1

Abstract for: The International Society of Neoplatonic Studies Conference

“Neoplatonism in the East – ex oriente lux”, University of Haifa, 22-24 March 2011

THE PROPHET ABAMON AND THE DIALOGUES OF HERMES:

IAMBLICHUS’ DE MYSTERIIS, PORPHYRY’S LETTER TO ANEBO AND THE HERMETICA

When describing the hieratic path of ascent to the gods which comprises theurgy, Iamblichus states

“Hermes also has set out this path; and the prophet Bitys has given an interpretation of it to King Ammon,

having discovered it inscribed in hieroglyphic characters in a sanctuary in Sais in Egypt. He has handed

down the name of god, which extends throughout the whole cosmos; and there are many other treatises on

the same subject.”1 Recent scholarship has explored the presence of Egyptian theology within De

Mysteriis Books 7 and 82 and has noted Iamblichus’ evident allusions to the Hermetica contained therein.

3

However, while scholars have noted Iamblichus’ espousal of Egyptian theology, less attention has been

paid to important similarities in structure and literary genre between Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis and the

Hermetica.4

It is well-known that the original title of Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis was in fact “The Reply of the

Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the Solutions to the Questions it contains”

(jAbavmmwno~ didaskavlou pro;~ th;n Porfurivou pro;~ jAnebw; ejpistolh;n ajpovkrisi~ kai; twn ejn

aujth/ ajporhmavtwn luvsei~).5 Written under the guise of the Egyptian prophet “Abamon” as a reply to

Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo, the original title places the work firmly within the philosophical genre of

“Problems and Solutions”6: cast in an epistolary form, it is essentially a series of replies to a set of

problems (aporiai) proposed by Porphyry about the nature of the gods and the proper modes of

worshipping them. Meanwhile, Iamblichus’ adoption of the pseudonym Abamon shows a self-conscious

location of the work within Egyptian religious tradition. The philosophical dialogue between Porphyry and

1 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 8.5 (267.11-268.4), trs. and eds. Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell, Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. All citations and quotations refer to this edition and translation, unless otherwise specified. 2 Cf. Dennis C. Clark, “Iamblichus’ Egyptian Neoplatonic Theology in De Mysteriis,” International Journal of the Platonic

Tradition 2 (2008) 164-205; Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986, 131-141; Algis Uzdavinys, Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity, San Rafael, CA:

Sophia Perennis, 2010. 3 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 8.1 (260.14-261.3); 8.2 (262.8); 8.4 (265.9-266.1; 266.5-7); 8.5 (267.11-268.4); 8.6 (269.1). Cf. also

Garth Fowden 1986, 134-139. 4 One important exception should be noted: Emma C. Clarke has commented in relation to the structure of Iamblichus’ De

Mysteriis, “the Hermetic discourses which purport to be addresses by Hermes to Tat, Asclepius or Ammon might seem

particularly relevant given that they appear to be written from one pseudonymous character to another” (Iamblichus’ De

Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001), 15, n.34. Cf. also Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and

Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xxxi, n.61. 5 The title of Iamblichus’ work which we use today, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, Chaldaeorum, Assyriorum, dates only from the

Renaissance and was originally coined by Marsilio Ficino in the fifteenth century (in his 1497 edition and translation) and

subsequently accepted by Scutellius, the second translator of the work into Latin in 1556. 6 The literary genre of “Problems and Solutions” was fairly common in the later Platonic tradition and, more generally, stretches

back to the early Hellenistic period and beyond. Porphyry himself had composed both Questions on Homer (Homerika

zêtêmata) and a Collection of Questions on Rhetoric (Synagôgê tôn rhêtorikôn zêtêmatôn), as well as a book of Miscellaneous

Questions (Symmikta zêtêmata), many of which concern philosophical topics. Later, Damascius (the last head of the Academy)

composed a work of Problems and Solutions (aporiai kai lyseis) on First Principles. Cf. Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and

Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xlviii.

2

Iamblichus has predominantly been characterised by scholars as a vicious and hostile disagreement

between a sceptical Porphyry and a defensive Iamblichus.7 Yet such assessments obscure important

parallels with certain dialogues within the Hermetica: this paper will argue that the exchange between

Porphyry and Iamblichus evident in the Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis comprises a mystagogic

dialogue and a type of philosophical and religious discourse with protreptic, educational and initiatory

functions. In this sense, the exchange shares significant similarities with certain treatises of the Hermetica

which will be explored.

The possibility of a parallel between the exchange of Porphyry and Iamblichus evident in the

Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis and the philosophical writings of the Hermetica, many of which were

written in dialogue form for the purpose of philosophical paideia, is suggested by the Egyptian pseudonym

adopted by Iamblichus in the De Mysteriis as well as by the nature of the programmatic statements in the

first chapter of his work. Here, Iamblichus specifically locates himself within the Egyptian religious

tradition by allying himself with the ancient ranks of the Egyptian priesthood and by reminding us of the

tradition that Greek philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Plato, first learnt their wisdom from the

Egyptians.8 Whatever the precise meaning of the pseudonym, Iamblichus deliberately chose an Egyptian

name in order to provide a frame and setting for his treatise. The presence of pseudonymous authorship

combined with the philosophical dialogue between Porphyry and Iamblichus on metaphysical and religious

phenomena represents a very similar case in terms of structure to some of the philosophical treatises of the

Hermetica. Within the De Mysteriis, a tacit link is made between “Abamon” and Hermes, with whose

name Iamblichus says all such works are inscribed and dedicated.9 Iamblichus thus places his work under

the divine patronage of Hermes and hints at the status of himself as exegete and of his text as a divine

symbolon in the chain of the god Hermes (to be discussed further below).

The educational and initiatory function of certain dialogues within the philosophical Hermetica

has been discussed and emphasised by Garth Fowden: different dialogues are aimed at different levels of

initiate; from certain initiatory texts within the Hermetica we can construct a picture of the various stages

of the Hermetic paideia.10 He explicitly compares the teaching and learning structure of Hermetic initiates

with that practised by Neoplatonic philosophers, stating that they “...proceed systematically from

elementary to more sophisticated texts, just as the Platonic philosophers of the age graded Plato’s

7 See Emma C. Clarke 2001, 7; Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xxii; Gregory Shaw, Theurgy

and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995,

13-15; Gregory Shaw, “Living Light: Divine Embodiment in Western Philosophy,” in Patrick Curry and Angela Voss (eds.),

Seeing with Different Eyes: Essays in Astrology and Divination, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, 71, 74. 8 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 1.1 (2.8-3.2). Cf. also 7.5 (258.2-5); 8.5 (268.3-6); On the Pythagorean Way of Life 29.158- 31.198,

trs. and eds. John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991; Garth Fowden 1986, 186-87. 9 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 1.1 (2.1-7). 10 Garth Fowden 1986, 98-100. Cf. especially Corpus Hermeticum XIII, 1-2, the dialogue On rebirth; Corpus Hermeticum I, 1,

29, The Poimandres, trs. W. Scott, Hermetica I, Boston: Shambhala, 1993. The so-called Discourse on the Ogdoad and the

Ennead (Codex VI.6), a treatise from the Coptic Hermetica found at Nag Hammadi, also exhibits an initiatory structure: cf. Jean-

Pierre Mahé, “A Reading of the Discourse on the Ogdoad and the Ennead (Nag Hammadi Codex VI.6)” in Roelof van den

Broek and Wouter J. Hanegraaff (eds.), Gnosis and Hermeticism: from Antiquity to Modern Times, Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press, 1998, 79-86.

3

dialogues, for teaching purposes, according to their greater or lesser explicitness about the things of the

spirit.”11 Indeed Iamblichus seems to have been the first Neoplatonic philosopher to establish a definite

order and number of Platonic dialogues to be studied within his philosophical school. Yet the possible

paideutic and protreptic functions of his exchange with Porphyry in the Letter to Anebo and the De

Mysteriis have largely gone unnoticed. I have suggested elsewhere that De Mysteriis Book 3, which deals

with divination, could itself be viewed as a textual symbolon and as a sacred, ritualistic invocation of the

divine reality which it describes.12 The structure of Book 3 reflects and symbolises the course of

procession and of illumination from the divine realm to the mortal realm and the reversion to the divine

from the mortal world through different types and levels of divination and divine possession; in this sense,

Book 3 reflects the cycle of procession and reversion and traverses the metaphysical and psychic landscape

of ascent and descent.13 Such a structure may have been intended as an initiatory tool for philosophical

contemplation leading to theurgic visions for the ideal “philosophic” or “theurgic” reader: in this sense

Iamblichus’ text could itself be viewed as having protreptic and initiatory functions. This paper will

explore this possibility, examining the nature and possible implications of the pseudonym adopted by

Iamblichus, the structure of Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo and Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis and possible

functions of the dialogue form, as well as comparing the stages of paideia, preparation (ethical, ritual and

intellectual) and initiation evident in the philosophical Hermetica with the ritual path of theurgic ascent

described by Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis.

Dr. Crystal Addey

Cardiff University, UK

AddeyCJ@Cardiff.ac.uk

11 Garth Fowden 1986, 99.

12 Crystal Addey, “Oracles, Dreams and Astrology in Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis,” in Patrick Curry and Angela Voss (eds.),

Seeing with Different Eyes: Essays in Astrology and Divination, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, 52. This

idea depends upon the view that language itself can be a symbolon. Cf. Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 5.15 (219.1-220.14), where a

kind of sacrifice that is wholly immaterial is mentioned; Algis Uzdavinys 2010, 207-217. This argument draws on the recent

research of Sara Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism: Non-discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus and Damascius,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 167-179, who suggests that Proclus’ Platonic Theology presents itself as a

theurgic, textual symbolon with the status of a ritual invocation, since it enumerates successive orders of gods and metaphysical

grades of reality. 13 I owe this phrase to Sara Rappe 2000, 179, who states: “As if it were a theurgic rite, combining all the divine series in order to

re-create a sacralised cosmos, the Platonic Theology divulges a kind of cosmic prehistory, in which the psychic landscape, the

geography of ascent and descent, is traversed in detail.”