation and Commentary by R Majercik (Studies inGreek and Roman Religion 5) Leiden 1989

Hermias Alexandrinus In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia edited by CM Lucarini andC Moreschini Berlin 2012


Jamblique Reacuteponse agrave Porphyre (De mysteriis) texte eacutetabli traduit et annoteacute par HDSaffrey et A-Ph Segonds avec la collaboration drsquoA Lecerf Paris 2013

Proclus The Elements of Theology A Revised Text with Translation Introduction andCommentary by ER Dodds Oxford 1933 (21963)

Proclus Theacuteologie platonicienne Texte eacutetabli et traduit par HD Saffrey and LG West-erink 6 vols Paris 1968ndash1997

Proclus In Platonis Timaeum commentaria edidit E Diehl Leipzig 1903ndash1906 [ReprintAmsterdam 1965]

230 brisson

Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Timaeus Translation byH Tarrant andD Baltzy 6 volsvol 2 by DT Runia and M Share Cambridge 2007ndash2017

Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides Translation by GR Morrow and J DillonPrinceton 1987



Secondary LiteratureBrisson Luc (2009) ldquoSyrianus et lrsquoOrphismerdquo in Angela Longo (with L Corti N drsquoAacuten-dregraves D del Forno E Maffi and A Schmidhauser) (ed) Syrianus et laMeacutetaphysiquede lrsquoAntiquiteacute tardive Actes du Colloque international Universiteacute de Genegraveve (29septembrendash1er octobre 2006) Napoli 463ndash497

Chlup Radek (2012) Proclus An Introduction CambridgemdashNew YorkmdashMelbournedrsquoHoine Pieter (2017) ldquoPlatonic forms and the triad of Being Life and Intellectrdquo inPieter drsquoHoine and Marije Martijn (eds) All from One A guide to Proclus Oxford98ndash121

Festugiegravere Andreacute-Jean (2014) La Reacuteveacutelation drsquoHermegraves Trismeacutegiste nouvelle eacuteditionrevue et augmenteacutee avec la collaboration de Concetta Luna Henri Dominique Saf-frey et N Roudet Paris [1st ed 4 vols Paris 1944ndash1954]

Finamore John H Kutash Emilie ldquoProclus on the psycheWorld soul and the individ-ual soulrdquo in Pieter drsquoHoine andMarijeMartijn (eds) All fromOne Aguide to ProclusOxford 121ndash138

Hoffmann Philippe (2011) ldquoErocircs Aleacutetheia Pistis hellip et Elpis Teacutetrade chaldaiumlque triadeneacuteoplatonicienne (OC 46des Places p 26Kroll)rdquo inHelmut Seng andMichelTardieu(eds) Die Chaldeischen Orakel Heidelberg 255ndash324

Saffrey Henry Dominique andWesterink LG (1978) ldquoLa doctrine des heacutenades divineschez Proclus origine et significationrdquo in Proclus Theacuteologie platonicienne ed andtrans HD Saffrey and LGWesterink vol III Paris IXndashLXXVII

Seng Helmut (2009) ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ ΑΖΩΝΟΙ ΖΩΝΑΙΟΙ Drei Begriffe chaldaeischer Kos-mologie und ihr Fortleben Heidelberg (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 1)

Timotin Andrei (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōnde Platon aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens Leiden-Boston (Philosophia antiqua 118)

Van den Berg Robbert M (2001) Proclusrsquo Hymns Essays translations commentaryLeiden-Boston

Van Riel Gerd (2017) ldquoThe One the Henads and the principlesrdquo in Pieter drsquoHoine andMarije Martijn (eds) All from One A guide to Proclus Oxford 73ndash97


Ontology Henadology AngelologyThe Neoplatonic Roots of Angelic Hierarchy

Ghislain Casas

Separate Substances

The last and unfinished treatise on angels written by Thomas Aquinas beginswith a survey of Platorsquos opinions about intermediary beings or separate sub-stances as medieval thinkers would put it in which following the Platonistshe seems to identify all that stands between the first principle and the sensibleworld with what Christian theologians call angels

In this way therefore between us and the highest God it is clear that theyposited four orders namely that of the secondary gods that of the sepa-rate intellects that of the heavenly souls and that of the good or wickeddemons If all these things were true then all these intermediate orderswould be called by us ldquoangelsrdquo for Sacred Scripture refers to the demonsthemselves as angels The souls themselves of the heavenly bodies on theassumption that these are animated should also be numbered among theangels as Augustine determines in the Enchiridion1

All the distinctions between different types of separate substancesmdashsecond-ary gods separate intellects heavenly souls demonsmdashThomas might havedrawn from ProclusWe know from his commentary on the Liber de causis thathe was well acquainted with the latterrsquos ideas Although the Neoplatonic ele-ments are combined in Thomasrsquo thought with peripatetic elements one caneasily recognize in this fourfold presentation the Proclian division of the divinebeings henads intelligences souls demons2 Whereas they constitute for theNeoplatonic philosopher different levels of reality they all come downmdashldquoif allthese things were truerdquomdashto one in Thomasrsquo reinterpretation angels

1 Thomas Aquinas Tractatus de substantiis separatis ch 1 7 Lescoe2 Compare with the following division ldquoIn evidence of this we should realize that according

to the Platonists a fourfold order is found in things The first is the order of the gods ie ofthe ideal forms which have among themselves an order corresponding to the order of theuniversality of forms as was said before Beneath this order is the order of separate intellectsBeneath that is the order of souls Again beneath that is the order of bodiesrdquo Commentary onthe Book of Causes prop 19 (trans Guagliardo Hess and Taylor p 117)

232 casas

It is not surprising that a Christian theologian would want to identify allof the pagan divine or semi-divine intermediary beings with angels but oneshould nevertheless ask what the precise meaning of this identification is Towhat extent can one say that an angel is the same thing as what Plato callsan Idea or a Form what Proclus calls a henad and what pagans call δαίμονεςSince those three are not precisely the same thing one might understand thatthe theologian is trying here to reduce the whole Neoplatonic scale of divinebeings to the angelic figure thus neutralizing the various degrees of divin-ity with a bold opposition between the divine and the angels The rest of thetreatise will indeed refute the Platonic opinion in detail Then what theologycalls lsquoangelsrsquo corresponds to what ancient philosophers mistook for all kinds ofdivine beings secondary gods heavenly souls etc By giving one name to differ-ent types of beings the theologian brings a whole variety under one categoryThere is yet another way of looking at the problem Let us suppose that the

theologian does not knowwhat an angel is exactly and that he poses the ques-tion to the ancient philosophers The philosopher eg Plato or Proclus mightanswer if what you call an lsquoangelrsquo is an intermediary being between the divineand human kind it could be a great range of different things depending onwhat function it has been assigned on what nature it is endowed with and onwhat level of being it is situated It could be either a secondary god generatingthe different kinds of beings under the first principle of all or a heavenly soulanimating andmoving the heavenly bodies or yet a demon assisting the divineprovidence at its furthest and lowest level Then the theologian would have torefine his idea of what an angel is and to determine among the wide range ofpossibilities offered by the philosopher which ones are compatible with Chris-tian doctrine and which ones are not He would thus build his own angelologyon the ground of philosophical ideas to the extent that they conform to theo-logical requisitesThis fictitious dialogue may well represent the historical situation in which

Christian angelology was constituted Since on the one hand the biblical textdid not provide that much information about angels and since on the otherhand Platonic philosophy had filled the space separating the divine and menwith a great variety of intermediary beings theologians if they wanted to pro-vide their doctrine on angels with a thorough conceptual frame could hardlyescape a confrontationwith Platonism It is not by chance that two of themostelaborate angelologies that of Philo of Alexandria and that of ps-Dionysius theAreopagite are deeply rooted respectively inMiddle Platonismand inNeopla-tonism3

3 See Dillon (1983) Sheldon-Williams (1972)

ontology henadology angelology 233

Whereas the 13th century theologian thinks he is reinterpreting and correct-ing ancient philosophy in terms of angelology modern scholars know quitewell that Christian angelology owes its philosophical core to pagan doctrinesIt has long been pointed out that the very structure of the angelic hierarchywhich influenced almost every field of medieval culture from theology to pol-itics and art was set by ps-Dionysius on the model of Proclian metaphysicsand theology4 Although on a certain level ps-Dionysius and Thomas Aquinasseem to be doing the same thing ie identifying angels and platonic interme-diary beings the twomoves do not have the samemeaning Thomas is reinter-preting and criticizing Platonic philosophy from the standpoint of angelologywhereas ps-Dionysius is using Neoplatonism to formulate his own angelol-ogy It appears then in broad outline that Thomas criticizes Proclus from thestandpoint of a Dionysian angelology that was originally inspired by ProclianphilosophyThe scope of this paper is to examine from the standpoint of this problem

to what extent Dionysian angelology is rooted in Neoplatonism To rephraseThomas Aquinas what kind of Platonic intermediary beings are angels theChristian version of Secondary gods intelligences heavenly souls or demonsThe intermediary world depicted in late Platonism cannot be identified com-pletely with the angelic hierarchy because intermediary beings differ from oneanother more than one angel could differ from another angel An intelligibleform and a demon are not of the same kind This difficulty first appears in Philoof Alexandria who seems to identify angels with many different elements ofthe Platonic intermediary realm despite the theoretical difficulties raised bythis move One cannot understand Dionysian angelology and its complex rela-tion to Neoplatonism if one ignores the inner-tensions of Philonian angelologythat arise out of his reinterpretation of Platonism Whereas in Philo angelsindistinctly appear at the ontological level of forms at the theological level ofprovidence and at the cosmological level of demons they are for ps-Dionysiusmembers of a hierarchy which is neither an ontological structure nor a cos-mic order but a practical organization of powers and activities The questionof power is not absent from Philorsquos angelologymdashquite the contrarymdashbut itremains combined with other questions and scarcely appears in its properlight Only in the Dionysian theory of hierarchy does one find a proper defi-nition of the angelic powerWewould like to show how the difference betweenPhilo and ps-Dionysius may be linked to the evolution of late Platonism andmore precisely how Neoplatonic henadology might have laid the ground forthe idea of hierarchy

4 See Roques (1954)

234 casas

Words

For Philo as for almost every theologian angels are nothing else but messen-gers This is of course what the very word lsquoangelrsquo in Hebrew (malʾakh) as inGreek (ἄγγελος) means At a very literal level Philo uses the word ἄγγελος toname any kind of messenger from the organs which are messengers provid-ing information from the senses about colours forms and sounds5 to Josephwho plays the role of a messenger who interprets Pharaorsquos dreams6 Such a useof the word ἄγγελος would be irrelevant for our purpose if Philo did not inter-pret the function of angels from the same perspective7 Angels are not onlydivine messengers through which God addresses Abraham or Jacob8 but theyare identified with the very word (λόγος) of God itself9 If messengers bear anangelic function it is because angels are nothing but wordsThere is a close but ambiguous link between angelology and Philorsquos theory

of the Logos Between the transcendent God and the sensible world standsan intermediary hypostasis which Philo calls Logos It is the agent of creationShould a man desire to use words in a more simple and direct way he wouldsay that the world discerned only by the intellect is nothing else than theWordof God when He was already engaged in the act of creation10Three realities are posited as equivalent the intelligible world (νοητός κόσ-

μος) the divineWord (θεοῦ λόγος) and the act of creation (κόσμοποιοῦντος) Theidea of an intelligible world comes from Platomdashalthough the expression doesnot appear in the Platonic textsmdashand refers to the totality of ideas that theDemiurge uses as intelligible paradigms for the creation of the sensible worldin the Timaeus11 Platonic ideas thus become divine ideas that is the thoughtsof God about the world he creates The Philonian identification of the intelli-gible world with the divine Word certainly comes from the biblical leitmotivfound in Genesis ldquoAnd God said (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός)rdquo The act of creation is liter-ally a speech act Indeed ideas or words should not be taken as static elementsbut rather as active powers in order to understand how forms are imparted tomatter In his reinterpretation of the Aristotelian theory of fourfold causality

5 See Philo De Somniis I 276 See Philo De Iosepho 947 On the link between angels and communication see Decharneux (1994) 25ndash288 See Philo De Somniis I 195ndash1969 See Philo De Somniis I 240 De Confusione Linguarum 205 De Cherubim 35 Quis Rerum

DivinarumHeres 14510 Philo De Opicio Mundi 24 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo I 21)11 SeeWolfson (1962) 226ndash228


Philo considers the divine Word as the instrument (ἐργαλεῖον ὂργανον) or thatthrough which (τὸ διrsquo οὗ) the creation of the world is accomplished12 On a fur-ther level still Philo even distinguishes between the intelligible λόγος and theimmanent λόγος13mdasha notion of stoic originmdashthat bonds the universe togetherldquolike a Vocal between voiceless elements of speech that the universe may sendforth a harmony like that of a masterpiece of literaturerdquo14 The λόγος then isalso the instrument of divine providenceThe Logos may then be understood as that which enables both divine tran-

scendence and divine creation and government of the world15 This is preciselywhat the linguistic dimension of the λόγος as word manifests

There is a point too in the reason-seat being doubled for the rationalprinciple is twofold as well in the universe as in human nature In the uni-verse we find it in one form dealing with the incorporeal and archetypalideas from which the intelligible world was framed and in another withthe visible objects which are the copies and likenesses of those ideas andout of which this sensible world was produced With man in one form itresides within in the other it passes out from in utterance The former islike a spring and is the source from which the latter the spoken flowsThe inward is located in the dominant mind the outward in the tongueand mouth and the rest of the vocal organism16

The λόγος is twofold (διττός) both from a cosmological and from an anthropo-logical point of viewMore than comparingmacrocosmandmicrocosm Philorsquospoint here is to reinterpret the Platonic distinction between the intelligible(νοητός) and the sensible (αἰσθητός) world in linguistic terms in order to matchthe Stoic distinction between inner (ἐνδιάθετος) and outer (προφορικός) speechThereforewhatwould remain a static ontological and cosmological oppositionappears more like a shift or even an emanative process as if the world wasflowing (ῥέων) like spoken words from a source (πηγή) The world and eventhe ideas to the extent that they differ from divine thinking derive from thedivine mind and are externalized in the form of λόγοι

12 See Philo De Cherubim XXXV 125ndash127 On the instrumentality of the λόγος see Wolfson(1962) 261ndash282

13 On the immanent λόγος see ibid 325ndash33214 Philo De Plantatione 10 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo III 217)15 On this question see Radice (2009)16 Philo De Vita Mosis II 127 (trans Colson in Philo VI 511)

236 casas

The comparison thus shows two things First divine relation to the worldextends from providence to creation under the form of a λόγοςmdashboth idea andwordmdashthat is progressively externalized andmaterialized Second the idea ofa divine λόγος should be taken literally as a theory of language and of the lin-guistic production of the world17 Since angels are said to be divine λόγοι howare we to understand their linguistic nature Moreover what does this tell usabout their place and function in the universeThe link between angel and word exposed by Philo takes the form of a chi-

asm On the one hand the angel is presented as the primal divine word

To His Word His chief messenger [τῷ δὲ ἀρχαγγέλῳ] highest in age andhonour the Father of all has given the special prerogative to stand on theborder and separate the creature from the Creator18

On the other hand conversely it is the Word that is presented as the first andthe oldest of all the angels

But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of god let him press totake his place under Godrsquos First-born theWord who holds the eldershipamong the angels their ruler as it were (ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον)19

At the center of this chiasm lies the figure of the archangel (ἀρχάγγελον) whois the most ancient discourse (πρεσβύτατος λόγος) whereas the Word (λόγος)is the most ancient among the angels (τον αγγέλων πρεσβύτατον) as if it werean archangel (ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον) or as if angel and λόγος coincided primitivelyunder the form of the first-born (πρωτόγονον) the archangel20 This means notonly that the angel is aword andmessenger but also conversely that the divineWord bears in the beginning an angelic form Hence the following metaphys-ical claim the original mode of existence of language is the angelWe might understand this idea following what Philo says about the divine

Word in the process of creation

God spake and it was donemdashno interval between the twomdashor it mightsuggest a truer view to say that His word was deed Now even amongst us

17 On this parallel see Robertson (2008) 10ndash1418 Philo Quis Rerum DivinarumHeres 205 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo IV 385)19 Philo De Confusione Linguarum 145 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo IV 89)20 On the link between Philo and the Johannine theory of the Logos among many see

Decharneux (2011)


mortals there is nothing swifter than word for the outrush of the parts ofspeech leaves behind the hearerrsquos understanding of them21

In the biblical narrative what God said should be was immediately createdThere was not even the smallest time interval (μεταξύ) between the word andthe thing Hence a formula that might recall JL Austin word is act (ὁ λόγοςἒργον ἦν) Speaking comes down to doing or acting Even in the case of humanlanguage Philo argues that the swiftness (ῥύμε) of speech goes faster than itsunderstanding (κατάληψις) as if meaning were only a slow motion effect theonly thing that could be grasped at an almost infinite speed The divine Worddoes not mean anything so much as it merely does something or even as it issomething The divine λόγοι are the ideas of things not in the sense of theirabstract intelligible meaning but rather in the sense of the active powers thatmake themwhat they areThe ideas (ἰδέαι) arepowers apprehendednot in theiressence (κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν) but through images of their activities (ἀπεικόνισματῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐνεργείας)22 Here angelologymight come into play angels are λόγοιconsidered not qua intelligible but qua active they are the very words of thedivine in so far as words are primal powers and activities All the angelic hustleis nothing but the enactment and the dramatization of the divineWord In thatsense angelology is a theory of the performativity of the divine Logos23This rather speculative development leaves us with many questions How

precisely do angels contribute to the creation of the world and to divine prov-idence Do these two activities take place on the same level At what level doangels stand in the intermediary space of the Logos that of Platonic ideas thatof Stoic λόγοι σπερματικοί that of Middle Platonic δαίμονες Onemust look fur-ther into the Philonian definition of the angel

Demons and Heroes

It has long been noticed that Philo identified the biblical angels with whatGreek philosophers called δαίμονες and ἥρωες

It is Mosesrsquo custom to give the name of angels to those whom otherphilosophers call demons (or spirits) souls that is which fly and hover in

21 Philo De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 65 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo II 143)22 See Philo De Specialibus Legibus I 47ndash4923 On angelology and the performativity of the λόγος in amore political scope see E Coccia

ldquoIntroduzionerdquo III 3 in AgambenmdashCoccia (2009) 321ndash322

238 casas

the air And let no one suppose that what is here said is a myth [hellip] So ifyou realize that souls and demons and angels are but different names forthe same one underlying object youwill cast from you thatmost grievousburden the fear of demons or superstition24

From a physiological point of view these beings fall under the category of soul(ψυχή) Some souls such as those of human beings are embodied because theyhave fallen into matter but those who remain in the air (ἐν αέρι) which is theirnatural element and do not attach themselves to any kind of body are whatphilosophers call demons (δαίμονες) and Moses angels (ἄγγελοι) Philo gives aphilosophical and naturalistic interpretation of the biblical figure of the angelit is defined by the notion of soul as an incorporeal being and located in a spe-cific region of the cosmos characterized by the element of air

For the universemust be filled through and through with life and each ofits primary elementary divisions contains the forms of life which are akinand suited to it The earth has the creatures of the land the sea and therivers those that live inwater fire the fire-born which are said to be foundespecially in Macedonia and heaven has the stars For the stars are soulsdivine and without blemish throughout and therefore as each of them ismind in its purest form they move in the line most akin to mindmdashthecircleAnd so the other element the air must needs be filled with living

beings though indeed they are invisible to us since even the air itself isnot visible to our senses Yet the fact that our powers of vision are inca-pable of any perception of the forms of these souls is no reason why weshoulddoubt that there are souls in the air but theymust be apprehendedby the mind that like may be discerned by like25

This is a cosmological deduction of the existence of the angels since all theregions of the world corresponding to the different elements are inhabited bydifferent forms of lifemdashterrestrial animals on the earth fish in the waters starsin the heavens etcmdashthen the air must also contain its own type of beingsalthough onemight not be able to see themwith the naked eyeWhat can onlybe thought of but not properly perceived must be a spiritual being such asa soul Souls and therefore angels or demons are the inhabitants of the air

24 Philo De Gigantibus 6ndash16 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo II 448ndash453)25 Id 449ndash451


There is thus a cosmological necessity for the existence of the angels they fill aspace that would remain empty if they did not exist In that sense Philo holdsto the Platonic and Middle Platonic tradition of demonology which from theEpinomis to Chalcidius integrates the demonic form of life in the larger scaleof beings that inhabit the cosmic continuum26 The use of philosophy or thenatural sciences prevents the exegete frommyth (μῦθος) and superstition (δεσι-δαιμονία)27 Indeed by identifying the biblical ἄγγελοςwith the greek δαίμων heprovides a proper philosophical and cosmological definition of the angelIf angels from a physiological point of view are the same as souls and

demons why are they not called by the same name Is it only a question oftradition and cultural background

These are called lsquodemonsrsquo by the other philosophers but the sacred recordis wont to call them lsquoangelsrsquo or messengers employing an apter title forthey both convey the biddings of the Father toHis children and report thechildrenrsquos need to their Father28

The same arguments runs for the heroes

These are the purest spirits of all whom Greek philosophers call heroesbut whom Moses employing a well-chosen name entitles ldquoangelsrdquo forthey go on embassies bearing tidings from the great Ruler to His subjectsof the boons which He sends them and reporting to the Monarch whatHis subjects are in need of29

It appears that ldquoangelrdquo (ἄγγελος) is the name of a function that of announcing(διαγγέλλειν) In Philorsquos treatise On Dreams Jacobrsquos ladder (Gn 28 12) symbol-izes the air that angels climb up and down like a stairway (κλῖμαξ) connect-ing heaven and earth in order to bring divine orders (ἐπικελεύσεις) down tohumans and human needs (χρείαι) up to the divine Angels are messengersagents of communication intermediaries between the divine and human kindIt is often said that theGreekwordἄγγελοςmeansboth ldquomessengerrdquo and ldquoangelrdquo

26 For the precise cosmological argument see Philo De Gigantibus 7ndash11 De Somniis 134ndash139 De Plantatione 11ndash14 On the link between Philo and the Platonic tradition see Dillon(1983) 197ndash200 Timotin (2012) 100ndash112

27 On the meaning of these remarks in the precise exegetical context see Nikiprowetsky(1996)

28 Philo De Somniis 141 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo V 373)29 Philo De Plantatione 14 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo III 221)

240 casas

but nothing can really account for this double meaning in the Greek languageIn the Septuagint theword ἄγγελος translates theHebrewwordmalʾakh whichmeans exactly the same thingmessenger Froma linguistic point of view in thetwo languages that Philo was concerned with there is no difference betweenan angel and a messenger When Philo says that ἄγγελος is a better (εὐθύβο-λος προσφυέστερος) name than δαίμων or ἣρως which all designate incorporealsouls he only means that the former indicates something about the functionand the activity of the soul that the two others do not Already in Platorsquos Sym-posium (202e) the daimocircn is defined as an intermediary (μεταξύ) interpretingand transmitting (ἑρμηνεύων καὶ διαπορθμεύων) things between men and godsThe difference between angel anddemon then is not even one of function butonly of name One shouldnrsquot even say that the word ἄγγελος acquired a specificmeaning in the biblical and theological context the idea of a divine messen-ger was already that of the Platonic daimocircn The word ἄγγελος is simply morepreciseThe paradox here lies in the fact that Philo although he borrows from the

Greek philosophers their definition of the angelic naturemdashthat of an incorpo-real soul inhabiting in the airmdashand restages its cosmological background heseemsmore interested in the function of the angels The superiority of the bib-lical term consists in naming more precisely the function of messenger whichis only the generic name of a wide range of official activity

They are consecrated and devoted to the service of the Father andCreatorwhose wont it is to employ them as ministers and helpers to have chargeand care of mortal man30

And again in a more political manner

Others there are of perfect purity and excellence gifted with a higher anddiviner temper that have never felt any craving after the things of earthbut are viceroys of the Ruler of the universe ears and eyes so to speak ofthe great king beholding and hearing all things31

Angels are viceroys or lieutenants (ὕπαρχοι) ears (ἀκοαί) and eyes (ὄψεις) min-isters (διάκονοι) servants (ὑπερέται) that is to say all kinds of governors sub-ordinates officials etc Philo uses the topos of the Great Ruler (Βασιλεύς)mdashthe

30 Philo De Gigantibus 12 (trans Colson andWhitaker 450)31 Philo De Somniis 140 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo V 373)


king of Persiamdashto describe the heavenly and angelic court The image of thePersian Kingdom and of its great administrative system is commonly used inGreek philosophy to depict the divine providence The DeMundomakes thor-ough use of it in order to explain how God by the use of his power (δύνα-μις) may exercise his providence in the world without intermingling withthe world32 Whereas the De Mundo places a strong cosmological emphasison the idea of providencemdashwhich is linked to the rotation of the heavenlyspheres in an Aristotelian fashionmdashPhilo seems to embrace more fully andmore literally the political dimension of the image33 The angels are not per-forming a cosmological task so much as they are accomplishing political tasksfor men

There is too in the air a sacred company of unbodied souls commonlycalled angels in the inspired pages who wait upon these heavenly pow-ers So the whole army composed of the several contingents each mar-shalled in their proper ranks have as their business to serve and min-ister to the word of the Captain who thus marshalled them and to fol-low His leadership as right and the law of service demand For it mustnot be that Godrsquos soldiers should ever be guilty of desertion from theranks34

Angels form an army (στρατός στράτευμα) of heavenly powers Evenmore thanthe political the military metaphor places strong emphasis on the notion oforder (τάξις ταξιαρχεῖν) and of structure as if the angels were ordained andstructured by their very duties and functions More than a servant (ὑπερέτηςθεραπευτής) the angel is a soldier (στράτευμα) whichmeans that he is bound bylaw (θεσμός) to the orders of his captain (ἡγεμών) and cannot (οὐ θέμις) escapeor disobey them In the soldier the threshold between nature and functiontends to get blurred35The coincidencebetween the angel andhis duty is soper-fect that itmaybest be called a soldier evenmore than amessenger Angelologyraises the question of power (δύναμις) in a political sense

32 See DeMundo 6 ed and trans Furley33 On that point see Peterson (2011) 72ndash7634 Philo De Confusione Linguarum 174 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo IV 105)35 On the theme of the soldier see E Coccia ldquoIntroduzionerdquo III 3 in AgambenmdashCoccia

(2009) 321ndash322

242 casas

Powers

What exactly are the divine powers If God remains absolutely transcendentand unknowable one might say that his powers (δυνάμεις) are the manifes-tations of the divine in the world As we have seen even the powers remainunknowable in their essence They are manifested in their operationsPhilo distinguishes many types of divine powers which may nevertheless

be subsumed under twomain categories In his treatise onThe Cherubim com-menting upon Gn 3 24 he makes the following distinction

The voice told me that while God is indeed one His highest and chiefestpowers are two even goodness and sovereignty Through His goodnessHe begat all that is through His sovereignty He rules what He has begot-ten And in themidst between the two there is a third which unites themReason for it is through reason that God is both ruler and good Of thesetwo potencies sovereignty and goodness the Cherubim are symbols asthe fiery sword is the symbol of reason36

The two main powers are goodness (ἀγαθότης) and sovereignty (ἐξουσία) Al-though the distinction should not jeopardize the divine unity in which it isrooted it indicates a division between creation (γεγεννηκέναι) and government(ἀρχεῖν) The two powers are not strictly parallel God created through good-ness but rules creation through sovereignty In other words sovereignty pre-supposes goodness so far as it is exercised over what has been created Froma logical point of view the creative power comes before the ruling power Thismay be why the Logos is considered as a third power which unites the first twoIn the Logos creation comes from an order and orders are immediately fol-lowed by substantial effects Philo draws a correspondence between those twodimensions and the two names of God Θεός and Κύριος

Rather as anyone who has approached nearest to the truth would saythe central place is held by the Father of the UniverseWho in the sacredscriptures is called He that is as His proper name while on either sideof Him are the senior potencies the nearest to Him the creative and thekingly The title of the former is God since it made and ordered the Allthe title of the latter is Lord since it is the fundamental right of themakerto rule and control what he has brought into being37

36 Philo De Cherubim 27ndash28 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo II 25)37 Philo De Abrahamo 121 (trans Colson in Philo VI 63) See also De Plantatione 86


The principal (κύριος) name of God is lsquoHe that isrsquo (ὁ ὤν) as in Ex 3 14 Thenames lsquoGodrsquo (θεός) and lsquoLordrsquo (κύριος) both refer to the most venerable (πρε-σβύταται) divine powers38 These are then divine attributes which are unitedboth in the transcendent divine oneness and in the divineWordHow are angels who are on a secondary level both δυνάμεις and λόγοι

related to these two powers Do they partake in both One might assumefrom the explicitly political perspective adopted by Philo on angelology thatangels are the instruments of the ruling or sovereign power The frequent imageof the Great Ruler (Βασιλεύς) and of his royal court presents angels as min-isters lieutenants messengers soldiers helpers servants etc that is to sayas agents of the royal government The question is thus should one considerthe political vocabulary and images used by Philo as metaphors of other typesof phenomenamdasheg metaphysical or cosmologicalmdashor as literal statementsabout the exercise of power that is froma practical and political point of viewWhat is angelic powerLet us recall that the interpretation of the Cherubim in terms of power

comes after a cosmological interpretation according to which the two cherubsrespectively symbolize the sphere of the fixed stars and its movement fromeast to west and the seven spheres containing the planets and their move-ments from west to east The Cherubim which might be identified as typesof angels are thus both a cosmological symbol and a theological symbolmdashthough Philo considers the second interpretation better The move from thefirst interpretation to the second could be seen as an implicit statement on theangelic function angels under the form of the Cherubim are more akin to thedivine powers than to the planetary movements39 Besides the cosmologicalparadigmmdashone that reminds of theTimaeusmdashlies a theological paradigm theworld is governed by superior powers divine and angelic40The question is alsothat of the relation between the angelic power and the world In what sense doangels govern the worldIt has been argued that the angelic activity was strictly directed towards

men41 It is implied in De Gigantibus 12 and clearly stated in De Somniis142

38 On the question of the divine names and its rabbinic context see DahlmdashSegal (1978)39 On the link between angels and stars see Philo De Gigantibus 7ndash840 See Decharneux (1994) 67ndash78 on the limits of cosmology and 89ndash93 on the other mean-

ings of the Cherubim in Philo41 SeeWolfson (1962) 372ndash374

244 casas

In accordance with this they are represented by the lawgiver as ascend-ing and descending not that God who is already present in all directionsneeds informants but that it was a boon to us in our sad case to availourselves of the services of ldquowordsrdquo acting on our behalf as mediators sogreat is our awe and shuddering dread of the universal Monarch and theexceedingmight of His sovereignty It was our attainment of a conceptionof this that once made us address to one of those mediators the entreatyldquoSpeak thou to us and let not God speak to us lest haply we dierdquo (Ex XX19) For should He without employing ministers hold out to us with Hisown hand I do not say chastisements but even benefits unmixed andexceeding great we are incapable of receiving them42

Whereas angels are often described as intermediaries between the divine andmen Philo explains that God does not need informants (μηνύσοντα) since he isomnipresent but that their only function is to prevent men from a direct con-tact with the divine Divine might (κράτος) largely exceeds human capacitiesbut even if it were for benefits (εὐεργεσίαι) men would not be able to receivethem One might see in the opposition between the punitive and the benefi-cent another version of the two powersmdashgoodness and sovereignty Here theangelic λόγοι bear the function of mediators (μεσίται διαιτηταί) that is inter-cessors acting for the divine on manrsquos behalf In that perspective angels arenot needed to fill in the metaphysical or cosmological gap between the divineand human kind but to accomplish a political task that of intervening amongmen on behalf of God and of interceding by God on behalf of menOne might draw from that last point that angels represent among divine

powers a specific kind that only deals with human affairs but not with the cre-ation of things or the laws of nature If there are two main powers a creativeand a sovereign one and that sovereignty applies to the created then angelscould be considered as the instruments of the ruling powermdashthe viceroys lieu-tenants and ministersmdashthat do not meddle with the creation of things butonly with their administration More precisely their task is to govern humankind In that perspective the angel appears as the purest form of sovereignty(ἐξουσία) whereas in God the creative and the ruling power are co-originarymdashin the prologue to his treatise On the Creation of the World Philo writes thatldquothe world is in harmony with the Law and the Law with the worldrdquo43mdashand

42 Philo De Somniis 142ndash143 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo V 373)43 Philo De Opifico Mundi 1 op Cit 7 On the idea of cosmopolitics in Philo see Carlier

(2008) 313ndash369


united in the Logos in spite of their difference it is only in the angel that polit-ical power is manifested as such Angelology is thus a theory of government44Of course things are not that simple and Philo seems to say the exact oppo-

site in the treatise On the Confusion of Tongues just before he provides theimage of angels as an army

Now we must first lay down that no existing thing is of equal honour toGod and that there is only one sovereign and ruler and king who alonemay direct and dispose of all things For the lines

It is not well that many lords should ruleBe there but one one king

could be said withmore justice of the world and of God than of cities andmen For being one it must needs have one maker and father and mas-ter45

Philo quotes the famous Homeric verses that Aristotle used in Metaphysics Λ10 1076a to establish the unicity of the first principle Aristotle used a politi-cal argument to carry out a metaphysical argument Here Philo takes it onestep further and claims that the argument is even truer on a cosmological andmetaphysical level The only one sovereign (ἄρχων) ruler (ἡγεμών) and king(βασιλεύς) is God Only God can be said to govern (πρυτανεύειν διοικεῖν) thingsPhilo totally subverts the semantics of the terms he uses all the political vocab-ulary when applied to human matters proves to be metaphorical The truemeaning of political language is not political but cosmological andmetaphys-ical What is said about cities and men would be better said about the worldand GodMore surprisingly Philo goes on to say that the powers surrounding the

divine even the powers of chastisement (κολαστήριοι) which may be linkedto the ruling power partake in the creation of things

Let us consider what these are God is one but He has around Himnumberless Potencies which all assist and protect created being andamong themare included the powers of chastisement Now chastisement

44 On that point yet not from a strictly Philonian perspective see E Coccia ldquoIntroduzionerdquoII 1ndash2 in AgambenmdashCoccia (2009) 304ndash307

45 Philo De Confusione Linguarum 170 (trans Colson andWhitaker in Philo IV 103)

246 casas

is not a thing of harm or mischief but a preventive and correction forsin Through these Potencies the incorporeal and intelligible world wasframed the archetype of this phenomenal world that being a system ofinvisible forms as this is of visible material bodies46

And later on after he has mentioned the angelic armies which are waitingupon the powers he adds

Now the King may fitly hold converse with his powers and employ themto serve in matters which should not be consummated by God alone Itis true indeed that the Father of All has no need of aught so that Heshould require the co-operation of others if He wills some creative workyet seeing what was fitting to Himself and the world which was cominginto being He allowed His subject powers to have the fashioning of somethings though He did not give them sovereign and independent knowl-edge for completion of the task lest aught of what was coming into beingshould be miscreated47

Powers and angels are assistants in the creation of the world not because of adivine need but because it is fitting (πρέπον) for them and for the world Thisis why Gn 126 says ldquoLet us make man in our own image and likenessrdquo48Our point is not to show a contradiction in Philo but rather to try to dis-

tinguish and highlight different tendencies in his angelology which are notalways very clear There is evidently a political perspective but it remainsstrongly linked to cosmological and metaphysical dimensions Hence the richPhilonian political vocabulary seems partly literal and partlymetaphorical Onthe one hand angelology is merged in Platonic cosmology and metaphysicsand angels are synonyms with λόγοι and δαίμονες On the other hand angelol-ogy brings a political twist to the reflections on power and providence whichextracts them from their traditional cosmological and metaphysical contextOnly by following this thread can one understand the specificity of Christianangelology

46 Ibid 103ndash10547 Ibid 105ndash10748 On that verse see also Philo De Opificio Mundi 72ndash76


Hierarchy

Even more explicitly than Philo ps-Dionysius considered angelology as a the-ory of power49 In order to account for angelic order and activity he coinedthe term ἱεραρχία which literally means lsquosacred powerrsquo One only gets a par-tial understanding of the Dionysian concept if one reduces it to the modernidea of hierarchy ie the vertical ranking of multiple elements in an orderedstructure Obviously ἱεραρχία corresponds to such an organizational schemebut the originality of the Dionysian concept lies elsewhere in the definitionof sacred power (ἱερὰ ἀρχή) The ambiguity of the term ἀρχή induces an inter-pretative choice in its translation Strangely enough whereas all the medievalcommentators understood ἱεραρχία as lsquosacred powerrsquo or lsquosacred governmentrsquo(sacer principatus)50 modern scholars tend to think of it as a lsquosacred principlersquoThis apparently more neutral understanding actually implies a rather meta-physical interpretation of the concept51 The divergence between both inter-pretations precisely has something to do with the role played by Neoplatonismin Dionysian thoughtPs-Dionysius himself provides a technical definition of the term he created

in the third chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy

In my opinion a hierarchy is a sacred order a state of understandingand an activity approximating as closely as possible to the divine Andit is uplifted to the imitation of God in proportion to the enlightenmentsdivinely given to it The beauty of Godmdashso simple so good so much thesource of perfectionmdashis completely uncontaminated by dissimilarity Itreaches out to grant every being according to merit a share of light andthen through a divine sacrament in harmony and in peace it bestows oneach of those being perfected its own form52

The definition of hierarchy comprises three elements order (τάξις) knowledge(ἐπιστήμη) activity (ἐνέργεια) That hierarchy is not only an order but also aformof knowledge andof activity doesnot simplymean that hierarchical ordercomprises sciences and activities All three are intertwined in a single form of

49 See Agamben (2011) 144ndash16650 On the medieval commentaries see Luscombe (1980) (2008)51 See Roques (1954) Hathy (1969) Mahoney (2000) Perl (2007) 65ndash82 For the opposite

point of view see E Cocciarsquos remarks in AgambenmdashCoccia (2009) 455ndash47852 Pseudo-Dionysius The Celestial Hierarchy III 1 164D in The Complete Works trans Luib-

heid 153ndash154

248 casas

power which links what one can know and do to the rank one occupies andconversely the rank one occupies to onersquos theoretical and practical capacitiesOrder does not constitute the ontological backgroundof the sciences and activ-ities but as ldquosacred orderrdquo (τάξις ἱερά) it is coextensive with the sacramentaloperations There is properly speaking no such thing as a hierarchy of beingsince ldquohierarchyrdquo precisely means an order of knowledge and activity ie apractical order not an ontological one If the divine represents the final causeof hierarchy onemight say that order science and activity are respectively liketheir formal material and efficient causesThis very abstract model is embodied by the well-known angelic hierar-

chiesmdashfrom angels and archangels to cherubim and seraphimmdashand by theecclesiastical hierarchy The aim of hierarchy is the imitation of God whichis thus realized in the sacred liturgy and in the general organization of theChurch both angelic and human The concept of hierarchy does not aim atthe metaphysical structure of the world-order but describes the functioningof power in the Church Hence it was strongly politicized by the medievaltheologico-political tradition Ps-Dionysius himself does not use a politicalvocabulary to talk about hierarchy and clearly does not build a proper polit-ical theory53 Yet the concept of hierarchy is a concept of power that can easilybe understood in a politicalway and that has at least clearly nothing to dowithmetaphysicsThe term ἐνέργεια plays a crucial part in the Dionysian definition of hier-

archy since it indicates a shift from the sphere of being to that of operationsHierarchy is a divine imitation because it provides the practical rules for theimitation of the divine ie the rules according towhich the sacraments shouldbe administered

The divinity first purifies those minds which it reaches and then illumi-nates them Following on their illumination it perfects them in a perfectconformity to God This being so it is clear that the hierarchy as an imageof the divine is divided into distinctive orders and powers in order toreveal that the activities of the divinity are preeminent for the utter holi-ness and purity permanence and distinctiveness of their orders54

53 On the political dimension of Dionysian ecclesiology see OrsquoMeara (2003) 159ndash170 Stock(2008) 110ndash132

54 Pseudo-Dionysius The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy V I 7 508 Dndash509 A in The CompleteWorkstrans Luibheid 239


The three main hierarchical operationsmdashpurification (κάθαρσις) illumina-tion (ἔλλαμπσις) perfection (τελείωσις)mdashconstitute an ordered image of thedivine (ἱεραρχικὴ τῶν θείων εἰκών) and of the divine activities (θεαρχικὰς ἐνεργέ-ιας) Hierarchy is thus an image The division into different ranks and differentoperations is the very imitation of the divine operations which are revealedand represented by the hierarchy itself by its very structure and functioningSacred power (ἱεραρχία) is the image of divine power (θεαρχία)Hierarchy follows a law of imitation that links all of its members together

andunites themto thedivine by the repetition at each level of thedivineoper-ations More precisely it is a Neoplatonic law of mediation which medievalthinkers eventually named lexdivinitatis butwhich originally comes fromNeo-platonism55

Let me make myself clearer by means of appropriate examples moreapparent to us I mean even if they all fall short of the absolutely divinetranscendence The rays of the sun pass easily through the front line ofmatter since it is more translucent than all the others The real light ofthe sun lights up its own beams more resplendently through that sectionof matter But as it encounters more opaque matter it appears dimmerandmore diffused because this matter is less suited to the passage of theoutpouring of light This unsuitability becomes progressively greater untilfinally it halts completely the journey of light Similarly the heat of firepasses more easily into those entities which are good conductors morereceptive and in fact quite like it But when its burning activity comesup against resistant or even opposing entities it becomes ineffective orleaves only a very slight trace of itself This is fully seen when fire movesthrough those things properly disposed to it and then comes to things notakin to it as when something on fire first happens to affect things whichcan be ignited and then through them either water or something else noteasily ignited is proportionately heatedFollowing that same harmonious law which operates throughout na-

ture the wonderful source of all visible and invisible order and harmonysupernaturally pours out in splendid revelations to the superior beingsthe full and initial brilliance of his astounding light and successive beingsin their turn receive their share of the divine beam through the media-tion of their superiors The beings who are first to know God and who

55 On the medieval lex divinitatis see Hankey (1992) Luscombe (1976) On Proclus see Ele-ments of Theology prop 148

250 casas

more than others desire the divine virtue have been deemed worthy tobecome the prime workers of the power and activity which imitate Godas far as possible56

At first glance ps-Dionysius seems to be formulating a Neoplatonic law ofmediation in rather simple terms As natural elements such as light or fireprogress through more akin elements to others in the same way the divinelight passes through the superior beings onto the inferior ones One easily rec-ognizes here a structure similar to that described by Proclus in proposition 148of the Elements of Theology ldquoEvery divine order has an internal unity of three-fold origin from its highest itsmean and its last termrdquo57 It should however benoticedhere that ps-Dionysius is not talking about causality or participation inametaphysicalway58 but about the transmissionof divine light ie knowledgeand scienceOnly on a superficial level does it seem that hierarchicalmediationis a lawof natureNatural propagationof light or heat doeswork throughmean-terms But what is the exact meaning of the comparison It is only an exampleused for the purpose of clarity the inadequacy of which is underlined by ps-Dionysius First of all the natural harmonious proportion (τῆς φυσικῆς εὐταξίαςλόγον) needs to be understood supernaturally (ὑπερϕυῶς) This does not sim-ply mean that divine light is something transcendent but literally that it doesnot circulate following natural laws There may be an analogy between natureand hierarchy but what is at stake here is the transmission of knowledge andoperations the first to know God (ἐπιγνοῦσαι πρῶται θεόν) become the primeoperators of the divine powers and operations (πρωτουργοὶ γενέσθαί τῆς θεομι-μητοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἐνέργειας) The diffusion of divine light determines an orderof knowledge andoperations not the natural order of elements and substancesmore or less akin to one another but the hierarchical order between superiorand inferior elements that partake in various degrees of knowledge and actionThe whole hierarchical ordering of first intermediary and last ranks is not somuch an ontological fact than amodus operandi of sacred powerThis is precisely why one reads in Is 66ndash7 that a Seraph purified the proph-

etrsquos lips with some burning coal Although it seems to contradict the hierarchi-cal law that a superior angel might purify a human being one should ratherunderstand that the Seraphrsquos action is mediated by a lower angel How is thatpossible

56 Pseudo-DionysiusTheCelestialHierarchy XIII 3 301 Andash301 C inTheCompleteWorks transLuibheid 177ndash178

57 Proclus Elements of Theology prop 148 trans Dodds 13158 On this point see Proclus Elements of Theology prop 23 65 and 67


Hence it is not out of place to say that it was a seraphim who purified thetheologian God purifies all beings insofar as he is himself the cause ofevery purification Or rather if I may use a more familiar example thereis our own hierarch Through his deacons and his priests he brings purifi-cation and light But he himself is said to purify and to illuminate sincethose orders ordained by him attribute to him the sacred activities inwhich they themselves engage So in like fashion the angel who sacredlyworked out the purification of the theologian attributed his own purify-ing understanding and power first to God as the Cause and then to theseraphim as the initial hierarch59

If inferior members of the hierarchy partake in divine light by the intermedi-ary of superior members the process might be seen in the opposite way alsohierarchical operations carried through by the lower ranks can be attributed tosuperior ranks since they are the first to operate This upward logic of vicar-ious action (each lower rank attributes its action to the superior rank) is thereverse of the downward logic of imitation (each lower rank imitates the actionof the superior rank) The purificatory act of the angel can thus be brought backto the seraph However this logic does not go straight up to the divine It isnot a simple step-by-step logic The angel attributes its own science and power(ἐπιστήμην καὶ δύναμιν) to God as cause (ὡς αἴτιον) and to the seraph as primeminister (ὡς πρωτουργὸν ἱεράρχην) What enables the angel to act on behalf ofthe seraph is not the fact that the seraph is the cause of the act but that the ser-aph is the prime operator orminister There is therefore at the top or at the rootof hierarchy a division between causality and agency Whereas God is from ametaphysical point of view the cause of every thing and thus of every act hier-archy is concerned with actions from a practical point of view The point is notto say that the angel is the last and lowest cause of the operation but that thisoperation was performed by the angel in the name of or on behalf of the ser-aph ie as part of a hierarchical process by which it was authorized so to sayFromahierarchical point of view angelic operations are notmetaphysical factsbut official acts Thismeans that hierarchy constitutes a sphere wherein beingsare not linked to one another following the rules of causality and participationbut through practical and official relations of power In other words hierarchyis not natural but institutional60

59 Pseudo-Dionysius The Celestial Hierarchy XIII 4 305 Cndash305 D in The Complete Workstrans Luibheid 181

60 The distinction between divine power and sacred power can be read in the perspective ofAgambenrsquos distinction between theology and economy See Agamben (2011)

252 casas

It has long been noticed that the structure of the Dionysian angelic hierar-chy was similar to that of the Proclian system of divine triads hence the ideathat the angelic hierarchy reflected the Neoplatonic hierarchical conception ofthe world61 One should however distinguish the Dionysian technical conceptof ἱεραρχία from its modern counterpart When one talks about hierarchy inNeoplatonism one uses the term in its modern significationmdashthat of a ver-tical ordermdashbut nowhere does the term ἱεραρχία appear in the Neoplatoniccorpus This is the root of a misunderstanding concerning the link betweenps-Dionysius and its Neoplatonic sources since Neoplatonic metaphysics arehierarchical in a modern sense and since the Dionysian philosophical frame-work is drawn from Neoplatonism it seems likely to say that the concept ofἱεραρχία is of Neoplatonic origin We tried to show on the contrary that it wasa concept of power and not of being and that it could not therefore reflectNeoplatonicmetaphysics The problem is thus to understand how andwhy theconcept of hierarchy does parallel Proclian triadic structures without beinghowever a metaphysical concept It seems unlikely that ps-Dionysius wouldhave borrowed patterns from Proclus only on a formal and superficial levelThe first thing to notice is that what angelic hierarchies reflect is precisely

the order of divine classes exposed by Proclus in the Platonic Theology andnot what scholars usually call the Neoplatonic hierarchical reality The orderaccording to which angels are ranked has nothing to do with the emanativeor causal order of the Neoplatonic hypostases (One Intellect Soul etc) Thismeans that ps-Dionysius modelled the angelic hierarchies on the orders ofgods or henads to put it in the Proclian technical way following a theologi-cal pattern and not a metaphysical one Moreover he borrowed a polytheisticmodel explaining how the multiplicity of gods is ordered under the primalgod which is the One Despite all the differences between Christian and paganreligion there are obvious similarities between this theological problem andthe question of the relation between the angels and God Therefore the linkbetween henadology and angelology should be questioned

Divine Names

If we take a step from angelology to theology we are faced with anotherside of ps-Dionysiusrsquo reading of the Neoplatonists The treatise On the divinenames might in fact be read as a refutation of Neoplatonic metaphysics and

61 See OrsquoMeara (1975) 1ndash18


henadology We should thus examine ps-Dionysiusrsquo criticism in order to graspthe meaning of his ambivalent attitude towards Neoplatonismmdashie buildingangelic hierarchies on a Proclian scheme on the one hand and undermininghenadology on the otherSet out roughly the Platonic theory of forms assumes that the essence of

something corresponds to the intelligible form of that thingmdashthis form beinga real entity and not a mere concept of the thing The form is the thing initself The late Neoplatonists starting from Iamblichus and Proclus gave to thisontology a strong theological twist Plotinus had already given a strong sense ofverticality to ontology by distinguishing from top down the One the Intellectand the Soul as three different hypostases His followers took a step further andstructured the realm of being into many subordinate ranks that were eventu-ally linked to divine classes They merged traditional elements of polytheismwith Platonic metaphysics to build up a proper lsquoPlatonic theologyrsquo in whichone might say forms became gods A key operator in this process is the the-ory of henads62 From a theological point of view henads are gods but from ametaphysical point of view they are principles that stand between theOne andthe level of being as a mediation between unity and the ordered multiplicityof beings Henadology fills a gap between henology and ontology whichmeansthat henadology is nothing else but the theologization of ontologyThe whole purpose of the Dionysian theory of divine names is to untie the

Neoplatonic knot of metaphysics and theology that turns the theory of formsinto a religious system Ps-Dionysiusmatches the different categories of beingswith divine names drawn from the biblical text in order to reduce every onto-logical category to its divine originThe strategybecomes clear if we lookat theDionysian remarks on thenotion

of lsquoexemplarrsquo or lsquoparadigmrsquowhich is clearly borrowed fromphilosophy and crit-icized from the point of view of Christian theology

We give the name of lsquoexemplarrsquo to those principles which pre-exist as aunity in God and which produce the essences of things Theology callsthem predefining divine and good acts of will which determine and cre-ate things and in accordance with which the Transcendent One prede-fined and brought into being everything that isNow itmaywell be that Clement the philosopher uses the term lsquoexem-

plarrsquo in relation to the more important things among beings but his dis-course does not proceed according to the proper perfect and simple

62 On the theory of henads see Mesyats (2012) SaffreymdashWesterink (1978) IXndashLXXVII

254 casas

naming Even if we were to concede all this to him we would still beobliged to remember the scriptural statement ldquoI did not show thesethings to you so that you might follow after themrdquo That is through theknowledge we have which is geared to our faculties we may be upliftedas far as possible to the Cause of everything63

The argument is based on aplay on thewordsπαράδειγμα (exemplar paradigm)and παραδείκνυμι (to show) enabled by the quote from Hos 13 4 (LXX) Onemight call paradigms (παράδειγμα) the principles that pre-exist in God andaccording to which he creates things but God did not show (παρέδειξα) themto us so that we might go after them In other words what matters is not theprinciples according to which creation was made but the very origin of cre-ation which is the creator As ps-Dionysius puts it elsewhere philosophershave often mistaken the creature for the creator in the same way though in amore sophisticatedmanner as the crowds whoworship idols do64 Philosophythe knowledge of being in order to grasp the true nature of its object shouldgo beyond beingAt that point a Neoplatonist could still agree Is not the purpose of henadol-

ogy precisely to bring ontology to a higher level tomanifest its divine structurein the form of henadic classes Whereas for a Neoplatonist such as Proclushenadology represents a shift fromphilosophy to theology ps-Dionysius seemsto be arguing that it is only a divinization of philosophyWhere does the differ-ence lie In that philosophers identify ontological categories as divine realitieswhen they are only lsquodivine namesrsquo

I do not think of the Good as one thing Being as another Life and Wis-dom as yet other and I do not claim that there are numerous causes anddifferent Godheads all differently ranked superior and inferior and allproducing different effects No But I hold that there is one God for allthese good processions and that he is the possessor of the divine namesof which I speak and that the first name tells of the universal Providenceof the one God while the other names reveal general or specific ways inwhich he acts providentially65

63 Pseudo-Dionysius The Divine Names V 8ndash9 824 Cndash825 A in The Complete Works transLuibheid 102

64 Pseudo-Dionysius Letter Seven 2 1080 Andash1080 B in The CompleteWorks trans Luibheid267

65 Pseudo-Dionysius The Divine Names V 2 816 Cndash817 A in The CompleteWorks trans Luib-heid 97


From Plotinus to Proclus the triad Being (ὄν)mdashLife (ζωή)mdashIntellect (νοῦς)constitutes under the first principle which is the Good the first order of prin-ciples that structure the intelligible realm66 Ps-Dionysius reinterprets them asdivine namesmdashGood Being Life Wisdommdashwhich manifest the divine prov-idence at different levels of universality or particularity He is thus rephrasinghenadology in order to reduce the autonomy and self-consistency of theseprinciples and to merge them in the unique process of divine providence Thismeans that the difference between them is not substantial but modal Termssuch as lsquogoodrsquo lsquobeingrsquo or lsquolifersquo do not refer to different realities or deities but tothe very same thing at different degrees of universality The error of Neoplaton-ism consists in seeing them as proper principles and in bestowing a real causalpower upon themmdashas appears in prop 101 of the Elements of Theology67mdashwhen the origin of being life and intellect is neither the form of Being northe form of Life nor that of Intellect but the one and only GodObviously Dionysian criticism stands in monotheistic opposition to poly-

theism There cannot be multiple principles and causes of beings This may bewhy ps-Dionysius does not take seriously the claims of henadology Insteadof considering the shift from forms to henads as a passage above ontology heinterprets it as a reduction of divinity to the categories of being The Dionysiansolution instead of deifying the Platonic forms turns them into divine namesie ways of naming God from the point of view of divine providence Theremay be many divine names because they only correspond to different levels ofprovidenceOn a philosophical level this still leaves us with a difficulty How are we to

account for the difference between being life and intellect Even if they corre-spond to various degrees of the same divine providence they must still have aminimum formal feature that makes them what they are In order to solve thisproblem Ps-Dionysius in a very dense passage tries to explain what the termlsquoitself rsquo (αὐτο) means

The absolute being underlying individualmanifestations of being as theircause is not a divine or an angelic being for only transcendent beingitself can be the source the being and the cause of the being of beings[hellip] lsquoBeing itselfrsquo lsquolife itselfrsquo lsquodivinity itselfrsquo are names signifying sourcedivinity and cause and these are applied to the one transcendent causeand source beyond source of all things But we use the same terms in

66 On the triad beingmdashlifemdashintellect see Hadot (1960) (1978)67 Proclus Elements of Theology prop 101 trans Dodds 91 (and notes 252ndash253)

256 casas

a derivative fashion and we apply them to the provident acts of powerwhich come forth from that God in whom nothing at all participates Iam talking here of being itself of life itself of divinity itself which shapesthings in a way that each creature according to capacity has his share ofthese From the fact of such sharing come the qualities and the nameslsquoexistingrsquo lsquolivingrsquo lsquopossessed by divinityrsquo and suchlike68

The whole problem is to account for the essence of things without positingdifferent principles which will eventually be mistaken for divine or angelicbeingsmdashas it is the case in Neoplatonism Hence the question about themean-ing of the prefix αὐτο what are being itself (αὐτοεῖναι) and life itself (αὐτοζωή)The Dionysian answer is double From the point of view of principality (ἀρχι-κῶς) and causality (αἰτιατικῶς) αὐτο refers to the divine which is the uniquecause of everything From the point of view of participation (μεθεκτῶς) αὐτοrefers to the process of providence and participation This equivocation doesnot refer to two different realities but to two complementary perspectives onthe same reality Causality and participation are two sides of the same processNevertheless beings do not participate directly and equally in the first causeEach receives a share of the divine which remains as such absolutely transcen-dantThings lsquothemselvesrsquo such as beingor life are thusprovidential powers ievarious degrees of providence reflecting various participative capacities Beingitself and life itself are only the acts of participation by which things receivetheir share of the divine providence69It seems here that the Dionysian argument reaches beyond Neoplatonic

henadology the very Platonic theory of forms It says indeed that from the factof sharing things are and are said to be (καὶ ἐστί καὶ λέγεται) lsquoexistingrsquo lsquolivingrsquoetc This is precisely the predicative structure of Platonic ontology somethingis and is said to be A by participating the form of A Here things are and aresaid to be what they are by participating in divine providence rather than inspecific formsor essencesWhatPlatonists call formswhichNeoplatonistsmis-take for gods under the name of henad are in fact divine names ie degrees ofprovidence and participation Whether ps-Dionysius maintains the existenceof forms on an ontological level or notmight come down to a question of inter-pretation but it is quite clear that such forms do not play a strong part in the

68 Pseudo-DionysiusTheDivineNames XI 6 953 Cndash956 A inTheCompleteWorks trans Luib-heid 124ndash125

69 On the Dionysian notion of analogy see Lossky (1930) On the link with themedieval the-ory of analogy see OrsquoRourke (1992)


Dionysian theological comprehension of the world In a sense the fact theymight be enhanced as gods shows that they are overestimated already in thephilosophical understanding of realityThe Dionysian attitude towards henadology is thus double From a theolog-

ical point of view henadology represents a deification of ontology and thusneeds to be refuted as such However angelology is modelled on the triadicstructure laid out in Proclian henadology All the more so ps-Dionysius goesas far as talking about lsquoangelic henadsrsquo70 How are we then to understand theDionysian strategy Our hypothesis is that angelology borrows schemes fromhenadology because it is not ontology As we tried to show angelology hasnothing to do with ontology What does it have to do with henadology On asuperficial level one might look at angelology as a Christian version of poly-theism The concept of the angel is what enables the theologians to reinterpretthe many gods of pagan religions in a monotheistic perspective In this caseDionysian angelology could stand as a Christian version of henadology Wehave argued however that henadology was the object of Dionysian criticismbecause it represented a theologization of ontology How could it be linkedto angelology Precisely to the extent that it is separated from ontology Thetheory of divine names is a refutation of henadology inasmuch as it relies onthe Platonic theory of formsmdashthe key argument being the confusion betweencreature and creator Yet nothing prevents ps-Dionysius from reinterpretinghenadology in a non-ontologicalmanner Therewould be two sides of the samestrategy on the one hand disconnecting henadology fromontology and on theother hand reinterpreting henadology as angelologyOne thing should be noted though the Neoplatonists themselves claim that

henadology differs from ontology71 Ps-Dionysius does not take this claim seri-ously in his theology but he does in his angelology as if he were saying on oneside that henadology was nothing but a misinterpretation of Platonic ontol-ogy but that on the other side as if he were providing an example of a non-ontological interpretation of henadology Strangely enough this ambivalencerecalls exegetical debates that take place inmodern scholarship on Neoplaton-ism The Dionysian reading of Proclus despite of all its polemical bias castslight on doctrinal subtleties of the theory of henads Historically hemight wellbe the first reader of Proclus to have understood the originality of henadology

70 See Pseudo-Dionysius Divine names VIII 5 892 D and comments by Sheldon-Williams(1972)

71 See Proclus Elements of Theology prop 114ndash115

258 casas

Henads

Henadology may be one of the most difficult doctrines of late NeoplatonismIt takes part in a larger attempt to rationalize traditional pagan religion andmight be characterized in that scope as a philosophical theory of polytheismThere are many links between henadology and religious beliefs or practicesbut the core of the doctrine remains highly conceptual72 The main difficultycomes from the fact that it is neither henology nor ontology Henads seem tobe situated midway between the One and being73Whereas scholars have often argued that henads constituted a device to fill

in the gap between the One and beingmdashespecially in Proclusmdashin order toexplain how the multiplicity of forms comes out of the first principle by wayof continuity more recent studies have been focusing on the specificity of thehenadic realm itself74 To put it roughly it has been argued that henadologycould not be reduced to a form of super-ontology The shortcomings of tradi-tional interpretations of henadology come from the fact that they remainbasedon ontological schemes whereas henads should be considered from a theolog-ical perspective in which they appear as individual gods and not as universalforms This methodological indication is given by Proclus himself in the Com-mentary on the Parmenides

It is the same to say lsquohenadrsquo as to say lsquofirst principlersquo if in fact the first prin-ciple is in all cases themost unificatory element So anyonewho is talkingabout the One in any respect would then be discoursing about first prin-ciples and it would then make no difference whether one said that thethesis of the dialogue was about first principles or about the One Thosemen of old too decided to term incorporeal essence as awhole lsquoOnersquo andthe corporeal and in general the divisible lsquoOthersrsquo so that in whateversense you took the One you would not deviate from the contemplationof incorporeal substances and the ruling henads for all the henads are ineach other and are united with each other and their unity is far greaterthan the community and sameness among beings In these too there iscompounding of Forms and likeness and friendship and participation inone another but the unity of those former entities inasmuch as it is aunity of henads is far more unitary and ineffable and unsurpassable for

72 On the link between henadology and religion especially with theurgy see Smith (1974)100ndash141 Gueacuterard (1982) Chlup (2012) 127ndash136 and 168ndash184

73 On this difficulty see Gersh (2014) 92ndash9774 See Butler (2005) (2008a)


they are all in all of them which is not the case with the Forms Theseare participated in by each other but they are not all in all And yet inspite of this degree of unity in that realm how marvellous and unmixedis their purity and the individuality of each of them is a much more per-fect thing than the otherness of the Forms preserving as it does unmixedall the divine entities and their proper powers distinct with the resultthat there is a distinction between the more general and more particularbetween those associated with Continuance with Progression and withReturn between those concerned with generation with induction to thehigher and with demiurgic administration and in general the particularcharacteristics are preserved of those gods who are respectively cohesivecompletive demiurgic assimilative or any of the other characteristics oftheirs which our tradition celebrates75

It appears clearly that the henadic manifold and the realm of forms do not fol-low the same principlesWhereas forms are compounded through likeness andparticipation henads are lsquoall in allrsquo Forms are distinguished from one anotherby their otherness (ἑτέροτης)mdashone might recall the ontology elaborated byPlato in the Sophist whereby the great kinds differ through their participationinothernessOntology comesdown to relations of participationbetween formsthat are reciprocally determined On the contrary henads are only character-ized by their individuality (ἰδιότης) What makes a henad a henad is neitherits participation in the One nor its difference from another henad but its ownunicity and individuality Such an individual characteristic cannot be definedin terms of form and essence but refers to the divine features celebrated in thereligious tradition In consequence henads do not quite form a whole (πλῆ-θος) unified under a single monad but rather a set (ἀριθμός) in which all are inall76 This does notmean themerging of all henads in the One but on the con-trary the assumption of pure unicity of each and every henad Each henad isthe One Otherwise we would be interpreting henadology with the categoriesof ontology77This raises a question how are henads distinguished fromone another Pro-

clus says that ldquothere is a distinction between the more general and the moreparticularrdquo and goes on to list all kinds of different godsmdashcohesive completivedemiurgic assimilative etc Since there is no direct knowledge of the divine

75 Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides VI 1048 (trans Morrow and Dillon 407)76 See Proclus Elements of theology prop 113 ldquoThe whole number (ἀριθμός) of the gods has

the character of unity (ἑνιαῖός ἐστιν)rdquo (trans Dodds 101)77 This closely follows Butlerrsquos very close reading of Proclian henadology See Butler (2005)

260 casas

one can only infer the differences between the henads and the distinctionsbetween their powers (δυνάμεις) Greater or lesser universality corresponds tomore or less power

For the god who causes more numerous effects is nearer to the univer-sal cause he that causes fewer more remote (prop 60) And the causeof more numerous effects is more universal the cause of fewer more spe-cific (ibid) Each is a henad but the former has the greater potency (prop61) The more universal gods generate the more specific not by division(since they are henads) nor by alteration (since they are unmoved) noryet beingmultiplied byway of relation (since they transcend all relation)but generating from themselves through superfluity of potency (prop 27)derivative emanations which are less than the prior gods78

Power (δύναμις) is measured by the degree of universality ie the capacity togeneratemoreor fewer effects It is then from its power that theparticular rankof a henadmdashits positionwith respect to the One and to other henadsmdashmay beinferred A henad is thusmanifest in the degree of its power and the number ofits effects This means that it is only from the point of view of secondary beingsthat we may distinguish the henads from one another

Whereas then there exists there both indescribable unity and yet the dis-tinctness of each characteristic (for all the henads are in all and yet eachis distinct) we gain knowledge of their unity and their distinctness fromthings secondary to them and dependent upon them For in the case ofthe visible gods we discern a difference between the soul of the sun andthat of the earth seeing that their visible bodies have a large degree ofvariety in their essence and their faculties and their rank in the universeSo then even as we take our start from sense-perception in acquiringunderstanding of the differentiation of incorporeal essences so it is onthe basis of the variation in incorporeal essences that we cognise theunmixed distinctness of the primal supra-essential henads and the par-ticular characteristics of each79

As the example of the sun and the earth show the difference between theirsouls is drawn from the perception of their bodies By analogy Proclus argues

78 Proclus Elements of Theology prop 126 (trans Dodds 113)79 ProclusCommentary onPlatorsquos Parmenides VI 1048ndash1049 (transMorrowandDillon 407ndash

408)


that in the same way as we draw conclusions about incorporeal essencesfrom sense-perceptions we can infer the characteristics of the supra-essentialhenads on the basis of the variation of incorporeal essences The knowledgeof higher realities relies on the possibility of ascending from the inferior to thesuperior levelmdashfrom the sensible to the intelligible from being to the henadicmanifoldThere is yet a little bit more to the argument Despite the analogy drawn by

Proclus the shift from forms to henads is not exactly the same as that betweensensible and intelligible Whereas the realm of bodies and the realm of soulsmight be considered parallel such is not quite the case with forms and henadsHenadology is not a super-ontology and henads are not the forms of formsTherefore when Proclus says that henads are only known by the distinctionsbetween essences he is not making a simple epistemological claim he is notsaying that henads are known in secondary beings just as causes are known intheir effects On the contrary he is dealing with the fact that the principles ofbeing are radically different from beings Ontology cannot mirror henadologyKnowing henads on the basis of secondary beings thus means something elsethan projecting ontic differences onto the henadic manifoldThe concept of power is key to understanding the ordering of henads Hen-

ads are only distinguished by their power Since the henads produce secondarybeings by superfluity of potency (διὰ δυνάμεως περιουσίαν) what ontic distinc-tions reflect are not the henads themselves but the potencies through whichhenadic characters (ἰδιότητες) are manifested In other words what appears atthe ontic level as a formal structure only exists potentially at the henadic levelOrder between henads takes the form of a distribution of power This is thereason why one should not consider the henadic manifold as just a more tran-scendent kind of intelligible world80 There is however a strong connectionbetween both

For if for every real-existent there is a henad and for every henad a real-existent one existent only participating one henad only (prop 135) it isevident that the order of real-existents reflects its prior and correspondsin its sequence with the order of henads so that the more universal exis-tents are united by their nature to the more universal henads and themore particular to the more particular81

80 For such an interpretation see SaffreymdashWesterink (1978) See EP Butlerrsquos criticismof thatinterpretation in Butler (2003) 394ndash405

81 Proclus Elements of Theology prop 136 (trans Dodds 121)

262 casas

When Proclus says in the core of prop 136 ldquoas existent to existent so ishenad todivinehenadrdquo hedoesnot aimat a structural homologyThis apparentsimilitude only vanishes if one takes seriously the idea that henads are distin-guished by their power i e by that throughwhich they produce being Insteadof positing henads between the One and being one should rather posit powerbetweenhenads andbeings82 If the same structurewerepresent at thehenadicand at the ontic levels henads would stand as an artificial device used by Pro-clus to fill in the gap between the One and being but they could not help toexplain how we shift from one to the other As difficult as it seems it is onlyby considering the effective production of being by the henads that one mightbridge the gapbetweenhenology andontologyThismeans considering henadsas divine powers that order reality

The procession of all things existent and all cosmic orders of existents ex-tends as far as do the orders of godsFor inproducing themselves the godsproduced the existents andwith-

out the gods nothing could come into being and attain to measure andorder since it is by the godsrsquo power that all things reach completenessand it is from the gods that they receive order and measure83

It appears that the very act of standing into being (ὑποσθήναι) consists in havingmeasure and order (μέτρου καὶ τάξεως τυχεῖν) If the order of reality follows thatof the gods it is because the gods order reality through their power Things areproduced and ordered at the same time84 What we call the order of the gods(τῶν θεῶν διατάξεις) is thus the potential order of beingmdashthe order of reality asit is effectively produced in the divine exercise of power In that sense not onlyis δύναμις prior to ousia but also τάξις The whole order of realitymight then beposited in the gods not because henads and beings follow the same structurebut because that order is somehow anticipated in the henadic power85

For each henad has a multiplicity dependent upon it in one case intelli-gible in another intelligible-and-intellectual another intellectual simply

82 On the distinction between ὕπαρξις and δύναμις see Proclus Platonic Theology III 24 andButler (2005) 90ndash92 (2008a) 98ndash100 (2008b)

83 Proclus Elements of Theology prop 144 (trans Dodds 127)84 On the distinction between being and form linked to the henadic distinction between

paternal (τὸ πατρικόν) and demiurgic (τὸ δημιουργικόν) see Proclus Elements of Theologyprop 157

85 On that point see MacIsaac (2007) 146ndash153 Chlup (2012) 121ndash124


and within this one having an unparticipated multiplicity another aparticipated one and within this latter one having a supracosmic oneand another an intracosmic And thus far extends the procession of thehenads86

The triadic system that structures reality comes first with the henads as anorder corresponding to their potential differences Before beings themselvescome to existence their orders (τάξεις) exist in the henadic form not as anontic structure but as effective powers of ordering Although the Elements ofTheology exposes the system in its abstract form and the Platonic Theologyunfolds the whole order of the gods this may best be seen in the commentaryon the Parmenides Proclusrsquo hermeneutical key which consists in reading thenegations of the first hypothesis as productive of the affirmations of the secondhypothesis perfectly shows how the One by means of henadic potencies pro-duces the multiplicity of being If the first hypothesis is about the absolutelytranscendent One the second is about the henads

Thewhole second hypothesis therefore he says reveals to us amultiplic-ity of autonomous henads on which are dependent the entities aboutwhich the second hypothesis teaches us revealing to us in its terms alltheir specific characteristics in turn If this is true wemust examine eachof the conclusions to see to which of the divine orders it is appropriateand thus make division of the second hypothesis ldquolimb by limbrdquo (Phaedr265e)87

If negations apply to the One affirmations do not simply correspond to beingTheOnewhich is linked to being is the henad each henad is the imparticipablemonad of a class of beings and the whole series of predicates attributed to theOne in the second hypothesis reveals themultiplicity of henads ie the divineorders Proclusrsquo reading of the Parmenides does not induce the order of henadson the basis of the order of beings but rather tries to deduce the order of realityfrom the One and from the henadic powers His reading of the second hypoth-esis only makes sense if it is coupled to the first hypothesis if affirmations areinterpreted as products of the negations Only then can one understand theproduction of reality as its very ordering

86 Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides VI 1049 (trans Morrow and Dillon 408)87 Ibid VI 1062ndash1063 (trans 418)

264 casas

So then we say that the negations for this reason are productive of thosewhich are going to be examined in the Second for as many as the primalentity generates in the First somany are produced in the Second and pro-ceed forth in their proper order and in this way there becomes manifestthe structured realm of the gods taking its origin from the transcendenthenad88

More than the second hypothesis it is the shift from the first hypothesis to thesecond that shows how the production of reality begins with that of its orderBefore it produces all kinds of beings the One engenders the structured realmof the gods (τὸν διάκοσμον τῶν θεῶν) This is not simply to say that henads comefirst before being but that henads stand for the very order following whichbeing emerges When it is positively assertedmdashin the second hypothesismdashorder is already linked to the different kinds of beings but when it appearsat the level of the Onemdashin the first hypothesismdashit can only be accounted fornegatively Only in the transition from the first to the second hypothesis fromnegations to affirmations does order appear in its purest formmdashthat of powerIn that perspective henadoloy might be read as a theory of order It seems

to us that this is precisely the way in which ps-Dionysius read it89 Yet the onlyway for him to adapt it to the Christian doctrine was to turn it into angelol-ogy From a theological point of view amultiplicity of godswas not acceptablehence theDionysian criticismof henadology as a formof deified ontology Nev-ertheless the structure or order (τάξις) unfolded in Proclian henadology wasstill available Once it had been cleared of pagan connotations under the formof angelology it offered a perfect model for hierarchy ie for a theory of poweras τάξιςNeoplatonism of course is not the only source of Dionysian thinking and

one might want to find other influences as well In the scope of angelologyhowever it turns out to be decisive and casts light uponmajor doctrinal issuesWhereas in Philo angelology fluctuates between ontology (angels as λόγοι)cosmology (angels as δαίμονες and ἥρωες) andpolitical theology (angels as δυνά-μεις) it seems quite clear that for ps-Dionysius angelology has nothing to dowith ontology or cosmology but takes the form of a practical theory of hierar-chy We may assume that what made ps-Dionysius choose between the possi-bilities expounded in Philo and therefore solve the inner difficulties of Philo-nian angelology was the major turn in Platonic metaphysics represented by

88 Ibid VI 1077 (trans 429)89 For a different view of ps-Dionysiusrsquo reading of henadology see Lankila (2014)


late Neoplatonism The distinction between henadology and ontology enablesone to make a clear division between the question of being (οὐσία) and that oforder (τάξις) More precisely the distinction enables one to conceive order in anon-ontological frame and therefore to distinguish angelology from its Platonicmetaphysical and cosmological background The Neoplatonic roots of hierar-chy are to be found neither in Neoplatonic angelology90 nor in Neoplatonicontology but in henadology

Bibliography

Primary SourcesAristotle On Sophistical Refutations On Coming-to-be and Passing-away ed and transES Forster On the Cosmos ed and trans DJ Furley LondonmdashCambridge (Mass)1955

Philo in 10 volumes ed and trans FH Colson and GH Whitaker Cambridge (Mass)1929ndash1962

Proclus Elements of Theology trans ER Dodds Oxford 1963 (1st edition 1933)ProclusCommentary onPlatorsquosParmenides trans GRMorrow and JMDillon Prince-ton 1987

Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite The Complete Works trans C Luibheid New YorkmdashMahwah 1987

ThomasAquinasTractatusde substantiis separatis ed and trans FJ LescoeWestHart-ford (Conn) 1962

Thomas Aquinas Commentary on the Book of Causes trans VA Guagliardo CR Hessand RC Taylor Washington DC 1996

Secondary LiteratureAgambenG (2011)TheKingdomand theGlory For aTheologicalGenealogy of Economyand Government (Homo Sacer II 2) trans L Chiesa and M Mandarini Stanford

G Agamben E Coccia (ed) (2009) Angeli Ebraismo Cristianesimo Islam Vicenza2009

Butler EP (2003) ldquoThe Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclusrdquo unpublished PhD dis-sertation New School for Social Research New York

Butler EP (2005) ldquoPolytheism and Individuality in the Henadic ManifoldrdquoDionysius23 83ndash104

90 Concerning angelology the main Neoplatonic text is book II of IamblichusrsquoDe MysteriisThe best study of Neoplatonic angelology as such remains Cumont (1915)

266 casas

Butler EP (2008a) ldquoThe Gods and Being in ProclusrdquoDionysius 26 93ndash114Butler EP (2008b) ldquoThe IntelligibleGods in the PlatonicTheology of ProclusrdquoMeacutethexis21 131ndash143

Carlier C (2008) La citeacute de Moiumlse Le peuple Juif chez Philon drsquoAlexandrie TurnhoutChlup R (2012) Proclus An Introduction CambridgeCumont F (1915) ldquoLes anges du paganismerdquoRevue de lrsquohistoire des religions 12 159ndash182Dahl NA Segal A (1978) ldquoPhilo and the Rabbis on the Names of Godrdquo in Journal forthe Study of Judaism 91 1ndash28

Decharneux B (1994) Lrsquoange le devin et le prophegravete Chemins de la parole dans lrsquooeuvrede Philon drsquoAlexandrie dit laquo le juifraquo Brussels

Decharneux B (2011) ldquoLe Logos philonien comme fondation paradoxale de lrsquoEacutevan-gile de Jeanrdquo in Philon drsquoAlexandrie Un penseur agrave lrsquo intersection des cultures greacuteco-romaine orientale juive et chreacutetienne ed S Inowlocki B Decharneux and B BerthoTurnhout 317ndash333

Dillon J (1983) ldquoPhilorsquos doctrine of angelsrdquo in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria ACommentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis ed D Winston andJ Dillon Chico (Ca) 197ndash206

Gersh S (1978) From Iamblichus to Eriugena An Investigation of the Prehistory andEvo-lution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition Leiden

Gersh S (2014) ldquoProclus as theologianrdquo in S Gersh (ed) Interpreting Proclus FromAntiquity to the Renaissance Cambridge 80ndash107

Gueacuterard C (1982) ldquoLa theacuteorie des heacutenades et la mystique de ProclusrdquoDionysius 6 73ndash82

Hadot P (1960) ldquoEcirctre Vie Penseacutee chez Plotin et avant Plotinrdquo in Les sources de PlotinVandœuvres-Genegraveve (Fondation Hardt) 107ndash141

Hadot P (1968) Porphyre et Victorinus ParisHankey WJ (1992) ldquoDionysius dixit Lex divinitatis est ultima per media reducererdquoAquinas hierocracy and the ldquoaugustinisme politiquerdquoMedioevo 18 119ndash150

Hathaway R (1969) Hierarchy and the definition of order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius A Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings TheHague

Lankila T (2014) ldquoThe Corpus Areopagiticum and Proclusrsquo Divine Interfacerdquo in Geor-gian Christian Thought and its Cultural Context Memorial Volume for the 125th Anni-versary of Shalva Nutsubidze (1888ndash1969) ed T Nutsubidze CB Horn and B LourieacuteLeidenmdashBoston 69ndash80

Lossky V (1930) ldquoLa notion des lsquoanalogiesrsquo chez Denys le pseudo-AreacuteopagiterdquoArchivesdrsquohistoire doctrinale et litteacuteraire duMoyen-acircge 5 279ndash309

Luscombe DE (1976) ldquoThe ldquoLex Divinitatisrdquo in the Bull ldquoUnam Sanctamrdquo of Pope Boni-face VIIIrdquo in Church and Government in the Middle Ages eds CNL Brooke et alCambridge 205ndash221


Luscombe DE (1980) ldquoConceptions of Hierarchy before the Thirteenth Centuryrdquo inSoziale Ordnungen im Selbverstaumlndnis des Mittelalters ed A Zimmermann Berlin-New York 1ndash19

Luscombe DE (2008) ldquoThe Hierarchies in the Writings of Alan of Lille William ofAuvergne and St Bonaventurerdquo in Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry TheirFunction and Significance ed I Iribarren and M Lenz Aldershot-Burlington 15ndash28

MacIsaac G (2007) ldquoThe Origin of Determination in the Neoplatonism of Proclusrdquo inDivine Creation in Ancient Medieval and Early Modern Thought Essays Presented tothe Revrsquod Dr Robert D Crouse ed M TreschowW Otten andW Hannam LeidenmdashBoston 141ndash172

Mahoney EP (2000) ldquoPseudo-Dionysiusrsquos Conception of Metaphysical Hierarchy andIts Influence onMedieval Philosophyrdquo inDieDionysius-Rezeption imMittelalter edsT Boiadjiev G Kapriev and Speer A Turnhout 429ndash475

OrsquoMeara D (1975) Structures hieacuterarchiques dans la penseacutee de Plotin Eacutetude historique etinterpreacutetative Leiden

OrsquoMeara D (2003) Platonopolis Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity OxfordOrsquoRourke F (1992) Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas LeidenPerl E (2007) Theophany The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the AreopagiteAlbany (NY)

Mesyats S (2012) ldquoIamblichusrsquo Exegesis of Parmenidesrsquo Hypotheses and his Doctrineof Divine Henadsrdquo in E Afonasin J Dillon JF Finamore (eds) Iamblichus and theFoundation of Late Platonism LeidenmdashBoston 151ndash175

Peterson E (2011) Monotheism as Political Problem A Contribution to the History ofPoliticalTheology in theRomanEmpire inTheologicalTractates transMJ HollerichStanford

Radice R (2009) ldquoPhilorsquos Theology and Theory of Creationrdquo in The Cambridge Com-panion to Philo ed A Kamesar Cambridge 124ndash145

Wolfson HA (1962) Philo Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism Christianiyand Islam vol I Cambridge (Mass) 1962

Robertson D (2008)Word and Meaning in Ancient Alexandria Theories of Languagefrom Philo to Plotinus Aldershot

Roques R (1954) Lrsquounivers dionysien Structure hieacuterarchique dumonde selon le Pseudo-Denys Paris

SaffreyHDWesterink LG (1978) ldquoLa doctrine des heacutenades divines chez Proclus orig-ine et significationrdquo in Proclus Theacuteologie platonicienne III Paris IXndashLXXVII

Sheldon-Williams IP (1972) ldquoHenads and angels Proclus and the ps-Dionysiusrdquo Stu-dia Patristica 11 65ndash71

Smith A (1974) Porphyryrsquos Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition A Study in Post-PlotinianNeoplatonism The Hague

268 casas

Stock W-M (2008) Theurgisches Denken Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des DionysiusAreopagita BerlinmdashNew York

Timotin A (2012) La deacutemonologie platonicienne Histoire de la notion de daimōn dePlaton aux derniers neacuteoplatoniciens LeidenmdashBoston


Dionysius the Areopagite on AngelsSelf-Constitution versus Constituting Gifts

Marilena Vlad

In this paper I discuss Dionysiusrsquo views on how the Godhead constitutes thefirst intelligible beings ie the angels what it means for angels to receive theconstitutive gift of their own being and whether or not they can renounce itI start with a short exposition of Proclusrsquo perspective for whom intelligiblebeings are capable of self-constitution which guarantees their self-sufficiencyand allows them to determine their ownmanner of being The goal of my anal-ysis is to prove that though they do not have the capacity of self-constitutionangels inDionysiusrsquo perspective receive fromGod togetherwith the gift of theirconstitution the ability to act freely I also intend to show that these gifts arenot contingent but constitutivemdashhence they cannot be deposedmdash nonethe-less they do not limit or constrain the receiver to be or to act in a determinedmanner

Proclus on Self-Constitution

How does the first principle constitute being andwhat does it mean for beingsto be constituted In the history of Neoplatonic thought this question is linkedto the idea of self-constitution which was used in order to clarify two thingson the one hand that the first principle and cause of all things cannot be itselfconstitutedby somethingprior to it and on theother hand that the things pro-duced by the first principle cannot be simple contingent effects but must havea certain degree of self-sufficiency Plotinus argues the first claim We cannotindefinitely move from a constituting cause to another prior cause but ratherthere must be a first causeless principle This implies that the first principlemust be self-constituted ldquoif his will comes from himself and is the same thingas his existence then in this way he will have brought himself into existence(αὐτὸς ἂν οὕτως ὑποστήσας ἂν εἴη αὐτόν) so that he is not what he happened tobe but what he himself willedrdquo1

1 Plotinus Enneads VI 8 [39] 1355ndash59 (trans Armstrong)

270 vlad

Proclus does not maintain Plotinusrsquo view but understands self-constitutiondifferently noticing that it implies a certain duality and inner process whichcannot be applied to the absolute One but rather to the level of being He iden-tifies three types of causes the One which is above self-constitution and is theuniversal cause of all things the henads which determine things in their diver-sity and are more specific causes but are also situated above self-constitutionself-constituted beings (αὐθυπόστατον) like Intellect and the soul2 Further wecan only speak about things that are caused by something external and hencedistinct from themselves3 The self-constituted beings are ldquoproduced (παρα-γόμενα) indeed but generated self-productively (αὐτογόνως) from their owncausesrdquo (ie from the henads) moreover the self-constituted beings are ldquoalsoproductive of other thingsrdquo4Proclus uses self-constitution in order to make sense of the structure of the

world which starts from a single unitary principle but then develops towardsplurality Self-constitution answers at least three possible problems First itavoids the consequence that intelligible being be transformed into amere con-tingent effect of the henads If intelligible being is simply produced by a priorcause it risks having no freedom of manifestation Or as self-constituted theintelligible being determines its own manner of being Second it shows howtheOne as a unique principle can account for amultiplicity of determinationsand distinctions inside being without becoming affected by plurality Thus theOne is the cause of the existence of all things as well as of their unity whiletheir differences come from their own manner of acting and of determiningthemselves as self-constituted beings5 Third self-constitution distinguishesbetween things that are simply caused by anothermdashand thus simple effectsof causes that surpass them altogethermdashand things that though caused bythe one and simple cause of all are also a result of their own willful and self-aware causation Otherwise reality would simply be made up of things thatare unaware of their own cause and also of the being that they received Thus

2 On self-constitution seeWhittaker (1974) See also Riggs (2015) on how soul unitarily consti-tutes itself

3 What is not self-constituted is either subordinate and caused by the self-constituted or supe-rior to the self-constituted See Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides 78611ndash16

4 Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides 11518ndash18 (trans Morrow and Dillon)5 In this sense MacIsaac (2007) notices ldquoThen it becomes clear that the determination of any

given taxis is due to itself not to its cause Of course it is due to its cause thatwe can say a taxisis an image of its cause but with the very strong sense that what it ismdashits manner of beingan imagemdashis due to itself This is what Proclusmeans by the doctrine of self-sufficiencyself-constitutionself-motionrdquo (p 166)

dionysius the areopagite on angels 271

self-constitution is the very condition of knowledgeWithout self-constitutionnothing can know itself or anything else To know is to be able to revert toitself which depends on the possibility of proceeding from itself and of beingin itself Without this inner process of both proceeding and reverting to itselfno knowledge and no consciousness would be possible In this sense in Pro-clusrsquo perspective self-constitution goes hand in hand with self-reversion andself-knowledge6

Dionysius and the All-Constituting One-God

When we turn to Dionysius the Areopagite we notice that there is no traceof self-constituted (αὐθυπόστατον) being This might be surprising given thefact that Proclusrsquo influence uponDionysius has been proven to be undeniable7It is true that Proclusrsquo treatise on The Existence of Evil does not approach thistopic though this treatise is commonly thought to be themost influential uponDionysius8 Yet this topic is important in Proclusrsquo worldview since it guaran-tees that the intelligible beingmdashas well as the soulmdashbe an intellective beingknowing itself and determining its own inner activity9Dionysius however does not avail of self-constitution He does not speak

about it at any level either at the level of the One like Plotinus or after theOne as does Proclus What is even more striking is that he explicitly suggeststhat beside the absolute One which is God the only principle of every existingthing there cannot be any other cause TheOne-God is the absolute cause of allthings and also the cause that effectivelymakes things exist as such giving eachone its particular manner of being without passing through the mediation ofthe henads10 No other level of reality can be the cause of any other being nor

6 Cf Proclus Elements of Theology 17 42 and 83 See also Steel (1998) who shows that ldquolaconversion vers soi est en mecircme temps une constitution de soi-mecircmerdquo (p 163) and thatldquola veacuteritable conversion vers soi nrsquoest pas un simplemouvement drsquo introspection [hellip]maisun processus ontologique Lrsquoauto-conversion deacutefinit lrsquo essence mecircme de lrsquoacircme en tantqursquoecirctre automoteur (prop 17)rdquo (p 167) See also Gerson (1997)

7 Cf Koch (1895) Stiglmayr (1895) Saffrey (1990) (2000)8 Cf Steel (1997)9 MacIsaac (2007) notices ldquothe determination which Nous gives rise to is self-constitution

itself ie receiving onersquos good through self-reversion and the determination which Soulgives rise to is a secondary sort of self-constitution ie temporal self-reversionrdquo (p 159)

10 Sheldon-Williams (1972) shows the radical difference between Dionysius and Proclusregarding the henads ldquoThe word lsquohenadrsquo is hardly ever used at all and only once with

272 vlad

of itself In what follows we will analyze what it means for the One to consti-tute thingsWe discuss how Dionysius solves this problem without recourse toself-constituted entities Afterwards we will discuss how this manner of con-stitution is enacted in the case of the angels which in Dionysiusrsquo perspectiveare the first to receive existence fromGodWewill see that though they do notconstitute themselves angels are not simple contingent effects of the OneGod is ldquothe One the Superunknowable the Transcendent Goodness-itself

that is theTriadicUnityrdquo11ThisOne is the ldquoCauseof all existencerdquo12 the ldquoone sin-gle universal causerdquo13 of all14 which produces every being15 As such theOne isdescribed as ὑποστάτης ie as that which gives reality to each and every thingldquoHe is lsquoall in allrsquo as scripture affirms and certainly he is to be praised as being forall things the creator (πάντων ὑποστάτις) and originatorrdquo16 And yet thismannerof constituting all things raises a problem because theOne seems to constituteall things and at the same time be all the things that he constitutes Howeverthis view risks suggesting that the One constitutes itself because it constituteswhat it isFor Dionysius the One-God is constitutive (ὑποστάτις) of every level of real-

ity from being to life intellection andwisdom Yet he constitutes these layersof reality because he is every one of them in a causal manner Thus the Oneis ldquothe beingrdquo (Ὁ ὢν) but it also constitutes the fact of being (τοῦ εἶναι [hellip]

reference to the angels Elsewhere it always expresses the Divine Unity as distinguishedexplicitly or implicitly from the Trinity Therefore the word is never with one exceptionfound in the plural This contrasts startlingly with the usage not only of Proclus but alsoof Syrianus and Iamblichus [hellip] Secondly Proclus draws a distinction between the termhenad and monad reserving the latter for the unparticipated cause which is found atthe beginning of every chain of causes whereas for the ps-Dionysius as for Syrianus andTheon and also for Plato himself [hellip] the terms are synonymous for instance he speaksof the Thearchy asmonas hellip kai henas trisupostatosrdquo (p 69)

11 Dionysius Divine Names I 5 p 1168ndash9 Throughout this article we cite with minor mod-ifications Colm Luibheidrsquos translation (Pseudo-Dionysius The Complete Works PaulistPress New York 1987) unless otherwise indicated We also use the Greek text Cor-pus Dionysiacum I ed Beate Regina Suchla and Corpus Dionysiacum II ed G Heil andAM Ritter Berlin New York 1990ndash1991

12 DN I 1 p 10915 αἴτιον μὲν τοῦ εἶναι πᾶσιν13 See for instance DN IX 4 p 2106 μίαν καὶ ἑνικὴν [hellip] αἰτίαν See also DN I 3 p 11112 ldquocause

and principle of allrdquo (πάντων ἐστὶν αἰτία καὶ ἀρχὴ)14 In the Elements of Theology 11 1 Proclus also speaks about a unique cause from which all

things proceed Yet for Proclus different levels of reality depend on different henads15 DN II 11 p 1362 παράγει τὰς ὅλας οὐσίας16 DN I 7 pp 11913ndash1201


ὑποστάτις) as well as every manner of being17 The One is the ldquodivine liferdquo (ἡθεία ζωή) but it also constitutes life-itself18 as well as every form of life Asldquowisdom-itselfrdquo and ldquodivine wisdomrdquo the One constitutes the reality of all wis-dom19 This divinewisdom is the constitutive cause ldquoof Wisdom-itself of mindof reason and of all sense perceptionrdquo20 Ultimately the One is constitutive ofevery thing and of every aspect of being of resemblance-itself21 of equality-itself22 of peace-itself23 God constitutes being-itself life-itself etc and alsothose who receive these participating in them24Whereas in Proclusrsquo view the actual causation of distinct types of reality

would be the task of the henads for Dionysius different manners of beingare constituted directly by the One which is the cause of all25 Yet how arewe to understand being-itself life-itself and all similar concepts Dionysiussees them as the causes of existing things Thus for instance being-itself isdescribed as the cause of the being of all things26 The same thing can beinferred about the rest of them life-itself power-itself etc Dionysius says thatthese have ldquoan absolute and primary existence derived ultimately from Godrdquo27Yet none of these should be understood as a ldquodifferent divinityrdquo (ἄλλην θεό-τητα) ie different from the One ldquothe absolute being underlying individualmanifestations of being as their cause is not a divine or an angelic being [hellip]Nor have we to do with some other life-producing divinity distinct from that

17 DN V 4 p 18218ndash20 ldquoThe God lsquowho isrsquo transcends everything by virtue of his power Heis the substantive Cause and maker of being subsistence of existence of substance andof naturerdquo (Ὁὢν ὅλου τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ δύναμιν ὑπερούσιός ἐστιν ὑποστάτις αἰτία καὶ δημιουργὸςὄντος ὑπάρξεως ὑποστάσεως οὐσίας φύσεως)

18 DN VI 1 p 1912ndash3 ldquoso now I say that the divine Life beyond life is the giver and creator oflife-itself (τῆς αὐτοζωῆς ἐστιν [hellip] ὑποστατική)rdquo

19 DN VII 1 p 1935ndash7 ldquolet us give praise to the good and eternal Life for being wise for beingthe principle of wisdom the subsistence of all wisdomrdquo (ὡς σοφὴν καὶ ὡς αὐτοσοφίαν ὑμνῶ-μεν μᾶλλον δὲ ὡς πάσης σοφίας ὑποστατικὴν) See also DN VII 1 p 19420ndash1952

20 DN VII 2 p 1961ndash2 σοφίας αὐτῆς καὶ πάσης καὶ νοῦ παντὸς καὶ λόγου καὶ αἰσθήσεως πάσης ἡθεία σοφία καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία καὶ ὑποστάτις

21 DN IX 1 p 2083ndash4 τῆς αὐτοομοιότητος ὑποστάτης See also DN XI 6 p 212722 DN IX 10 p 2142 τῆς αὐτοϊσότητος ὑποστάτην23 DN XI 2 p 21818ndash19 τῆς αὐτοειρήνης καὶ τῆς ὅλης καὶ τῆς καθrsquo ἕκαστόν ἐστιν ὑποστάτις24 DN XI 6 p 2231ndash325 See G Casasrsquos contribution in the present volume who shows that Dionysius does not

accept the existence of henads but ldquoreinterprets them as divine namesrdquo (p 255)26 DN XI 6 p 2226ndash7 τὸ αὐτοεῖναι τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα πάντα αἰτίαν27 DN XI 6 p 2223ndash4 ὅσα ἀπολύτως καὶ ἀρχηγικῶς εἶναι καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πρώτως ὑφεστηκέναι

274 vlad

supra-divine life which is the originating Cause [hellip] of life-itselfrdquo28 MoreoverDionysius explicitly detaches himself from those who affirm the existence ofldquothose originating and creative beings and substances which men describe ascertain gods or creators of the worldrdquo29 This indication seems to match themanner in which Proclus describes the henads as divinities or gods30 YetDionysius denies that such distinct divinities could exist For him being-itselflife-itself and all the like are nothing but God himself or to put it differentlyonly God himself is each of these being-itself life-itself etcYet as Dionysius reckons he deliberately engages in a certain ambiguity

referring to God sometimes as life-itself (or being-itself wisdom-itself etc)while at other times he refers to God as being constitutive of these In thissense he invokes Timothyrsquos objection formulated in a letter ldquowhy I some-times call God lsquolife-itself rsquo (αὐτοζωή) and sometimes lsquoconstitutive of life-itself rsquo(τῆς αὐτοζωῆς ὑποστάτην)rdquo31 Though there seems to be circularity in Dionysiusrsquoperspective he maintains that there is no contradiction between these twomanners of referring to God32 ldquoThe former names are derived from beingsespecially the primary beings and they are given toGodbecause he is the causeof all beings The latter names are put up because he is transcendentally supe-rior to everything including the primary beingsrdquo33This however does not seem to solve the problem or to distinguish clearly

ldquolife-itselfrdquo from its producer On the contrary it makes it even more compli-catedGod transcends life-itself yet he also constitutes life-itself he is life-itselfand produces everything that participates in life Still this explanation suggestsa process through which the transcendent God comes to be the cause of every-thing Let us consider the rest of the passage whereinDionysius tries to explainwhat life-itself being-itself and all the rest are

28 DN XI 6 p 2226ndash1029 DN XI 6 p 22210ndash12 οὔτε συνελόντα εἰπεῖν ἀρχικὰς τῶν ὄντων καὶ δημιουργικὰς οὐσίας καὶ

ὑποστάσεις ἅς τινες καὶ θεοὺς τῶν ὄντων καὶ δημιουργοὺς αὐτοσχεδιάσαντες ἀπεστομάτισαν30 Proclus Elements of Theology 1141ndash231 DN XI 6 p 22115ndash16 (trans Luibheid modified)32 DN XI 6 p 22118ndash2033 DN XI 6 pp 22120ndash2222 Referring to this passage Gersh (2014) notices that ldquoThe

same thesis also permits the identification of the three terms ldquounparticipatedrdquo (amethek-ton) ldquoparticipatedrdquo (metechomenon metochē) and ldquoparticipatingrdquo (metechon)mdasha struc-ture which introduces a doubling into the Platonic Formsmdashwith the transcendent medi-ating transcendent and non-transcendent and non-transcendent term respectivelyrdquo(p 87)


In a principial divine and causal manner being-itself (αὐτοεῖναι) life-itself (αὐτοζωή) and divinity-itself (αὐτοθεότητα) is the unique [hellip] princi-ple and cause of all yet in a participativemanner these are the providen-tial powers given from the unparticipated God namely substantiation-itself (αὐτοουσίωσις) enlivening-itself (αὐτοζώωσις) and deification-itself(αὐτοθέωσις) participating in thesemdasheach in its proper mannermdashbeingsare and are said to be existing and living and deified (ἔνθεα) and such-like This is why the good is first called constitutive of these [hellip] thenof those who participate in them [hellip] Some of our sacred teachers saythat the super-good and super-divine is constitutive of goodness-itselfand of divinity [itself] saying that goodness-itself and divinity are giftsmdashgranting good and divinitymdashcoming forth from God34

From this passage we get two apparently contradictory claims about the One-God which constitutes being-itself life-itself goodness-itself and divinity-itself On the one hand goodness-itself being-itself and divinity-itself aredescribed as Godrsquos ldquogiftsrdquo On the other hand however they are described asbeing the very principle and cause of all things the One-God Thus God seemsto be identical with his own ldquogiftsrdquo though at the same time he constitutesthese ldquogiftsrdquoDoes this imply that God constitutes himself in a certain manner If so

could we invoke Plotinian self-constitution or rather Proclusrsquo interpretationof it It definitely does not have anything to do with Proclusrsquo interpretation ofself-constitution sinceDionysius does not refer to the intellect but to the abso-lute One itself On a closer look it is also obvious that we are not dealing withPlotinusrsquo idea of self-constitution since Dionysius does not suggest that Godconstitutes himself directly Rather in a two-step dialectic God constitutes hisgifts but he also iswhat he constitutesGod constitutes goodness-itself being-itself life-itself etc These are his

gifts He makes them exist because he transcends them but he also is all thesebecause he is the cause of everything This means that in a certain way Godwho transcends everything also constitutes himself as gift He gives as a giftwhat he is as transcendent principle as God and as cause (ἀρχικῶς μὲν καὶ θεϊ-κῶς καὶ αἰτιατικῶς)How is this possible and how can this apparent contradiction be surmount-

ed The answer lies in the status of the ldquogiftrdquo Actually what God gives is not adetermined gift limited in itself and limiting anddetermining the receiver God

34 DN XI 6 pp 22213ndash2237 (my trans)

276 vlad

does not produce something else something different from himself What isproduced as a result of this constitution is rather a power to give God gives thegiving his gifts consist in the power of imparting the gift of any possible type ofreality Thus for instance goodness-itself is described as a ldquogood-granting giftrdquo(ἀγαθοποιὸν hellip δωρεάν) This means that the gift consists not in a limited anddetermined good but in the power of the goodness to grant what it is and tobe received as suchMoreover all these gifts (which are identical with God) are also described as

Godrsquos ldquoprovidential powersrdquo and they are called substantiation-itself (αὐτοου-σίωσιν) enlivening-itself (αὐτοζώωσιν) and deification-itself (αὐτοθέωσιν) Eachof these gifts links three aspects the giver (the One-God) the gift (being-itselflife-itself etc) and the receiving (substantiation-itself enlivening-itself etc)Being-itself and substantiation-itself are two necessary sides of one same giftthe gift of being also implies the power of ldquosubstantiationrdquo or of rendering be-ing God constitutes being-itself and substantiation-itself then those that par-ticipate in these Thus all things participate in the providential powers givenby God While God remains unparticipatedmdashbecause he is these ldquohellip -itselfrdquo ina causal and divine mannermdash things participate not in the giver but in thegifts which consist in the power of rendering a certain manner of existingFor Dionysius constitution means giving in the sense that the Godhead

despite its transcendence is not static and objective but rather dynamic andto give is its proper manner of manifestation The Godhead manifests throughthis dynamic in which it gives itself as a super-good constituting itself as giftMore precisely what God constitutes it not a certain thing exterior to himselfbut rather the very gift ie himself as a gift himself as giving himself He consti-tutes himself not because he gives existence to himself but in the sense that hemakes of himself a gift thus imparting to all things what he is in a causal man-ner He constitutes himself not in the sense that he was not already existentprior to this but in the sense that the transcendentmakes of himself a gift thuscausing everything to be Producing all things does not imply going out of him-self and involving himself with plurality (a problemwhichmade Proclus inter-pose the henads between the One and beings) Each and every thing can existbecauseGod gives themexistence and it gives existence through being himselfthe gift of all things or through constituting himself as gift to every thingThere is a nuanced distinction between giver and giving in Dionysiusrsquo per-

spective God is not simply the giver ie the source the cause which giveswhatit does not have as in Plotinusrsquo perspective35 Rather God is both the giver and

35 Plotinus Enneads V 3 [49] 1536ndash41 See also V 3 [49] 1418ndash19 V 5 [32] 61ndash11 the One is theprinciple of being because it is not itself being but above it


the gift God constitutes the gift in himself and in this way he constitutes thedifferent layers of reality by constituting himself as the gift of each of theselayers He constitutes himself not objectively (which would imply a distinctionbetween the agent and the effect of the constitution) butmodally God as giveris also God as gift It is in this sense that Dionysius maintains that there is nocontradiction in saying that God is both the cause of life-itself and also the life-itselfThis is not to say that God causes himself as if he would be dual (as in Pro-

clusrsquo warning about self-constitution) but that God constitutes the gift whichhe himself is and which is primarily and causally in himself There is no roledistribution like in Proclusrsquo view on the one hand the transcendent One andthen thehenadswhichproducebut arenot produced followedby intellect andsoul which are constituted and self-constituted Rather for Dionysius all thesedistinct ldquorolesrdquo implicated in Proclusrsquo perspective are linked together in the soleact of giving in which God constitutes all the gifts (being-itself life-itself etc)with which he identifies himself as well as the things which are constitutedthrough receiving these gifts36This active and productive sense of the gift is also underlined by the match

between the gift and the receiver the gift (for instance the divinization) isdescribed as being given to those who are becoming godlike this shows howthe gift links the giver with all existing things for which to be is to receive thegift The gift is not independent of its giver or of its receiver Thus constitutingthe gifts that he himself is in a causal manner God also constitutes everythingbecause the beings correspond to these gifts and consist in receiving thesegifts Thus God reaches all that exists He is ldquo[hellip] enlightenment of the illu-minated Source of perfection for those being made perfect source of divinityfor those being deified [hellip] It is the Life of the living the being of the beings itis the Source and the Cause of all life and of all being for out of its goodnessit commands all things to be and it keeps them goingrdquo37 Just as there is noth-ing external to God whichwould be produced as an independent gift likewisethere is no independent receiver outside the gift which would lay hold of thegift but the gift is the very substance and nature of the receiver because thegift makes the receiver be what it is The receiver is in the gift as a dispositionto receive it

36 DN XI 6 p 2231ndash3 Διὸ καὶ πρῶτον αὐτῶν ὁ ἀγαθὸς ὑποστάτης λέγεται εἶναι εἶτα τῶν ὅλωναὐτῶν εἶτα τῶν μερικῶν αὐτῶν εἶτα τῶν ὅλως αὐτῶν μετεχόντων εἶτα τῶν μερικῶς αὐτῶν μετε-χόντων

37 DN I 3 p 11117ndash1126

278 vlad

Constitution of the Angels

But how does this ldquoconstitutionrdquo affect the things after the One What does itmean for them to be constituted only by the One rather than self-constitutedFor Proclus the first kind of being constituted after the One was the divineintellect which also constituted itself ie its own manner of being For Diony-sius there is no divine intellect distinct from the One After the One-God thefirst distinct manner of being is that of the angels38 Angels are described assuper-heavenly beings39 as super-heavenly intellects40 supreme intellects41and ldquoformless intellectsrdquo42 as super-heavenly lives43 and as supra-celestialpowers44 The One in its turn is situated beyond the super-heavenly lights ofthe intellects45 It is from theOne that angels receive being46 intelligible light47and life48 while the One is called ldquobeingrdquo ldquoliferdquo ldquointellectrdquo and ldquolightrdquo as causeand giver of all of theseHow exactly are angels created and how do they receive their being The

One-God knows the angels before their existence and thus brings them intobeing49 giving them not only their simple fact of being but also all their spe-cific intellective movements50 Angels are produced through an extension ofthe goodness of the One-God More precisely they are produced through therays of goodness of the Good extending into all existing things though firmlyremaining in itself51 Through these rays exist ldquoall intelligible and intelligent

38 We refer to angels in the broad sense which includes all the orders of the intelligiblebeings (seeDionysiusCelestialHierarchy V p 2520ndash23) andnot just to the last and lowestorder of them

39 Dionysius Celestial Hierarchy VI 1 p 261 τῶν ὑπερουρανίων οὐσιῶν40 DN I 4 p 1153ndash4 τῶν ὑπερουρανίων νοῶν See also CH I 3 p 912 CH VI 1 p 26541 CH VII 2 p 2819 τῶν ὑπερτάτων νοῶν See also CH XIII 4 p 471942 CH II 1 p 1010 τῶν ἀσχηματίστων νοῶν43 DN VI 2 p 19111 ὑπερουρανίαις ζωαῖς44 DN II 8 p 1327 ὑπερουρανίαις δυνάμεσιν45 DN II 4 p 1283ndash746 DN V 8 p 1864ndash647 DN IV 5 p 14911ndash1248 DN VI 1 p 1905ndash6 See also DN VI 2 p 19111ndash12 ldquoOver the living heavenly lives it bestows

their immaterial divine and unchangeable immortalityrdquo49 DN VII 2 p 19614ndash15 πρὶν ἀγγέλους γενέσθαι εἰδὼς καὶ παράγων ἀγγέλους50 DN VIII 4 p 20122ndash2022 ldquoCertainly it is from this that there emerge the godlike powers

of the ranks of angels It is from here that they derive the immutability of what they areand their perpetual movements of intellect (τὰς νοερὰς [hellip] ἀεικινησίας) and immortalityrdquo

51 CH I 2 p 87ndash8 μένει τε ἔνδον ἑαυτῆς ἀραρότως ἐν ἀκινήτῳ ταὐτότητι μονίμως πεπηγυῖα


beingsrdquo (ὑπέστησαν αἱ νοηταὶ καὶ νοεραὶ πᾶσαι) they have ldquoundiminished livesrdquoand think ldquoin a super-mundane wayrdquo (ὡς νόες ὑπερκοσμίως νοοῦσι)52 Thus eachof the three aspects characterizing angels as intelligible being (ie being lifeand thinking) is dependent on the rays of goodness is received from them andworks and acts through them In everything they do angels do not act on theirown but as manifestations of the Good and of its rays of goodness Everythingthey are and every manner in which they manifest is directly received fromGodrsquos goodness They come from it remain in it and tend to revert to it Theyreceive their remaining (τὴν μονὴν) as well as their being (τὸ εἶναι) from Godrsquosgoodness (ἐκ τῆς ἀγαθότητος) for which they also yearn (αὐτῆς ἐφιέμεναι)53Angels have the form of the Good they are imprinted with the model of the

good and they consist in manifesting the good ldquofrom it [ie from the good-ness] they have the being and the well-being and they are imprinted with itsmodel as far as possible and have the form of the good (ἀγαθοειδεῖς εἰσι) andthey communicate with those below themrdquo54 For them it is the same thing tobe to be good to receive the form of the good and to manifest the good Thegift they receivemdashie the form of the goodmdashdoes not consist in anything elsethan in giving the good communicating it manifesting it Thus angels receivethe gift of the Good ie the form of the good which requires them to manifestthe Good and to reveal the hidden goodness of the Good ldquoFrom this Source itwas given [as a gift ἐδωρήθη] to them to exemplify the Good to manifest thathidden goodness in themselves to be so to speak the angelic messengers ofthe divine source to reflect the light glowing in the inner sanctuaryrdquo55As such angels are what theymanifest they are in the form of the gift what

God is as cause and as giver

If the angel which has the form of the Good (ἀγαθοειδὴς) announces thedivine goodness and ismdashby participation and in a second degreemdashwhatthe announced one is causally and originally then the angel is an imageof God and a manifestation of the invisible light an untouched trans-parent unbroken unblemished and blameless mirror entirely receiv-ing so to speak the beauty of the divine form of the archetypal good

52 DN IV 1 p 1446ndash12 ldquoThese rays are responsible for all intelligible and intelligent beingsfor every power and every activity Such beings owe their presence and their uneclipsedand undiminished lives to these rays owe them their purification from corruption [hellip]They owe them too their immunity [hellip] to all that goes with changerdquo

53 DN IV 1 p 14412ndash1454 DN IV 1 p 14414ndash16 (my trans)55 DN IV 2 p 1456ndash9

280 vlad

and which as far as it can purely enlightens in itself the goodness of thesilence in the sanctuary56

Angels consist in this manifestation and transmission of the divine goodnessthat they receive from GodDo angels also present a character of self-constitution self-reversion or self-

knowledge as the highest beings in Proclusrsquo perspective This does not seem tobe the case In fact they are dependent upon their principle in asmuch as theirbeing is concerned and also with regard to their specific activity knowledgeand movement57 Thus for Proclus to be self-constituted means to ldquoderive itsexistence from itself (τὴν οὐσίαν ἂν παρrsquo ἑαυτοῦ ἔχοι)rdquo and hence to be ldquothesource of its ownwell-being [hellip] the source of its ownbeing and responsible forits own existence as a substance (τῆς ἑαυτοῦ κύριον ὑποστάσεως)rdquo58 On the con-trary Dionysius insists on showing that the being of the angels comes from theOne-God as cause of all things59Not only the first andhigher angelic order buteventually all things have their ldquobeing and well-beingrdquo (τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ εὖ εἶναι)ldquofrom it and in itrdquo (πρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ)60 ie from the One-God and in himwhile for Proclus intelligible being has its being and its well-being from itselfand also exists in itself61With regard to their knowledge capacity62 angels are still dependent on

their principle63 For Proclus self-constitution is also essentially an act of

56 DN IV 22 p 16920ndash1705 (my trans)57 Thus for instance the ldquodivine intellectsrdquo (οἱ θεῖοι νόες) providentially move towards sub-

ordinate things in a straight line And yet this movement is never simply a straight onebut always combineswith the circularmovementwhich angels are constantly engaged insince their principal act is that of uniting themselves with the illuminations of the Good(DN IV 8) In this sense the name of the seraphim indicates this everlasting movementspinning around the divinity CH VII 1 p 2714ndash16

58 Proclus Elements of Theology 43 3ndash7 (trans Dodds) See Steel (1998) ldquoLrsquoauto-constituantsignifie la capaciteacute qursquoa lrsquoecirctre de proceacuteder de lui-mecircmerdquo (p 172)

59 DN V 8 p 1861ndash2 ldquofrom this same universal Cause come those intelligent and intelligiblebeings the godlike angelsrdquo

60 DN V 8 p 1869ndash1061 Proclus Elements of Theology 41 2 πᾶν δὲ τὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὂν αὐθυπόστατόν ἐστι62 See Roques (1954) ch V III ldquoLa science dans la hieacuterarchie celesterdquo 154ndash16663 The fact that angels are produced by their principle is preceded by an act of knowledge

Yet the knowledge preceding angelsrsquo substantiation is not their own self-knowledge butrather the pre-knowledge which the One-God has of them and of all other beings ldquoBeforethere are angels he has knowledge of angels and he brings them into beingrdquo (DN VII 2p 19614ndash16)


self-knowledge64 ForDionysius knowledge is constitutive for angels they con-sist precisely in the intelligible light and in the wisdom that they receive fromthe One-God Nevertheless this is not self-knowledge but a capacity to reflectthe One-God Thus for instance the name of the cherubim is explained asbeing a special indication of their capacity of knowingYet this knowing capac-ity is not one that revolves in itself as an ability of a knower to turn to itselfand to know itself in an identity of the known with the knower65 On the con-trary it is ldquothe power to know and to see God to receive the greatest gifts ofhis light to contemplate the divine splendor in primordial power to be filledwith the gifts that bring wisdom and to share these generously with subordi-natesrdquo66In a paradoxical manner angels know what they are but this knowledge

does not turn them towards themselves Thus the cherubrsquos nature consists (asthename indicates) in knowingGod in receivinghis light andwisdomAccord-ingly the cherub knowswhat it is itself ie this light that comes as a gift of Godand that constitutes it Yet this is never simply the light of the cherub so thatit could know it as such and know itself accordingly Rather this light (whichconstitutes the cherub and also explains its name) remains a gift just as thecherub itself is never an isolated being but a gift of God As such the cherubrsquosknowledge never turns to itself but remains a constant knowledge of the giverand of a given light as well as of a received light In knowing this light whichconstitutes it the cherub knows GodThe angelic knowledge is not an intellectual knowledge of intelligible things

but rather a direct receiving of the light shed by theOne-God Thus the angelichierarchies ldquoare lsquocontemplativersquo (θεωρητικὰς) too not because they contem-plate symbols of the senses or themind or because they are uplifted to God byway of a composite contemplation of sacred writings but rather because theyare full of a superior light beyond any knowledge and because they are filledwith a transcendent and triply luminous contemplation of the one who is thecause and the source of all beautyrdquo67 Moreover it is the One-God himself thatrenders angels capable of knowledge and initiates them in the highest divineknowledge ldquoAs those who are the first around God and who are hierarchically

64 For Proclus (Elements of Theology 42 and 83) self-knowledge implies self-constitution65 This is how Proclus explains intellective knowledge see for instance Proclus Elements of

Theology 834ndash7 ldquoknower and known are here one and its cognition has itself as object[hellip] and it is self-reversive since in it the subject knows itselfrdquo (trans Dodds)

66 CH VII 1 p 282ndash667 CH VII 2 p 295ndash8

282 vlad

directed in a supreme way they are initiated into the understandable explana-tions of the divine works by the very source of perfectionrdquo68Furthermore intelligible beings are not characterized by self-reversion in

the sense in which Proclus understands this69 For Dionysius intelligible an-gelic beings are characterized by ldquothe power to be raised upward in an ever-returning movement and the capacity unfailingly to turn (εἰλεῖσθαι) aboutoneself while protecting onersquos own special powers (τῶν οἰκείων οὔσας φρουρη-τικὰς δυνάμεων)rdquo70 While they are constantly engaged in the return to Godtheir activity which is directed to themselves is not self-determining and self-constituting but rather an activity in which they concentrate on themselvesin order to protect this specific power of being ldquoraised upwardrdquo Yet angels arenot giving themselves these powers which they protect while turning to them-selves but they receive them fromGod71 who also ldquorenews all their intellectivepowersrdquo72Even loving oneself is not a genuinemovement of self-reversion but it is still

amanner of loving and desiring the Good ldquobecause of it and for its sake [ie forthe sake of the Good] [hellip] each of them loves oneself in a cohesive mannerrdquo73This ldquocohesionrdquo (συνοχή) itself is presented as a gift coming from Godrsquos good-ness74 whereas for Proclus the intelligible being was capable of giving itselfits own cohesion75Does this mean that angelsmdashwhich are Godlike (θεοειδής) directly created

by the One-God and which remain so close and similar to their causemdasharecompletely dependent on their cause If so do they lack any inner capacityto determine themselves and thereby risk becoming mere contingent entitiesderived from their cause And if not how does Dionysius solve the problemraised by Proclus in the 40th proposition of the Elements of Theology ie theproblemregarding self-sufficiencyHowcanangels bebothdependent on theircause and yet at the same time be fully capable of acting according to theirown wills though they are not self-constituted and self-reverting The answer

68 CH VII 2 p 2919ndash2469 See Proclus Elements of Theology 15ndash17 Cf Steel (1998) especially 167ndash16970 CH XV 1 p 5116ndash18 (trans Luibheid modified)71 See for instance DN VIII 4 p 20122 ldquoit is from this [ie from the Power beyond being] that

there emerge the godlike powers of the ranks of angelsrdquo72 DN IV 6 p 1504 τὰς νοερὰς αὐτῶν ὅλας ἀνανεάζουσα δυνάμεις (trans Luibheid modified)73 DN IV 10 p 1559ndash11 διrsquo αὐτὸ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα [hellip] ἐρῶσι [hellip] καὶ αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστα συνεκτι-

κῶς (my trans)74 DN IV 1 p 1441375 Proclus Elements of Theology 44 11 ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι καὶ ὑφrsquo ἑαυτοῦ συνέχεσθαι καὶ τελειοῦσθαι


lies in the nature of the gifts received from the Good as well as in the mannerin which angels use these giftsAngels are the first intellects that receive the gifts of the Good the form of

theGood being life thinking etcYet these gifts are not amanner of determin-ing the angels imposing on them a certain manner of being On the contrarythey are actually able to give angels the freedom to search for their own goodWhat intellects (and angelic intellects too) receive from the Good as gift is

not something already determined and limited which would also limit theirbeing but it is rather the power to search for the good to desire it and thus toreceive the good according to the height of their desire The gift is never just asimple effect of the giverrsquoswill to give but it is also an effect of the receiverrsquoswillto receive Thus angels receive fromGod the form of the Good but at the sametime they are described as wanting to have the form of the Good and to ldquomodeltheir intellects on himrdquo76 while ldquoforever marching towards the heightsrdquo77 Theform of the Good received as gift also engages the receiver in a constant searchfor the Good78 The Good raises the ldquosacred intellectsrdquo which in their turnldquoraise firmly [hellip] upward in the direction of the ray which enlightens them andwith a love matching the illuminations granted them they take flightrdquo79Not just the good itself but every other particular gift is received in this circu-

lar and reactivemanner producing in the receiver the desire for that particulargift Thus for instance ldquothe Good is described as the light of the mind becauseit illuminates themind of every supra-celestial beingwith the light of themind[hellip] At first it deals out the light in small amounts and then as the wish and thelonging for light begin to grow (μᾶλλον ἐφιεμένων) it gives more and more ofitselfrdquo80 Intellects receive and reflect the divine light (manifesting it and beingits messengers) only in as much as they desire the light They receive the lightin the form of a capacity to want the light Thus the gift consists firstly in thecapacity to desire the giftJust as God which pre-exists wants to give himself as gift and thus what he

gives is not a determined and limited gift but rather first and foremost is thisdisposition of giving so too the intellects which receive the gift receive first

76 CH IV 2 p 213ndash577 CH IV 2 p 217ndash978 Perl (2010) notices that for Dionysius ldquoreversion no less than procession is the very being

of all things and each thingrsquosmode of reversion is its propermode of being All things arethen only in and by desiring God the Good in the ways proper to themrdquo (p 775) See alsoPerl (2008) 41

79 DN I 2 pp 11018ndash1112 (trans Luibheid modified)80 DN IV 5 p 14910ndash18

284 vlad

of all a disposition of receiving To be for them consists in a capacity (given bythe Good) to want the Good which in its turn consists in this giving and notin something limited and determinedThe same thing can be said about knowledge which is received by angels

not as already complete and thus inevitably limited but rather as an abilityto pursue knowledge Angels do not possess divine knowledge once and forall Rather they desire and rise towards the divine illuminations in a cautiousmanner (εὐλαβῶς ἐφίενται) ldquoThe very first of the heavenly beings those whoare so very superior to the others are nevertheless quite like those of moreintermediate status when it comes to desiring enlightenment concerning theGodhead [hellip]Theybeginby exchangingqueries among themselves thus show-ing their eagerness to learn and their desire to know how God operatesrdquo81 It isnot a knowledge already determined and possessed as complete but rather anability to receive knowledge which angels are called to exercise and to fulfillwithout ever leaving this pious caution (εὐλάβεια) This shows that angels knownot through their ownpower but through the initiation transmitted byGodAllother gifts received fromGod present this circular aspect and this involvementof the receiver who needs to want the gift in order to be able to receive itMoreover there is yet another aspect proving that the gift does not limit the

receivers (ie the angels) but rather frees them to find and enact their ownwills and desires Thus the gift is not just a relation between God as giver andthe angels as receivers but it always implies further transmission The angelis not simply the keeper of the gift but communicates it thereby becoming agiver and an agent of the giving82Angels ldquohave the form of the good (ἀγαθοειδεῖς εἰσι) and they communicate

with those below them as requires the divine law of the gifts from the Good(ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ [hellip] δώρων) which pass through themrdquo83 In other words to receivethe gift of the good and to have the form of the goodmeans to be like the Goodwhich consists in bestowing this gift of goodness Just like the Good the angelshave the power to act as bestowers of good Their manner of being consistsprecisely in this initiative of transmitting the good This ldquodivine law of the giftsfrom the Goodrdquo does not restrict the receiver and does not limit it to a certaincontent of good received On the contrary this law prescribes that the receiver

81 CH VII 3 p 3011ndash1782 This transmission is not a unidirectional process but it implies a form of reciprocity and

cooperation between the angelic ranks AsG Casas notices in the present volume (p 251)ldquohierarchical operations carried through by the lower ranks can be attributed to superiorranksrdquo

83 DN IV 1 p 14414ndash17 (my trans)


be itself a giver and thus that the giver also act freely both searching for thegood and bestowing itNonetheless angels are not compelled to bestow the good and thus their

manner of being is not restricted to accomplishing this action On the contrarythey are constantly depicted as wanting and desiring the good as well as desir-ing to bestow the good If they act in a providential manner towards inferiorbeings bestowing the good unto them it is because they essentially desire theGood ldquothe superior providentially loves the subordinate [hellip] and all are stirredto do and to will whatever it is they do and will because of the yarning for theBeautiful and the Goodrdquo84The gift specific to angels is not limited consisting in a certain manner of

being Rather it is an unlimited gift which consists in desiring the Good (τὴνἀνελάττωτον ἔφεσιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) and also in desiring to be so (ie to be a beingdesiring the Good) (ἐφιείσης αὐτοῖς τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ εἶναι ταῦτα καὶ ἐφίεσθαι ἀεὶεἶναι)85 In a circular manner the gift from the Good consists in ldquothe identityand the height of the desire for the Goodrdquo (αἱ περὶ τὴν ἔφεσιν τἀγαθοῦ ταὐτότη-τες καὶ ἀκρότητες)86 This very identity of their desire for the Good also comesfrom Godrsquos goodness The Good gives angels the power to desire the good andto be able to desire it eternally The angels desire to desire ceaselessly their ownexistence which in its turn consists in desiring the Good They do not desire aparticular gift from the Good but they desire the very desire for the Good Thegift thus opens in its receiver an unlimited desire for it or more precisely thegift consists in this unlimited desire itselfBeing Godrsquos image angels have the initiative of transmitting the good and

they manifest as ldquoprovidentialrdquo towards the inferior87 They do this as Godrsquosco-workers (Θεοῦ συνεργὸν)88 and they do this precisely through the rays ofthe Good which give them the power to do so89 Thus every aspect of the

84 DN IV 10 p 15510ndash13 (trans Luibheid modified)85 DN VIII 4 p 2022ndash5 ldquoTheir stability and their ceaseless desire for the Good come from

that infinitely good Power which itself bestows on them their own power and existenceinspiring in them the ceaseless desire for existence giving them the very power to longfor unending powerrdquo (τὴν ἀνελάττωτον ἔφεσιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ πρὸς τῆς ἀπειραγάθου δυνάμεωςεἰλήφασιν αὐτῆς ἐφιείσης αὐτοῖς τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ εἶναι ταῦτα καὶ ἐφίεσθαι ἀεὶ εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸδύνασθαι ἐφίεσθαι τοῦ ἀεὶ δύνασθαι)

86 DN IV 2 p 1451ndash2 (my trans)87 DN IV 2 p 14418ndash2188 CH III 2 p 1816 See also CH III 3 p 1922 and CH VII 4 p 133189 DN IV 1 p 1446ndash12 ldquoThrough these rays exist all the intelligible and intellective beings

[hellip] They enlighten the reasonings of beings and they pass on what they know to theirown kindrdquo (trans Luibheid modified)

286 vlad

gift received by angels (goodness intelligible light being power etc) presentsa certain circularity implying that the gift is not simply received but thatthe receiver willingly desires the gift and also transmits it for the sake ofthe Good Thus for Dionysius though angels are not described as consti-tuting themselvesmdashas in Proclusrsquo perspective on intelligible and intellectualbeingsmdash angels have a specific manner of manifesting their own will theirown power and desire for what they are and for what they do so that the gift oftheir being does not turn them into simple effects of the Good but rather intoGodrsquos co-workers of the good

Can Angels Give Up the Gift

And yet once they receive the gifts from the Good angels can no longer losethem nor can these gifts diminish in them Dionysius insists that to be is to begood and thus existence depends on the gift of goodness from the One-GodOne cannot give up the gift because without it nothing can subsist in any formwhatsoever90 Does this mean that these gifts (which consist in the power tosearch for the good and also to bestow it) limit angels or their will in any waycompelling them to act in a certainwayThe answer is no Since the gifts arenotdetermined but rather consist in an ability to search for the Good angels can-not depose these constitutive gifts but they can choose not to enact them Thisis the case for angelswhohave ldquolapsed from the angelic condition of longing forthe Goodrdquo91 who have chosen not to search for the good and not to transmit itfurther This shows that the gift is in no way limiting or compelling the receiverto act according to the GoodWhat exactly does it mean for the angels to refuse to act according to the

Good Fallen angels still have the gifts they received from the Good and theyhave them entirely92 Yet they no longer see these gifts and they no longerwant to see the Good but rather refrain from activating their power of seeingthe Good More precisely demons do not see these gifts because ldquothey have

90 See for instance DN IV 20 p 1669ndash11 ldquoAll beings to the extent that they exist are goodand come from the Goodrdquo

91 DN IV 18 p 1621192 DN IV 23 p 1722ndash4 ldquoAnd that complete goodness bestowed on themhas not been altered

NoWhat has happened is that they have fallen away from the complete goodness grantedto them and I would claim that the angelic gifts bestowed on them have never beenchanged inherently that in fact they are brilliantly completerdquo


suspended their own powers of seeing the good (ἀπομύσαντες ἑαυτῶν τὰς ἀγα-θοπτικὰς δυνάμεις)rdquo93This proves that the form of the Good is not a determinate one limiting and

forcing the receiver to act in a certain way but rather it implies reactivenessas an effect of its own will the receiver can enter into a relationship with thecause and react to it wanting it searching for it On the contrary fallen angelsno longer enter into this circular relationship with the Good though they havethe power to do so They no longer react to the Good accordingly they receiveno more of the ever-intensifying gifts of the GoodThey even suspend their power to see the gifts from the Good that lay in

themselves They do not suspend the gift itself (because this gift allows themto exist) but they suspend their power to identify this good and to act accord-ingly This means that the gift they have received from the Good is somehowrestricted to themselves they only have it in as much as they exist but the giftis no longer active They suspend their will to increase this gift through activelyengaging with the Good ldquoIn as much as they are they are from the Good aregood and desire the beautiful and the Good by desiring to exist to live and tothink They are called evil because of the deprivation the abandonment therejection of the virtues which are appropriate to them And they are evil to theextent that they are not and insofar as they wish for evil they wish for what isnot really thererdquo94 The evil in them is not a simple privation of good but rathera privation of the wish and desire for the good it is a wish that no longer wantsto desire the good and being but which even as such still manifests as a wishwishing for what is notWhat is striking here is that if fallen angels can cease to want the gift of the

Good they do so on the basis of their essential goodness which remains consti-tutive They can refuse to follow the Good through the power given to them bythe Good (the power of being living and thinking) Accordingly they refrainfrom searching for the Good while they continue somehow to want the goodsince they still want to be to live and to think as such ie as deprived of theform of the Good and as not actively searching for the GoodThus in as much as they no longer want the Good and in as much as they

refrain from wanting it they still want it because they still lead this life ofrefraining from wanting the Good This means that they cannot exist outsidethe Good Yet not wanting the Good does not imply not existing It means theycan activate their will of not wanting the Good and they can live their lives

93 DN IV 23 p 1725ndash6 (my trans)94 DN IV 23 p 1727ndash10 (trans Luibheid modified)

288 vlad

accordingly because they are and they are from the Good This is why theycan be and not be at the same time they are in as much as they are from theGood but they are not in as much as they do not want to be according to theGood Similarly they are said to be intellects coming from the divine wisdombut also abandonment of wisdom95 As intellects they tend towards wisdombecause they still think Yet they do not know and they do not want this Goodwhich is the source of all wisdom They no longer search for wisdom intention-ally nor desire it However this proves their freedom to choose essentially theycannot choose not to be intellects and thus they cannot choose not to tend towisdom Still in a conscious manner they can choose not to want wisdom andnot to search for it and thus not to receive it Thus though they exist throughthe Good they choose to manifest as falling away from the Good96Unlike Proclus for whom the falling away from the good was possible only

at the levels below intellect (in the irrational souls or in bodies) Dionysiusconceives this possibility at any level starting with the intelligible realm andwith angels97 because the good is a gift that is not imposed on the receiverbut which the receiver can choose to want or to refuse For Proclus the self-constituted intellect is the cause of its own good and the source of its well-being98 therefore it cannot fall from the good On the contrary for Dionysiusreceiving the good depends on the desire to act according to the good and toshine forth the good Thus for Proclus angels (and demons and heroes) can-not be touched by evil because ldquohow could we still call the angels messengersof the gods if evil were present in them inwhateverwayrdquo99 ForDionysius how-ever this veryprivationof goodproves the greatness of theGood because ldquoeventhe things that resist it owe their being and their capacity for resistance to itspowerrdquo100Through self-constitution intellects in Proclusrsquo perspective can determine

their manner of being For the angelic intellects in Dionysiusrsquo view howeverto be constituted by the One-Good implies reactiveness angels can determinethemselves in the sense of wanting and choosing to receive the gift of theGood

95 DN VII 2 p 19518ndash20 ldquoand even the intellect of demons to the extent that it is intellectcomes from it [ie fromWisdom] thoughwe couldmore accurately describe this as fallingaway from wisdomrdquo (trans Luibheid modified)

96 Cf Schaumlfer (2006) 147 ldquoThe lsquowhencersquo of evil is to be identified in the spontaneity ie inthe self-actuating and self-accountable willrdquo

97 Cf Steel (1997) especially 101ndash10298 Proclus Elements of Theology 4399 Proclus On the Existence of Evil 14 4ndash5 (trans Opsomer and Steel)100 DN IV 20 p 1668


Ultimately this implies that they can also refrain from wanting the Good andthus no longer determine themselves as receivers of theGoodThoughnot self-constituted angels are not simple effects of the One-God but they are powerscapable of searching for and of transmitting the good as well as of deliberatelyrenouncing these activities101

Bibliography

Editions andTranslationsDionysius the Areopagite Corpus Dionysiacum I ed Beate Regina Suchla and CorpusDionysiacum II ed G Heil and AM Ritter BerlinmdashNew York 1990ndash1991

Dionysius the Areopagite The CompleteWorks translation by Colm Luibheid and PaulRorem New York 1987

Plotinus Enneads ed J Henderson trans AH Armstrong Cambridge (Mass) 7 vols1980ndash1989

ProclusOn theExistence of Evil trans J Opsomer andC Steel IthacamdashNewYork 2003Proclus The Elements of Theology ed and trans ER Dodds Oxford 1963Proclus Commentary on Platorsquos Parmenides trans GRMorrow and JM Dillon Prince-ton (New Jersey) 1987

ProclusTheacuteologie platonicienne 6 vols ed and French trans HD Saffrey and LGWes-terink Paris 1968ndash1997

Secondary LiteratureGerson LP (1997) ldquoἘπιστροφὴ πρὸς ἑαυτόν History and Meaningrdquo Documenti e studisulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8 pp 1ndash32

Gersh S (2014) Being Different More Neoplatonism after Derrida LeidenmdashBostonKoch H (1895) ldquoProklos als Quelle des Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom BoumlsenrdquoPhilologus 54 438ndash454

MacIsaac DG (2007) ldquoThe Origin of Determination in the Neoplatonism of ProclusrdquoinMTreschowWOttenandWHannam(eds)DivineCreation inAncientMedievaland Early Modern Thought Leiden 141ndash172

Perl E (2010) ldquoPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagiterdquo in LP Gerson (ed) The CambridgeHistory of Philosophy in Late Antiquity Cambridge II 767ndash787

Perl E (2008) Theophany The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the AreopagiteAlbany

101 This paper has been developed as part of a research project financed by CNCS-UEFISCDI(PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0569)

290 vlad

Riggs T (2015) ldquoAuthentic Selfhood in the Philosophy of Proclus Rational Soul andits Significance for the Individualrdquo International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 9177ndash204

Roques R (1954) LrsquoUnivers dionysien Structure hieacuterarchique dumonde selon le pseudo-Denys Paris

Saffrey HD (1990) ldquoUn lien objectif entre le Pseudo-Denys et Proclusrdquo in HD SaffreyRecherches sur le Neacuteoplatonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 227ndash234

Saffrey HD (2000) ldquoLe lien le plus objectif entre le Pseudo-Denys et Proclusrdquo inHD Saffrey Le Neacuteoplatonisme apregraves Plotin Paris 239ndash252

Schaumlfer C (2006) The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite LeidenSheldon-Williams IP (1972) ldquoHenads and Angels Proclus and the Pseudo-DionysiusrdquoStudia Patristica 9 65ndash71

Steel C (1998) ldquoConversion vers soi et constitution de soi selon Proclusrdquo in A Charles-Saget (ed) Retour repentir et constitution de soi Paris 161ndash175

Steel C (1997) ldquoProclus et Denys de lrsquoexistence du malrdquo in Y de Andia (ed) DenyslrsquoAreacuteopagite et sa posteacuteriteacute en Orient et en Occident Paris 89ndash116

Stiglmayr J (1895) ldquoDer Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sogenannten DionysiusAreopagita in der Lehre vom Uumlbelrdquo Historisches Jahrbuch 16 253ndash273 and 721ndash748

Whittaker J (1974) ldquoThe Historical Background of Proclusrsquo Doctrine of the αὐθυπό-σταταrdquo in H Doumlrrie (ed) De Jamblique agrave Proclus (Entretiens sur lrsquoAntiquiteacute Clas-sique 21) Vandoeuvres-Genegraveve (Fondation Hardt) 193ndash230

Index

angelappearance of 74commanding over demons 224constitution of 278ndash286demiurgical activity of 19 22ndash23 25 29ndash

30 38n97as divine logos 235ndash237 243ndash244 264as ear of God 240evil 19 25 27as eye of God 240of Destiny 221of Glory 38ndash39as good demon 4 54n56 72n163 88 98

200 213 231ndash232 237ndash240 264as (badgood) governor of the world 19

22 244ndash246as image of God 279instructing 32ndash33 35as intermediary 19 209 232ndash233 244as messenger (of divine revelations) 3ndash

4 73 215ndash216 218 222 229 234 236239ndash240 279ndash280

as mirror of the gods 228name of 19 215of the Nations 22presiding over the descent of souls 222as servant 38ndash39 240ndash241 243as soldier 241 243of the spheres 29ndash39stimulating the ascent of the soul 54ndash55

70 76ndash77 216 222surrounding God 19theurgist (priest) as 76ndash77 222 224

archangel 22ndash23 26 39 65n121 73n166 7592n65 224ndash225 236 248

archon 19 24ndash28 224ndash225Aristotle aristotelism 14 59n90 91n51 96

121n81 125 174n54 234 241 245astrology astrologers 3 24 29 102ndash134 147astronomy 87 92 129

choice (of life) 7ndash17 109ndash112 125 129ndash131153 191 193 205 221

demon (daimon)administrative role of 96 134 163 175 178

angelic 221apparition of 8 49ndash51 61 98 104 175as elemental spirit 56 60 65 76 160as god 8 92ndash96 104 144ndash145 151 162as part of the soul 9ndash10 113ndash114 195 197

200ndash201 203as soul 141 150 153 191ndash192 201n33 202change of 7 12 15ndash17 203ndash204classes of ~s 76n183 104 154 163 175 177

178n77 197ndash200 202deceptive 50 53 70n97 76 184n108divine 104 114 151 157as dog 47ndash58 76evil (bad maleficent) 3 46ndash47 49n29 51

53ndash54 55n65 57 61 76 88 95ndash99 104150ndash152 154 157 160ndash188

female 56good 2ndash4 16 51 54 55n65 72n163 77n96

94ndash97 99 104 150ndash151 154 161 163 165ndash168 184

hierarchy of ~s 51 53 117n65(im)passibility of 52n46 55 145 157 167

175n59 177ndash181 184intermediary 7 47 62 77 87 96 145 157

162n8 199 240location of 59n90 147ndash153 157 162 175male 56material (chthonic) 50 56 70 166 172mediating function of 3 47 62ndash63 77

86 96 164natal 104 118ndash120 132ndash133 141 146

198nature (composition) of 57 63 94ndash95

160ndash162 165ndash166 168 170 173ndash181as nous 9 113 133 190ndash193 196ndash197 199ndash

200personal (guardian spirit) 8 11ndash17

99n103 104 106 108n30 109 111ndash114116 118 122 131ndash134 142 152ndash153 164192 195ndash197 201 203ndash205 221

protection against 52 53n51 57punitive 55 182stimulating the ascent of the soul 54 114

131 150 164vindicative 46n5 55

devil 25 46

292 index

Egyptian 8 30n69 104 127ndash128 140 145 149166n28 217

fire 29 39 53n51 59n86 59n91 64ndash65 70ndash71 77 88 92 94 154 175n62 179 223238 249ndash250

god(s)apparition of 8 50 73n167 229creator (demiurge) 19 21 23 32 274encosmic 210 214first (supreme) 1 21 26 28 88ndash89 98

162 231 234 242ndash257 269ndash289jealous 26 28hypercosmic 210 214hypercosmic-encosmic 210ndash211 214intellective 210 220intelligible 90ndash91 209ndash210intelligible-intellective 210 214secondary 1 46 72 76n181 90 228 231ndash

233transcendent 19 32ndash39 234 242visible (heavenly bodies) 87ndash88 91ndash92

144ndash146 151 162 166 172n46 260

hebdomade 26Hecate 3 48n19 49n28 52n45 56ndash57 64 76

211Henad henadology 209 231ndash233 252ndash265

270 271n10 272n14 273ndash274 276ndash277henology 253 258 262Hermetic Hermetism 98 160 164 167n31hero 1ndash2 60 72 74n173 141 151 169ndash

170 172n46 175 179 200ndash201 209213ndash214 226ndash227 229 237ndash241288

hierarchy 8 10 17 51 67 72 87ndash88 117 162169ndash171 187 213 214 224 231 233 247ndash252 264ndash265

horoscope 105n18 124n94 126hymn 33 36 55 59 90

Idea (intelligible Form) 64 90 91n54 212225 231n2 232ndash234 255 256ndash261274n33 279 283ndash284 287

incarnation 3 7 17 21 104 106ndash107 109 111ndash114 116 119 122 124 134

initiation 38 53 74 147 179n84 216ndash217 220222 281ndash282 284

Intellect 7 15ndash17 24 33 48 87ndash88 90 91n5254 192 194n14 196 199ndash200 202ndash203210ndash212 214 216 221 224ndash225 227 229231 252ndash253 255 270 275 277ndash278 280283 288

Jewish Judaism 4 21ndash23 27 31ndash33 35 39ndash40 46 72

kairos 125ndash126

lifeintelligible 15ndash17 64 69n143 210 226

254ndash256 272ndash279 283philosophical 4way of 3 9 10ndash17 56 109ndash117 124 129ndash

130 133ndash134 153 156 192ndash193 203ndash204221 228

light (intelligible divine) 37 54 70ndash71 122124 171 175n62 211ndash212 223 227 247249ndash251 278ndash281 286

logos 89 234 235 236n20 237 242 245

magic 7 9 22 24ndash25 39 66 68 72 185 223matter 29 34 47ndash49 55 58 59n85 63

65ndash66 89 93ndash94 106 122 146 149ndash150 152 154ndash155 157 161 168 169n37172 174ndash175 178ndash181 184ndash187 201 216225ndash227 229 234 238 245ndash246 249254

mediation 1n2 3 46ndash47 62ndash65 68 7786ndash87 161 164 171 178 200 224 244249ndash250 253 271 274n33

moon 3 57ndash59 74 76ndash77 92 95 123n89 124147 178 214

mystery 19 31n73 33 217ndash218Eleusinian 215n21of Mithras 147

myth of Er 7 11ndash13 16ndash17 102ndash103 109ndash116131ndash132

nameof angels 19 25 35ndash38 237 281(nomina) barbara 24 26 28ndash29 34 68ndash

69divine 36ndash37 242ndash243 252ndash257 273n25

274necessity 11 13 108 111 130 181 218ndash219 239nymphs 56n66 58 140ndash157

index 293

ontology 3 59n88 67 145 160 162 167ndash169171 175 178 193 231 233 235 248 250253ndash265

oracle 86 96 102 105 143 164Chaldaean Oracles 46ndash77 89 97n85 98

211 215ndash216 218 224 225n49Delphic 143

Orphic Orphism 59 67n129 86 90n45179

passion 16n22 29 52n46 55ndash56 89ndash91 120134 143 155 160 162n8 166ndash167 174175n59 176ndash178 184 186

planet (star) 59 107n24 108 112 116 118120n76 122ndash124 128ndash129 133 144ndash145 147 164n17 214 217 225n50243

pneuma 94ndash97 99 104 116 122ndash123 125154 165ndash169 173 175ndash176 178 181186

Philo of Alexandria 1 4 87 232ndash246 264priest 4 8 38 53n51 69n141 89ndash90 127 217

219 222ndash224 229 251prophet 22 33 128 140 182 217 221ndash222

250providence 88 94 108n30 121ndash122 134

223n45 226 232ndash233 235ndash237 241 246254ndash256 275ndash276 280n57 285

purification 50n34 52 95n72 178 183 185227 229 248ndash251 279

Pythagore Pythagoreanism 2 90 92n60 98145n10 179ndash180 191

reincarnation 9 11ndash13 16 99 191ndash193rite ritual

Chaldaean 47 49 53ndash54 69 219Egyptian 145for evoking the gods 222of initiation 53of purification 50n34 52oracular 105theurgical 3ndash4 9 49ndash50 68 73ndash74 76

126 171 175n59 179n83 180n90 187222n39 229

sacrificeAbrahamrsquos 35ndash36bloody 97ndash99 104 144 162ndash163 165ndash166

169

hymn as 90intellectual 91of a stone 50ndash51of inanimate things 92 144pure 89ndash91

silence as 90self-constitution 269ndash271 275 277 280

288self-knowledge 271 280n63 281self-reversion 271 280 282soul

angelic 71 75ndash76 209 217archangelic 223 225ascent of 54ndash55 70 73ndash74 77 150 165

216 222demonic 165ndash167 173 209divine 153 190 199 209ndash212 214 225encosmic 210 212ndash214 227n58hypercosmic 210ndash211hypercosmic-encosmic 210ndash211intellective 196 209 214ndash227irrational 122n86 150 225 228rational (divine upper) part of 150ndash151

155 192 195 197ndash198 200 225pilot of 121ndash122 131 133self-moving 114 121sensitive 155 192undescended 3 153n31 193ndash194 203

205vehicle of 96 122 123n87 124world 91 95 122 124 144n8 191ndash192

214Stoa Stoicism 2 14 86ndash87 89n30 94ndash96

97n84 108n32 196n20 235 237sympathy 211 228ndash229

theurgy theurgist 3ndash4 9 40 49ndash5168ndash69 72ndash77 104 132 160 171175n59 179n83 180n90 184ndash187196 216 218ndash220 222ndash224 226 229258n72

virtue 11 14ndash15 23ndash26 89 106 108 110 112ndash114 130ndash131 133ndash134 166 169 171n43 211223 250 273n17 287

water 28ndash29 56ndash58 59n86 60ndash61 76 8894 121 140ndash141 145ndash146 148 155 215n18238 249

294 index

worldintelligible 13n18 57 194 234ndash235 246

261material 55n57 58 64 142ndash144 147 150

152 154 168 180sensible 8 10 209 231 234ndash235sublunary 59 72 74 76 96 194

Yaldabaoth 26 28ndash29

zodiac 107n24 115ndash116 118n71 124n94 127ndash129 148n19

lrmContents

lrmList of Contributors

lrmIntroduction

lrmThe Daimon and the Choice of Life in Plotinusrsquo Thought (Vidart)

lrmThe Angels in Ancient Gnosis Some Cases (Scopello)

lrmDemons and Angels in the Chaldaean Oracles (Seng)

lrmWhat is a Daimon for Porphyry (Brisson)

lrmPorphyry of Tyre on the Daimon Birth and the Stars (Greenbaum)

lrmDaimones in Porphyryrsquos On the Cave of the Nymphs (Akcay)

lrmEvil Demons in the De Mysteriis (OrsquoNeill)

lrmProclusrsquo Critique of Plotinusrsquo Demonology (Timotin)

lrmThe Angels in Proclus Messengers of the Gods (Brisson)

lrmOntology Henadology Angelology (Casas)

lrmDionysius the Areopagite on Angels (Vlad)

lrmIndex

Studies in PlatonismNeoplatonism and the Platonic

Tradition

Edited by

Robert M Berchman (Dowling College and Bard College)John Finamore (University of Iowa)

Editorial Board

John Dillon (Trinity College Dublin) ndash Gary Gurtler (Boston College)Jean-Marc Narbonne (Laval University Canada)

volume 20

The titles published in this series are listed at brillcomspnp


Edited by


LEIDEN | BOSTON






Contents


Introduction 1








Seamus OrsquoNeill




Ghislain Casas

vi contents


Marilena Vlad

Index 291

















Introduction






2 introduction






tin (2012)

introduction 3






4 introduction









introduction 5


The Editors

Bibliography













6 introduction










Thomas Vidart





8 vidart



















10 vidart















12 vidart

















14 vidart











16 vidart











18 vidart

Bibliography











Madeleine Scopello





20 scopello
















22 scopello












24 scopello











26 scopello













28 scopello













30 scopello
















32 scopello



















34 scopello
















36 scopello














38 scopello















40 scopello





Bibliography




















42 scopello





























44 scopello























Helmut Seng
























48 seng






















50 seng






















52 seng






















54 seng























56 seng























58 seng


Nature Spirits




















60 seng





















62 seng



















64 seng

























66 seng

















68 seng








see above n 124)



Westerink142









70 seng

Angels








148 Cf LSJ













72 seng























74 seng


















76 seng



Conclusion










Bibliography









78 seng


































80 seng



































82 seng

































84 seng





























Luc Brisson


Before Porphyry













88 brisson


In Porphyry













90 brisson

















92 brisson











94 brisson












96 brisson








82 DA II 38 283 DA II 41 3







98 brisson










Bibliography





100 brisson























Introduction
















104 greenbaum











106 greenbaum












108 greenbaum














110 greenbaum



















112 greenbaum















114 greenbaum














116 greenbaum
















118 greenbaum








of these









120 greenbaum













122 greenbaum















124 greenbaum









27 45 197ndash198 218 273 305ndash306 340










126 greenbaum

















128 greenbaum
















117 Wilberding (2011) 152 n 49

130 greenbaum













132 greenbaum

















134 greenbaum




Abbreviations







Bibliography















136 greenbaum

































138 greenbaum




































Nilufer Akcay

Introduction












142 akcay













144 akcay














146 akcay














148 akcay

















150 akcay












152 akcay














154 akcay



















39 Kahn (1979) 245

156 akcay











Bibliography




158 akcay




































Seamus OrsquoNeill

Introduction










162 orsquoneill














164 orsquoneill
















166 orsquoneill
















168 orsquoneill

















170 orsquoneill














172 orsquoneill














174 orsquoneill

















176 orsquoneill

















72 DeMyst I10

178 orsquoneill















180 orsquoneill











182 orsquoneill














184 orsquoneill












Conclusion




186 orsquoneill












188 orsquoneill


Bibliography
























Andrei Timotin




trans Cornford














192 timotin















194 timotin















196 timotin















198 timotin















200 timotin
















202 timotin












204 timotin









Bibliography











206 timotin































208 timotin






Luc Brisson





210 brisson










212 brisson


















214 brisson



















216 brisson













218 brisson



















220 brisson



hears the Sirens











222 brisson
















224 brisson



mons












52 See supra p 226

226 brisson

















228 brisson










Bibliography








230 brisson

















Ghislain Casas

Separate Substances






232 casas








4 See Roques (1954)

234 casas

Words













236 casas










Decharneux (2011)





Demons and Heroes





238 casas

















240 casas













(2009) 321ndash322

242 casas

Powers














244 casas





(2008) 313ndash369












246 casas








Hierarchy







heid 153ndash154

248 casas













250 casas











252 casas



Divine Names











254 casas














256 casas












258 casas

Henads












260 casas







408)








262 casas
















264 casas








Bibliography












266 casas































268 casas





Marilena Vlad





270 vlad
















272 vlad


















274 vlad














276 vlad











37 DN I 3 p 11117ndash1126

278 vlad
















280 vlad


















282 vlad

















284 vlad

















286 vlad















288 vlad









Bibliography












290 vlad










Index





























devil 25 46

292 index






144ndash146 151 162 166 172n46 260












kairos 125ndash126





logos 89 234 235 236n20 237 242 245










index 293



211 215ndash216 218 224 225n49Delphic 143













126 171 175n59 179n83 180n90 187222n39 229


169













294 index


261material 55n57 58 64 142ndash144 147 150




lrmContents


lrmIntroduction












lrmIndex


Edited by


LEIDEN | BOSTON






Contents


Introduction 1








Seamus OrsquoNeill




Ghislain Casas

vi contents


Marilena Vlad

Index 291

















Introduction






2 introduction






tin (2012)

introduction 3






4 introduction









introduction 5


The Editors

Bibliography













6 introduction










Thomas Vidart





8 vidart



















10 vidart















12 vidart

















14 vidart











16 vidart











18 vidart

Bibliography











Madeleine Scopello





20 scopello
















22 scopello












24 scopello











26 scopello













28 scopello













30 scopello
















32 scopello



















34 scopello
















36 scopello














38 scopello















40 scopello





Bibliography




















42 scopello





























44 scopello























Helmut Seng
























48 seng






















50 seng






















52 seng






















54 seng























56 seng























58 seng


Nature Spirits




















60 seng





















62 seng



















64 seng

























66 seng

















68 seng








see above n 124)



Westerink142









70 seng

Angels








148 Cf LSJ













72 seng























74 seng


















76 seng



Conclusion










Bibliography









78 seng


































80 seng



































82 seng

































84 seng





























Luc Brisson


Before Porphyry













88 brisson


In Porphyry













90 brisson

















92 brisson











94 brisson












96 brisson








82 DA II 38 283 DA II 41 3







98 brisson










Bibliography





100 brisson























Introduction
















104 greenbaum











106 greenbaum












108 greenbaum














110 greenbaum



















112 greenbaum















114 greenbaum














116 greenbaum
















118 greenbaum








of these









120 greenbaum













122 greenbaum















124 greenbaum









27 45 197ndash198 218 273 305ndash306 340










126 greenbaum

















128 greenbaum
















117 Wilberding (2011) 152 n 49

130 greenbaum













132 greenbaum

















134 greenbaum




Abbreviations







Bibliography















136 greenbaum

































138 greenbaum




































Nilufer Akcay

Introduction












142 akcay













144 akcay














146 akcay














148 akcay

















150 akcay












152 akcay














154 akcay



















39 Kahn (1979) 245

156 akcay











Bibliography




158 akcay




































Seamus OrsquoNeill

Introduction










162 orsquoneill














164 orsquoneill
















166 orsquoneill
















168 orsquoneill

















170 orsquoneill














172 orsquoneill














174 orsquoneill

















176 orsquoneill

















72 DeMyst I10

178 orsquoneill















180 orsquoneill











182 orsquoneill














184 orsquoneill












Conclusion




186 orsquoneill












188 orsquoneill


Bibliography
























Andrei Timotin




trans Cornford














192 timotin















194 timotin















196 timotin















198 timotin















200 timotin
















202 timotin












204 timotin









Bibliography











206 timotin































208 timotin






Luc Brisson





210 brisson










212 brisson


















214 brisson



















216 brisson













218 brisson



















220 brisson



hears the Sirens











222 brisson
















224 brisson



mons












52 See supra p 226

226 brisson

















228 brisson










Bibliography








230 brisson

















Ghislain Casas

Separate Substances






232 casas








4 See Roques (1954)

234 casas

Words













236 casas










Decharneux (2011)





Demons and Heroes





238 casas

















240 casas













(2009) 321ndash322

242 casas

Powers














244 casas





(2008) 313ndash369












246 casas








Hierarchy







heid 153ndash154

248 casas













250 casas











252 casas



Divine Names











254 casas














256 casas












258 casas

Henads












260 casas







408)








262 casas
















264 casas








Bibliography












266 casas































268 casas





Marilena Vlad





270 vlad
















272 vlad


















274 vlad














276 vlad











37 DN I 3 p 11117ndash1126

278 vlad
















280 vlad


















282 vlad

















284 vlad

















286 vlad















288 vlad









Bibliography












290 vlad










Index





























devil 25 46

292 index






144ndash146 151 162 166 172n46 260












kairos 125ndash126





logos 89 234 235 236n20 237 242 245










index 293



211 215ndash216 218 224 225n49Delphic 143













126 171 175n59 179n83 180n90 187222n39 229


169













294 index


261material 55n57 58 64 142ndash144 147 150




lrmContents


lrmIntroduction












lrmIndex

NeoplatonicDemonsandAngels...StudiesinPlatonism, Neoplatonism,andthePlatonic Tradition Editedby...

Documents

Transcript of NeoplatonicDemonsandAngels...StudiesinPlatonism, Neoplatonism,andthePlatonic Tradition Editedby...