Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:23:37.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΘϒΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN FOURTH- AND FIFTH-CENTURY PLATONISM1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Todd C. Krulak
Todd C. Krulak*
Affiliation:
DePauw University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The centrality of sacrifice in ancient life has elicited a steady stream of scholarship on the subject that continues unabated. Treatments of the ritual in the works of the philosophical authors of this period and, in particular, within Late Platonism are less prevalent. The occasional references to θυσία in modern studies tend to be chronologically front-loaded and to focus primarily on Porphyry of Tyre (c. 234 c.e.–c. 305 c.e.) and Iamblichus of Chalcis (third–fourth centuries c.e.), two of the initial philosophers in the tradition. The official resurgence of the practice under the emperor Julian (reigned 360–3 c.e.) in the wake of the limitations on and outright bans of the practice by Constantine and his sons, along with the brief explication of sacrifice by Julian's comrade, Sallustius, have also received some scholarly attention. The fortunes of the ritual in the Platonic Academy of fifth-century Athens have come under even less scrutiny. This essay seeks to make its own contribution to the study of sacrifice in Late Platonic philosophy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 353 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to express my gratitude to Aaron Johnson for his willingness to read earlier drafts of this article and for his helpful suggestions and insights. My thanks, also, to John Wilkins for his editorial input. All errors are mine alone.

References

2 The following is only a representative list: Nilsson, M.P., ‘Pagan divine service in Late Antiquity’, HThR 38.1 (1945): 63–9Google Scholar; Burkert, W., Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, tr. Bing, P. (Berkeley, 1983)Google Scholar; Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P., The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks, tr. Wissing, P. (Chicago, 1989)Google Scholar; J.-L. Durand, ‘Greek animals: toward a typology of edible bodies’, in Detienne and Vernant, 87–118; Girard, R., Violence and the Sacred, tr. Gregory, P. (Baltimore, 1977)Google Scholar; Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. (ed.), Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation (Stanford, 1987)Google Scholar; Heyman, G., The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict (Washington, DC, 2007)Google Scholar; Petropoulou, M.-Z., Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC–AD 200 (Oxford, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J.Z. Smith, ‘The domestication of sacrifice’, in Hamerton-Kelly, 191–238; Stowers, S.K., ‘Greeks who sacrifice and those who do not: toward an anthropology of Greek religion’, in White, L.M. and Yarbrough, O.L. (edd.), The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis, 1995), 293–333Google Scholar; Stroumsa, G., The End of Sacrifice (Chicago, 2009)Google Scholar; D. Ullucci, ‘The end of animal sacrifice’ (Diss., Brown University, 2009).

3 By the term ‘Late Platonists’ is meant generally those Platonists from Plotinus (third century) to Olympiodorus (sixth century) who assent to and nuance, to one degree or another, the Plotinian ontological structure that emphasizes the ineffability of the One, the Platonist First Principle. In particular, though, I am interested in Iamblichus and those subsequent to him who identify, in one way or another, with his brand of ritually infused Platonism.

4 Trombley, F.R., Hellenic Religion and Christianization, c. 370–529 A.D., Part I (Leiden,New York and Cologne, 1993), 1–97Google Scholar; Harl, K.W., ‘Sacrifice and pagan belief in fifth- and sixth-century Byzantium’, P&P 128.1 (1990), 7–27Google Scholar, at 12–13, 25; Belayche, N., ‘Sacrifice and theory of sacrifice during the “pagan reaction”: Julian the emperor’, in Baumgarten, A.I. (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience (Leiden, 2002), 101–26Google Scholar; A. Johnson, Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre (Cambridge, forthcoming), ch. 3; Nasemann, B., Theurgie und Philosophie in Iamblichs de mysteriis (Stuttgart, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clarke, E.C., Iamblichus' De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous (Aldershot, 2001), 39–57Google Scholar; Saffrey, H.-D., ‘Les livres IV à VII du De mysteriis de Jamblique relus avec la Lettre de Porphyre à Anébon’, in Blumenthal, H.J. and Clark, E.G. (edd.), The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods (London, 1993), 144–58Google Scholar; Van Liefferinge, C., La Théurgie des Oracles Chaldaïques à Proclus (Liège, 1999), 100–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bradbury, S., ‘Julian's pagan revival and blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49.4 (1995): 331–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Porph. Abst. 2 is of critical importance to any full description of the topic of sacrifice in Late Platonism, but the intent of this article is to examine sacrifice in Iamblichan and post-Iamblichan contexts.

6 Bradbury (n. 4), 340–1; Belayche (n. 4), 101–26.

7 Trombley (n. 4), 307–24; Harl (n. 4), 12–13.

8 The tone is established in the opening section of Book 5: ‘The next question you raise is one that is common for virtually all men … I mean the question of sacrifices – what is the utility of them, or what power they have in respect of the universe or the gods, and on what principle they achieve their purpose … Furthermore, there straightaway arises a contradiction as well, stemming from the fact that the priests should abstain from animal food, in order that the gods should not be polluted by the vapors arising from animals …’ (199.5–12). As Iamblichus considers the topic, it is first and foremost animal sacrifice that he feels compelled to defend. Elsewhere (209.11–14; and, perhaps, 233.9–44.11), references to the ceremonial use of plants are made, but, overwhelmingly, Iamblichus assumes a zoogenic medium.

9 This is especially striking given the prohibitions against the practice beginning (possibly) in the reign of Constantine (VC 2.44–5; but see Bradbury, S., ‘Constantine and the problem of anti-pagan legislation in the fourth century’, CPh 89.2 [1994], 120–39Google Scholar and Curran, J., Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century [Oxford, 2002], 169–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who seek to minimize the impact of these laws or to suggest that they were never issued in the first place, respectively) and those who followed him (see CT 9.16.7; 16.7.7; 16.10.2, 5–6, 8–13, 17–18, 25). See also Trombley (n. 4), 1–97.

10 For more comprehensive examinations of Book 5, see Nasemann (n.4); Clarke (n. 4), 39–57.

11 Theophrastus suggests that sacrifices are meant to confer honour upon the gods, to thank them for blessings, and to be the means of offering first-fruits. Consonant with the views expressed throughout Myst., Iamblichus finds this explanation to be too mundane: ‘All these procedures are common also to our dealings with men, and are borrowed from common social relations; they do not at all preserve the utter superiority of the gods and their status as transcendent causal principles’ (206.7–10).

12 Late Platonists envisioned a tiered cosmos that, for the purposes of this article can be described, simplistically, in terms of four major ‘realms’ that map on to the Plotinian ontological scaffolding: the encosmic/pericosmic realm (Plotinus' generated world), the hypercosmic realm (Soul), the Intelligible/noeric realm (Intellect/Nous), and the One (the One). The ‘lowest’ tier is identified with the generated realm, that is, the material world in which the soul resides while entrapped by a material body and presided over by the encosmic/material gods. An ontologically superior region, the hypercosmic realm is located ‘above’ the encosmic region, outside of the generated realm and, amongst other things, beyond the dictates of Fate/Necessity. The hypercosmic realm, too, is full of hypercosmic/immaterial deities who further elevate the soul on its journey to the Intelligible realm and the gods present there who, in turn, enable union with the One, the Platonic First Principle. For Iamblichus, the encosmic world is a realm of multiplicity and fluctuation and a region from which the soul ultimately ought to be emancipated. Conversely, as a soul reverts towards the One, it flees the encosmic realm and ascends to regions in which it finds increasing unity and stability.

13 For further discussion, see Shaw, G., Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park, PA, 1995)Google Scholar, 149 ff.; see also G. Shaw, ‘The role of aesthesis in theurgy’ (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Montreal, Quebec, November 9, 2009); Clarke (n. 4), 43–4.

14 See also Myst. 225–6; translations from Iamblichus, On the Mysteries, tr. Clarke, E.C., Dillon, J.M. and Hershbell, J. P. (Atlanta, 2003)Google ScholarPubMed.

15 By ‘anagogic’ is meant the process by which the soul is elevated towards higher ontological tiers and levels of divinity.

16 See Plotinus, Enn. 6.2, passim; for a brief discussion of periousia dunameōs, see Smith, A., Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague, 1974), 107–8 and 107 n. 12Google Scholar.

17 Shaw (n. 14), 148 succinctly encapsulates this aspect of the theurgic process: ‘All souls began theurgic disciplines with sacrifices to these gods to establish a foundation for more comprehensive forms of worship, and the material gods themselves presided over these offerings.’

18 For further discussion of prayer in Iamblichus, see Dillon, J.M. (ed.), Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta (Leiden, 1973), 407–11Google Scholar.

19 This represents a departure from Porphyry's position espoused in Abst. 2.

20 In the importance placed upon prayer, Iamblichus shares the values of Porph. Comm. Tim. fr. 2.28 Sodano.

21 Clarke, Dillon and Hershbell have chosen to translate the term as ‘contact’, but I think ‘connection’ gives a better sense of the word as there is a unifying quality about the sunagogic mode, but not to the degree found in the third stage which speaks of ἕνωσις.

22 For the created order being an ‘image’ of the creative Intellect, see Plotinus, Enn. 3.2.1.

23 See Shaw (n. 13), 112.

24 Although the treatise does not explicitly use the term theurgic sacrifice, it remains significant, not only because it is squarely within the Platonic tradition, but because it also conveys a number of indications that its author knew Myst. Nevertheless, I believe that the material in Περὶ θεῶν is worthy of consideration because Sallustius has some knowledge of Iamblichus' position on the rite. By the time Sallustius and Julian are engaging with the issue, it is possible that Iamblichus' defence of sacrifice has become a form of Late Platonist common sense and that Sallustius is attempting to disseminate this stock explanation to a wider audience. Further, an absence of theurgic discussion in Περὶ θεῶν is explained well enough by the fact that this introductory treatise may be seen as something of a propaganda piece and, given the associations of theurgy and ‘magic’, Sallustius may not wish to distract from more important theoretical issues.

25 See Cumont, F., ‘Sallust le Philosophe’, RPh 16.1 (1892): 49–56Google Scholar; Sallustius, Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ed. Nock, A.D. (Cambridge, 1926, repr. Chicago, 1996)Google Scholar, ci–civ. Translations are taken from Nock with minor adaptations.

26 Clarke, E.C., ‘Communication human and divine: Saloustios reconsidered’, Phronesis 43.4 (1998), 328Google Scholar.

27 Sallustius ends his section on sacrifice in a hurried fashion stating, ‘Concerning this subject I have said enough’.

28 Myst. 206.3–10.

29 Sallustius claims that sacrifices are symbolic of the worshipper's life.

30 Clarke (n. 26), 333.

31 This is broadly similar to what is found in Myst. 292.4–14, but Sallustius appears to be unaware of or to disregard the technical usage of cognate verbal forms of συναϕή and ἕνωσις.

32 The term ‘Life’ might be understood in this context to be a synonym of ‘Soul’; see Pl. Resp. 353d. The use of ‘life’ by Sallustius is thus referring, ultimately, to the life of the soul – animal, individual, or divine.

33 See Nock's introductory material (lxxxiii–lxxxvi); Clarke (n. 26), 332–4.

34 Soph. 248e–249a: ‘Are we to be so easily persuaded that motion, life, soul and mind have no real place in that which fully is – no, neither life itself nor intellection – and that Being stands unmoved in high and holy isolation, devoid of Mind?’

35 The debate over precisely where one finds the origins of the Noetic Triad (Being–Life–Mind) is lengthy and heated and the question of when this triad enters the Late Platonic stream (for example, with Plotinus or Porphyry), is similarly contested. These issues need not overly concern us given our Iamblichan and post-Iamblichan interests. A partial bibliography on Being–Life–Mind includes Hadot, P., ‘Être, Vie, Pensée chez Plotin et avant Plotin’, in Dodds, E.R. (ed.), Les sources des Plotin (Vandoeuvres–Geneva, 1960), 107–57Google Scholar; id., ‘La metaphysique de Porphyre’, in Dörrie, H. et al. , Porphyre (Vandoeuvres–Geneva, 1966), 127–57Google Scholar; id., Porphyre et Victorinus (2 vols., Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Edwards, M.J., ‘Porphyry and the intelligible triad’, JHS 110 (1990), 14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Being, life, and mind: a brief enquiry’, Syllecta Classica 8 (1997), 191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner, J.D., ‘The Chaldaean Oracles and the metaphysics of the Sethian Platonizing treatises’ ZAC 12 (2008), 39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; this article is reproduced in Turner, J.D. and Corrigan, K. (edd.), Plato's Parmenides and its Heritage, Volume 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism (Atlanta, 2010), 213–32Google Scholar. I am using the version and, thus, the pagination, found in the latter volume.

36 See Procl. ET 101.

37 Edwards (n. 35 [1997]), 191.

38 Edwards (n. 35 [1990]), 15.

39 See Comm. Tim. fr. 65 (Dillon); Comm. Alc., fr. 8 (Dillon).

40 See Edwards (n. 35 [1990]), passim; id. (n. 35 [1997]), passim. Edwards is sceptical of the claims of Hadot who seeks to find evidence of Being–Life–Mind in the Chaldaean Oracles and in Porphyry. If Edwards is correct, then its first occurrence in Late Platonist literature is in Iamblichus.

41 Myst. 217.4–13; in Myst. 16.5–10, Iamblichus does view ζωή as the common bond between the classes of gods and heroes. There is some question as to whether the gods ought to be considered to be zoetic entities at all in Myst. 49.13, but this is not a position necessarily advocated by Iamblichus. Porphyry asks about the possibility of distinguishing between gods and daimones by their corporeality or incorporeality. Iamblichus retorts that one not only cannot learn anything from this about the essences of these beings, ‘One cannot even discern, on the basis of this, whether they are living beings or not (εἰ ζῷά ἐστιν ἢ μὴ ζῷά), and if the latter, whether they are deprived of life or, conversely, have no need of it at all’.

42 Myst. 210.6–211.5.

43 Myst. 230.12–231.2.

44 Bidez 89b.

45 Bidez 89b.146–9: ‘But since not even to these [the material, planetary deities] can true worship be offered through somatic means – for they are by nature not in need of anything – a third class of images was invented upon the earth, and by performing our worship to them we shall make the gods propitious to ourselves’ (Δυναμένης δὲ οὐδὲ τούτοις ἀποδίδοσθαι τῆς θεραπείας σωματικῶς (ἀπροσδεῆ γάρ ἐστι ϕύσει), τρίτον ἐπὶ γῆς ἐξευρέθη γένος ἀγαλμάτων, εἰς ὃ τὰς θεραπείας ἐκτελοῦντες, ἑαυτοῖς εὐμενεῖς τοὺς θεοὺς καταστήσομεν).

46 Nicole Belayche's article (n. 4) is an excellent examination of Julian and sacrifice, but I am not convinced by her interpretation of this selection from ‘Letter to a priest.’ She emphasizes the somatic quality of the sacrifice and compares it favourably to the Iamblichan position, but some of the important differences described above are not included in the discussion. The statement by Sallustius in 16.2.6–7 –‘for this reason living animals are sacrificed by the blessed among men today and were sacrificed by all the ancients, not in a uniform manner, but to every god the fitting victims, with much other ritual (θρησκεία)’ – is also evoked in support of the Iamblichan view, i.e. that the material and immaterial gods each were to receive fitting forms of worship. This presupposes that Sallustius is adhering faithfully to Iamblichus' sacrificial theory, a position that I am arguing is debatable. I think it possible that Sallustius has in mind the traditional practice of identifying which type and colour of animals are fit to be sacrificed to a given deity (cf. Arnob. Ad nat. 7.18–20; Porph. Phil. orac. frr. 314–15 Smith). Sallustius' use of ‘the ancients’ (οἱ πάλαι) refers to an idealized group of religious experts who installed ceremonial laws and institutions and utilized myths to communicate philosophical truths (referred to also in 3.1.1–2; other philosophers such as Plotinus [Enn. 4.3.11] and Proclus [On the Hieratic Art] use similar attributions).

47 Amm. Marc. 22.12.6; 25.4.17; see also 21.1.4–5; 22.5.1–2; Lib. Or. 12.69; 13.14; 18.121.

48 For a brief discussion of sacrifice as propaganda, see Belayche (n. 4), 108–9. On sacrifice as a marker of proper cult, see ibid. 116–18, in which is discussed the role sacrifice plays in making Jewish cult a ‘respectable’ religion.

49 See e.g. Greg. Nyss. De perf. 186.11–187.5; Greg. Naz. In sanct. pasch. 22; August. De civ. D. 4.31; 7.31; 10.6, 20 (in which Augustine speaks of Jesus as the ‘true mediator’); 16.32, 43; 22.10. My thanks to Vasiliki Limberis and Daniel Ullucci for these references. For Jesus as a mediator in a less sacrificially oriented context, see Robertson, J.M., Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Julian serves as the archetype for such potential converts to Hellenic religion.

51 The orations of Themistius (whose career began to flourish in 350 and continued unabated until his death in 388) perform a similar function and, indeed, seek to demonstrate the superiority of philosophy in the personal and political life; see Downey, G., ‘Themistius and the defense of Hellenism in the fourth century’, HThR 50.4 (1957), 259–74Google Scholar.

52 If we knew nothing else of Περὶ θεῶν but these two chapters, we would still have a sense of both the general and variegated nature of the piece.

53 Cybele continued to be important in late Platonism. Proclus devoted a book (referenced by Marinus in VProc. 33) and a hymn (in part, at least; Hymn 6; see van den Berg, R. [tr.], Proclus' Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary [Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001], 252–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar) to the goddess.

54 Following the Iamblichan schema in which the second Plotinian hypostasis (Nous/Being) is divided into two parts comprised of first, the Intelligible, and then the Intellectual.

55 Text and translations taken from Wright in the LCL. Treatments of Julian include Mau, G., Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seine Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter (Leipzig, 1908)Google Scholar; Geffcken, J., Kaiser Julianus (Leipzig, 1914)Google Scholar; Bidez, J., La vie de l'empereur Julien (Paris, 1930)Google Scholar; Browning, R., The Emperor Julian (Berkeley, 1976)Google Scholar; Bowersock, G.W., Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, MA, 1978)Google Scholar; Athanassiadi-Fowden, P., ‘A contribution to Mithraic theology: the emperor Julian's Hymn to King Helios’, JThS (1977): 360–71Google Scholar; id., Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar; Smith, R., Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (London and New York, 1995)Google Scholar.

56 With whom Helios also is said to be identical.

57 Proclus would give to Rhea and Zeus similar roles, but he is more deliberate in identifying them with Life and Mind, respectively.

58 Sallustius, too, esteems her as a ‘life-giving goddess;’ see Περὶ θεῶν 4.8 (Ἡ μὲν οὖν Μήτηρ τῶν θεῶν ζωογόνος ἐστὶ θεά).

59 This term is one used in the Chaldaean Oracles for Hecate (fr. 32) with whom Rhea comes to be identified in the fifth-century Athenian school; for a discussion, see Majercik, R., ‘Chaldean triads in Neoplatonic exegesis: some reconsiderations’, CQ 51 (2001), 291–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner (n. 35), 218–21.

60 See Smith (n. 55), 165.

61 The deities residing in the first two ontological levels would correspond to the hypercosmic gods of Myst. while those in the visible realm would be encosmic gods.

62 Julian frequently references the god as ‘King Helios’ (ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἥλιος); passim. The idea of some form of tripartite kingship likely is taken from Plato's Second Letter (312e); if so, this is not without precedent as Numenius of Apamea, with whom Iamblichus would have been quite familiar given his choice to locate his own school in Apamea, also had used the three kings as a model upon which to construct his own ontology in On the Divergence of the Academics from Plato (fr. 24, 1.51 Des Places).

63 This One is beyond Being, thus enabling it to be the Idea, or Form, of Being, but it is consonant with the Iamblichan system to view this One as, in a sense, a ‘second One’, not entirely removed from some form of ‘relationship’ with the Intelligible. In Dam. De princ. 2.1 (Combes–Westerink), we are told that Iamblichus posited an entirely ineffable first principle and then the second One that is prior, yet proximate to the Intelligible. Dillon, J., ‘Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 240–325 A.D.)’, ANRW 2.36.2 (Berlin, 1987), 880–5Google Scholar, gives a fuller account in which other intermediary aspects reside between the second One and the Intelligible, including the One Existent (τό ἓν ὄν) which is positioned on the cusp of the Noetic realm and might also be a viable candidate for the ‘Idea of Being’. In any event, Dillon is willing to say that, on a basic level, Iamblichus postulates ‘a second [One], presiding over, but not correlated to … the noetic triad’ (881).

64 Because it indicates an external source of ‘pressure’ being placed upon the god, this is probably not a word that one like Iamblichus would see as fitting, but it communicates the point.

65 A case could be made (and, indeed, this was my first inclination) that Cybele (Rhea), whom Julian, using terminology reserved for Hecate in the Chaldaean Oracles, calls the ‘source (πηγή) of life’, might be the deity participated (for lack of a better term) by the sacrificial victim. I am still open to this interpretation, but am swayed by the mediating importance of Helios who, essentially, is granted the role of the Platonic Demiurge through whom life enters the universe.

66 Smith (n. 55), 159.

67 Cf. Περὶ θεῶν 16.2.

68 … ἀπολύων αὐτὰς τοῦ σώματος, εἶτα ἐπανάγων ἐπὶ τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ συγγενεῖς οὐσίας; here the referent is the solar Helios, the material aspect of the noeric Helios who stands at the head of this process, but the soul ultimately seeks to leave the realm of Becoming, the created order, and to return to the realm of Being, or even to the One. The mediating Helios is the god who straddles these realms and who, through his encosmic aspect, enables this ἐπιστροϕή. In Proclus, the Demiurge (identified by him as Zeus and, like noeric Helios, an intermediary between the noeric and created realms) is referred to as the ‘paternal harbour’ that offers refuge from the realm of Becoming. The solar Helios maintains a mediating role for Proclus, but is relegated to being an expression of Zeus rather than an expression of noeric Helios. He is still of great importance to Proclus as attested by an extant hymn devoted to this god (Hymn 1) and by his thrice-daily worship of the god (VProc. 22). Functionally, there is little difference between the solar Helioi of Julian and Proclus, but Zeus is granted the role of the Demiurge by the latter, likely because of the philosopher's preference for Orphic themes. See van den Berg, R., ‘Towards the paternal harbour: Proclean theurgy and the contemplation of the Forms’, in Segonds, A. Ph. and Steel, C. (edd.), Proclus et la théologie Platonicienne (Leuven and Paris, 2000), 425–44Google Scholar. See also Saffrey, H.D., ‘La dévotion de Proclus au soleil’, in Sojcher, J. and Hottois, G. (edd.), Philosophies non-chrétiennes et christianisme (Brussels, 1984), 73–86Google Scholar. On the mediating role of Helios in Julian, see Smith (n. 55), 158–9.

69 See Smith (n. 55), 165–6; Smith makes the point that imagery of the sun as representative of a supreme god was one that was deemed acceptable to both ‘pagans’ and Christians. Jodi Magness argues convincingly that Helios imagery was acceptable to some Jews as well; see Magness, J., ‘Heaven on earth: Helios and the zodiac cycle in ancient Mediterranean synagogues’, DOP 59 (2005), 1–52Google Scholar. In private correspondence, Aaron Johnson has suggested the possibility of an intriguing connection between Or. 4.140b (‘For some forms he perfects, others he makes, or adorns, or wakes [to life], and there is no single thing which, apart from the creative power derived from Helios, can come to light and to birth’) and a verse from the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:3–4) that reads, ‘All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people’. For Julian, Helios, not Jesus, is the source of life and light to all people and, were Christians to read this work, they would pick up on this scriptural allusion.

70 Again, it is the proper theurgic sacrifice to the encosmic gods, and the aid these deities would provide, that enables the theurgist next to attend to the hypercosmic deities. Sallustius' theory offers a much more direct connection via shared ζωή.

71 Harl (n. 4), 13, 25, sees linkage between Proclus and the praxes of Sallustius and Iamblichus. Unfortunately, the citations he provides are taken from the works of these latter figures and offer nothing specifically from Proclus. In one example, Harl (13) states that ‘Julian and his most notable intellectual heir, the scholarch Proclus, stressed that sacrifices and ceremonial acted as the best means to achieve union with the noetic realm’. See also the comments by A.D. Nock (n. 25), lxxxv, xcvi–civ; Belayche (n. 4), 121 ff.

72 Frantz, A., ‘From paganism to Christianity in the temples of Athens’, DOP 19 (1965), 185–205Google Scholar; id., ‘Pagan philosophers in Christian Athens’, PAPHS 119 (1975), 29–38Google Scholar; Watts, E.J., City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley, 2006), 79–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Watts does suggest that the temples were restricted and that ritual images were removed slightly earlier in the 420s and 430s–40s, respectively.

73 The remains of a sacrificed pig have been discovered in the so-called ‘House of Proclus.’ See Karavieri, A., ‘The “House of Proclus” on the southern slope of the Acropolis: a contribution’, in Castrén, P. (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens A.D. 267–529 (Helsinki, 1994), 115–40Google Scholar.

74 In Remp. 1.80.13 ff.; 2.63.10.

75 In Tim. 1.88.15.

76 In Tim. 3.89.21.

77 In Remp. 2.66.12–14.

78 A Latin translation by M. Ficino was designated by him Opus Procli de sacrificio et magia (Paris, 1641), but as will be seen, there is little in the work to suggest that this is a manual that touches on sacrifice in a sustained manner. It could be argued that by giving the work this title, he betrays his own interpretive presuppositions. Text from Bidez, J., Catalogue des manuscrits alchemiques Grecs VI (Brussels, 1928)Google Scholar.

79 Proclus does not specify whether the ancient sages are the ones to discover the means to tap into the sympathetic processes or whether they merely possess an extraordinary expertise in this area.

80 Designated οἱ ἱερατικοί and οἱ πάλαι σοϕοί; Proclus presumably has in mind here unnamed sages, but he might be referring, too, to the father and son Juliani. Most frequently, however, these two are designated as οἱ θεουργοί; see Lewy, H., Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, 1978), 461–6Google Scholar, esp. 464. Lewy may be overly optimistic in finding an Egyptian provenance for οἱ ἱερατικοὶ, but his discussion remains an important one.

81 Sympathy may have been effective in the encosmic realm, but it does not affect those deities in the hypercosmic regions. See Myst. 207.6–208.5; this is said in the context of sacrifice, but it is consonant with other statements Iamblichus makes on the centrality of the gods in the theurgic process.

82 See in Crat. 15.1; in Tim. 1.170.23; 2.294.32.

83 These entities, located subsequent to the One in Proclus' system, represent the first stage from unity to multiplicity in Proclus' system. These also correspond to traditional deities such as Apollo and Hermes.

84 Note the similarity to Iamblichan theory in this regard.

85 Cf. Plin. HN 30.19; Porph. Abst. 2.48.

86 CMAG VI 151, 14–15.

87 ‘So the sacrifice (θυσία) of such material rouses up the gods to manifestation, summons them to reception, welcomes them when they appear and ensures their perfect representation.’

88 The construction of such images well may have included the incorporation of animals, but whether these animals were ritually sacrificed is debatable. Myst. 233.9–13 speaks of a receptacle (ὑποδοχή) comprised of stones, plants and animals, but there is nothing to suggest the sacrifice of these animals prior to their incorporation into the receptacle. In Phil. orac., fr. 317 (Smith), Porphyry communicates the instructions given by Hecate for the crafting of her ritual image. Included in these ingredients are to be small animals, ‘such as lizards which live about the house’. Here is found another possible method for the procurement of ritual components, that is, using those creatures that are readily at hand. See also Nock, A.D., ‘The lizard in magic and religion’, in id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Stewart, Z., vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA, 1972), 271–6Google Scholar.

89 These grades of virtue include the ethical, political, purificatory, contemplative, paradigmatic and theurgic virtues; Brisson, Luc, ‘The doctrine of the degrees of virtues in the Neoplatonists: an analysis of Porphyry's Sentences 32, its antecedents, and its heritage’, in Tarrant, H. and Baltzly, D. (edd.), Reading Plato in Antiquity, tr. Chase, M. (London, 2006), 89–105Google Scholar; D. Baltzly, ‘Pathways to purification: the cathartic virtues in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition’, ibid. 169–84.

90 Edwards, M. (tr.), Neoplatonic Saints: The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students (Liverpool, 2005), 58Google Scholar.

91 Constantius (341, 353, 356); Valentinian I and Valens (364); Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I (381, 382, 385); Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius (391); Theodosius I, Arcadius and Honorius (392); Arcadius and Honorius (395, 399); Arcadius, Honorius and Theodosius II (407); Theodosius II and Valentinian III (426, 435); Valentinian III and Martian (451); Justinian actively worked to stamp out ‘paganism’ by legislating against sacrifice and the rights of ‘pagans’ to occupy public office and to succeed to an estate. See Trombley (n. 4), 309; Harl (n. 4), 22–3.

92 Edwards (n. 90), xliv n. 17.

93 Damascius, in The Philosophical History 89, speaks of Domninus, a fellow student of Proclus' under Syrianus and Plutarch, who ‘could not bear to eat meat which had not been offered in sacrifice’.

94 For example, Cass. Dio 46.5.2; Philo, De vit. Mos. 1.73.5.

95 See Clark, G., ‘Augustine's Porphyry and the universal way of salvation’, in Karamanolis, G. and Sheppard, A. (edd.), Studies on Porphyry (London, 2007), 140Google Scholar.

96 Translation taken from Proclus, Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, tr. Runia, D.T. and Share, M., vol. 2 (Cambridge, 2008)Google Scholar.

97 Dillon (n. 18), 407–11 makes a compelling case that Proclus is, indeed, indebted to the Iamblichan theory of prayer. Although Proclus likely is following Iamblichus' description of prayer found in his Timaeus commentary, Proclus' theory of prayer coheres, too, with that found in Myst. 237–40.

98 Late Platonist ontology grew increasingly complex and Proclus envisioned numerous triadic layers of deities residing between the generated realm and, ultimately, the One.

99 πάντ' οὖν καὶ μένει καὶ ἐπιστρέϕει πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ταύτην λαβόντα παρ' αὐτῶν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ διττὰ συνθήματα κατ' οὐσίαν ὑποδεξάμενα, τὰ μὲν ὅπως ἂν ἐκεῖ μένῃ, τὰ δὲ ὅπως ἂν ἐπιστρέϕῃ προελθόντα. καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ἐν ψυχαῖς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑπομένοις ἀψύχοις πάρεστι θεωρεῖν.

100 CMAG VI 148, 3–10; Prop. 35 of the Elements of Theology succinctly states ‘that every effect remains in its cause, proceeds from it and reverts upon it’. This theory is infused with theurgic meaning in On the Hieratic Art in which Proclus claimed that ‘all things are to be found in all things’. The hieratic masters, it will be recalled, ‘marvelled at seeing those things which come last in those which come first, and vice versa; earthly things in the heavens in a causal and celestial manner, and heavenly things on the earth in a terrestrial way.’

101 I provide here the full text of in Tim. 1.213.8–18, sections of which will be extracted in the following discussion: αἰτίας δὲ τῆς εὐχῆς ὡς μὲν ποιητικὰς ἀπολογιζόμεθα εἶναι τὰς δραστηρίους τῶν θεῶν δυνάμεις, τὰς ἐπιστρεϕούσας καὶ ἀνακαλουμένας πάντα ἐπ' αὐτοὺς τοὺς θεούς, ὡς δὲ τελικὰς τὰ ἄχραντα ἀγαθὰ τῶν ψυχῶν, ἃ δὴ καρποῦνται ἐνιδρυνθεῖσαι τοῖς θεοῖς, ὡς δὲ παραδειγματικὰς τὰ πρωτουργὰ αἴτια τῶν ὄντων, ἃ καὶ προῆλθεν ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἥνωται πρὸς αὐτὸ κατὰ μίαν ἄρρητον ἕνωσιν, ὡς δὲ εἰδικὰς τὰ ἀϕομοιωτικὰ τῶν ψυχῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τελεσιουργὰ τῆς ὅλης αὐτῶν ζωῆς, ὡς δὲ ὑλικὰς τὰ συνθήματα τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ταῖς οὐσίαις αὐτῶν ἐνδοθέντα πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν τῶν ὑποστησάντων αὐτάς τε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα θεῶν.

102 VProc. 15; see Watts (n. 72), 105–9.

103 VProc. 29.

104 See Karavieri (n. 73), 115–40. In this article, Karavieri describes the results of the excavations of the so-called ‘House of Proclus’, a fifth-century c.e. building located on the southern slope of the Acropolis in the approximate location detailed in VProc. 29. Amongst the finds are found both a domestic shrine and the buried remains of a piglet killed for ritual purposes, possibly in a fashion akin to sacrifices at Eleusis. I am not suggesting that this offering was made by Proclus, of course, but it does suggest that the home was used for rituals that were, perhaps, clandestine. If this site is indeed a locus of Late Platonist activity, and I think the odds are in its favour, then this settles any question of whether sacrifice is an element of ritual for, at the very least, the Platonist residents of this villa.

105 Watts (n. 72), 108.

106 The anonymous reviewer of this article suggests that these proscriptions against sacrifice may be indicative of a consistent ‘zero tolerance’ policy against the ritual. Harl (n. 4), 7 argues that the repeated laws against sacrifice suggest its continued popularity and practice, and this too is a possibility, but if members of a high-profile and increasingly controversial institution like the Athenian Academy brazenly sacrificed in public or semi-public ritual, this surely would have brought unwanted attention to the school. Private sacrifice, though also outlawed, would have been the better option and, as has been seen, seems to have occurred, but the degree of regularity with which these rites would have been celebrated is in question. There were dangers associated with private sacrifice and, thus, it may have been practised only on certain occasions.

107 I am looking forward to Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler's forthcoming book (which will be available by the time this article appears) that promises to expand this point and, in the book's description, to go ‘beyond the picture of a coherent, extra-philosophical tradition drawn by the Neoplatonists to sketch the variations in the rituals subsumed under “theurgy” and their function, and [to show] how every author constructs his own “theurgy”’: Tanaseanu-Döbler, I., Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition (Göttingen, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.