Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:04:10.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dreams, Theurgy and Freelance Divination: the Testimony of Iamblichus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Polymnia Athanassiadi
Polymnia Athanassiadi
Affiliation:
University of Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The men of the Antonine era shared with us a keen interest in divination, which they expressed in a variety of complementary or apparently contradictory ways: in polemic and dispassionate research, but more obviously in the act of reviving their ancient prophetic shrines and of establishing new oracles. If the rage that the vaticinating demons inspired in Oenomaus of Gadara and in Lucian is sufficient evidence of the rationalist's reaction to a mounting social and intellectual trend, the scholarly achievement of Artemidorus of Daldis at the instigation of Apollo himself exemplifies in more positive fashion the involvement of the age with prophetic lore. So does the incredible success of the Pythagorean Alexander's oracular establishment on the inhospitable shores of the Black Sea, and the personality of Aelius Aristides, that professional valetudinarian whose night-diaries dictated by Asclepius covered more than three hundred thousand lines. It was in precisely this world that the Delphic oracle underwent a remarkable renaissance under the auspices of a Platonist philosopher, and that an emperor commended the publication by a senator of a work about the dreams which foretold his ascent to the throne.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 83 , November 1993 , pp. 115 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Polymnia Athanassiadi 1993. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

References

1 For the formidable attack on oracles by Oenomaus of Gadara, see Eusebius, PE V.18ff. and VI.7; cf. IV.2.14; for Lucian's attack, see his Alex, passim. For the true dimensions of Artemidorus' achievement, see Price, S. R. F., ‘The future of dreams: from Freud to Artemidorus’, Past and Present 113 (NoV. 1986), 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Sacred Tale 11.3 (Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968)Google Scholar).

3 On the role of Plutarch in this revival, see Swain, S., ‘Plutarch, Hadrian and Delphi’, Historia 40 (1991), 318–30Google Scholar.

4 Dio Cassius LXXIII.23.1–2; cf. LXXIX.10.1–2 (on the dreams of Septimius Severus).

5 See inter alia, Robert, L., A travers l'Asie Mineure (1980), 393–421Google Scholar, and Parke, H. W., The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor (1985)Google Scholar, passim.

6 See Athanassiadi, P., ‘The fate of oracles in late antiquity: Didyma and Delphi’, Δελτίον Χϱιστιανιϰῆς Άϱχαιολογιϰῆς Έταιϱείας N.S. 15 (1989–1990), 271–8Google Scholar.

7 See CTh XVI.10.1 (321), IX.16.4 (357), IX.16.5 (357), IX.16.6 (358), IX.16.7 (364), IX.16.8 (370 or 373), IX.16.9 (371), IX.16.12 (409), XVI.10.7 (381), XVI.7.2 (383), XVI.10.9 (385), XVI.10.12.1 (392) etc. Equally all the causes célèbres of late antiquity involved the use of freelance divination: Ammianus XXIX.1; Socrates, HE IV. 19; Sozomen VI. 35.

8 Dodds, E. R., ‘Theurgy and its relationship to Neoplatonism’, JRS 37 (1947), 55–69Google Scholar.

9 ibid., 56–8.

10 ibid., 59: ‘the de mysteriis is a manifesto of irrationalism, an assertion that the road to salvation is found not in reason but in ritual’.

11 ibid., 64.

12 Eusebius, PE IV.2.14.

13 It is impossible to date the De Mysteriis on other than internal criteria. On the grounds that Chaldaean influence is not yet as prominent in this work as in Iamblichus' later writings, Dillon, J. M., Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Plat. dial. comm. fragmenta (1973), 13, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, dates the De Mysteriis c. 280. Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (1981), 183Google Scholar, proposes by implication a date c. 300. Both the fact that Porphyry addressed so important a question naire to Iamblichus, and the self-confident tone of the latter's answer, suggest that by then Iamblichus was an established master. A date around 300 or slightly later is therefore probable. I have communicated this view to John Dillon, who finds it ‘perfectly reasonable’ (letter of 6.7.1990). The Praeparatio Evangelica was begun shortly after 313 and completed before 320: Barnes, 71–2.

14 See Proclus, In Ti. II. 240. 4–5: ; In Ti. 1. 426. 3ft. (= Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 34 and Dillon's commentary ad loc. pp. 307–9). This passage offers an excellent illustration of the difficulties faced by Iamblichus' followers when dealing with his exegesis; In Ti. III. 257. 24ft. (= Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 82A): Iamblichus is accused of not being a careful reader of Plato, of actually disregarding . This attitude is perpetuated by Proclus' epigoni who, while accepting Iamblichus' greatness, pronounce him too intuitive and therefore unclear: Olympiodorus, In Phaed. 10.1, 7; 11.2; 13.4; Damascius, In Phaed. 1.207; 548 (a good example of sticking to the letter of Iamblichan passages). For the close dependence of these commentaries on Proclus, Westerink, L. G., The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo 1 (1976), 18Google Scholar.

15 Anecdotes which illustrate both the humorous attitude of Iamblichus towards miracles and the incapacity of his pupils to understand the spirit behind his remarks are reported by Eunapius (VS V.2, V.1.7–10), whose manner of telling the stories illustrates this attitude all too well.

16 For Julian on Iamblichus, see n. 99. A good example of Proclus believing that he agrees with Iamblichus, when in fact he does not, is provided by his In Ti. III. 173. 17–24; 175. 30–176. 1; for Proclus' conviction that he is following Iamblichus, cf. In Ti. III. 174. 16–17: , a promise which is not kept. Striking examples of this circumstance in connection with divination will be provided further in the text.

17 : Iamblichus, On the Soul (ap. Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.41.32, 866).

18 In PE IV.10–16.10 Eusebius makes Porphyry contradict himself on the subject of sacrifices by introducing abundant evidence from the De Abstinentia (11.7, 11–13, 24, 27, 36, 54–6, 60–1), while throughout the PE; his main Porphyrian source is the De Philosophia.

19 Phil. 11 (Wolff), pp. 154–64; Ep. Aneb. 11.8–10b; 1.2c and PE V.8–10.

20 Phil. 11, p. 169; III, pp. 175–6 and PE VI.5.

21 Phil. 11, pp. 166–8 and PE VI.1; Phil. 11, p. 170 and PE VI.3.

22 Two authors stand out in this respect, Theodoret (who actually acknowledges the PE to be his main source in his attack on paganism), Affect. 11.97, and John Philoponus: Wolff, Phil., pp. 118, 147–54, 156, 169, 170–7.

23 PE III.14; IV.17.4–6; V.I.I, 16; 15.3 (an important passage); VI.11.82 (view already current in Christian polemic, cf. Origen, Cels. 7.3, but given unusual force by Eusebius).

24 PE IV.1.10–11; 2.5; demons and charlatans: V.21.5 (on the authority of Oenomaus of Gadara); 26.5.

25 PE V.1.3, 16.4; 17.11.

26 PE V.17.6–9 (death of Pan under Tiberius); 13 (general statement), cf. IV.17.4; the theme was amply developed by Theodoret, Affect. X. 11.43–8; PE IV.2.3; V.1.2–3 (silence of oracles).

27 PE IV.2.13; V.27.5; cf. V.16. Delphi and Claros are described as dead in IV.2.8, and in V.16 (quoting Porphyry, Phil. 11, pp. 172–3) as the only still surviving oracles, along with Didyma.

28 Eusebius, PE IV.2.11; VC 11.50; HE IX.3; Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 11.6.

29 On the dishonest cunning of the Fathers in this connection, see my ‘Fate of oracles’ (op. cit. (n. 6), 278).

30 J. Bidez, following Zeller, regarded the Letter to Anebo as a work from Porphyry's post-Plotinian period (Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe néo-platonicien (1913), 80–1), and placed the De Mysteriis after Porphyry's death (ibid., 87). Sodano, A. R., Porfirio, Lettera ad Anebo (1958), xxxii–xxxviGoogle Scholar, on the other hand, dates the text between 263 and 268 on internal evidence. I assume both the Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis to be contemporary, and date them c. 300 or later, cf. above, n. 13.

31 Porphyry, Ep.Aneb. 1.2a.

32 ibid. I.1C.

33 ibid. I.3b.

34 ibid. I.3c.

35 ibid. I.3d.

36 ibid. I.4.

37 ibid. II.1.

38 ibid. II.2.

39 ibid. II.3a.

40 ibid. II.3a

41 ibid. II.4, 5.

42 See above, n. 22; also PE V.10; VI.5.1; XIV.10.2; Theodoret, Affect. 1.48; III.66–8; X.11ff.; it is worth noting that Theodoret, Affect. X.42, attributes to Porphyry a hostile attitude to divination, mentioning him in one breath with Diogenianus the Epicurean.

43 Ep. Aneb. II.7 and Myst. III.31.179; Ep. Aneb. II.8 and Myst. IV.11;Ep.Aneb. II.18 and Myst. X.2, 4.

44 A point made clearly by Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 45.

45 Myst. 1.3, 10.34.

46 ibid. 1.5, 8.28.

47 ibid. 1.8.29.

48 Thus on the typology of apparitions, ibid. 11.3.70ft.

49 ibid. 1.2.7. For a good analysis of theurgy and the theurgic ‘way’, as also of Porphyry's intellectual limitations, see Shaw, G., ‘Theurgy: rituals of unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus’, Traditio 41 (1985), 17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Myst. III. 1.

51 ibid. III.4, 5, 7, 11, 31.176.

52 ibid. III.7.115: .

53 Myst. IV. 10:

54 Phil. II, p. 170.

55 : Myst. III.28.170; IX.3.276; X.5. In this, as in much else, Iamblichus proves himself to be an orthodox Platonist; cf. Plato, Phdr. 2440cd and Plotinus III.1.3.13–16.

56 Myst. III. 15; VI.4; IX.3.276.

57 ibid. III.16, 27.

58 ibid. IV.10.

59 ibid. V.25; I.15; cf. VII.5. Here lies the essential difference between Plotinus and Iamblichus: having a more pessimistic view of humanity, the latter laid more emphasis on ritual than Plotinus, who expected the gods to come to him (Porphyry, Plot. 10.37–8). This could be because Plotinus believed that there is an element in our soul for ever unaffected by passion (Enn. III.4.3.22ff.; IV. 1); against such optimism and spiritual autarky, Iamblichus reminded his readers that the charioteer of the soul cannot help sinking at some point, filling his pair of horses with lameness and moulting (In Ti. fr. 87).

60 Myst. V.20.228: ὀΨὲ, 22: , cf. 15.219, 18; I.11–15. On the stages of prayer, V.26.237–8.

61 ibid. VII.4.

62 ibid. VII.5. The Platonic view as defined in the Cratylus and finalized by Proclus (In Parm. 851.8) is that words are . Disregarding this, the Tyrian Malchus had translated his name into Greek as and allowed Amelius to call him .

63 Myst. I.15.

64 ibid. III.9.

65 ibid. III.17.139, 18.143: .

66 Ep. Aneb. II.3a; cf. above, n. 43.

67 Myst. III.14, 17; V.23.233.

68 ibid. III.14; V.26.

69 ibid. III.20.148.

70 ibid. III.20.

71 This is an important theme in Eunapius' Lives of the Philosophers: Sosipatra was VI.8.1.

72 Myst. III.3:

73 Ep. Aneb. II.5c.

74 Myst. III.25.159.

75 ibid. IV.10.

76 ibid. X.4; cf. IV.10.

77 Astrology and public life in the early Empire, Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (1979), 119–26Google Scholar; for general belief in, Neugebauer, G. and van Hoesen, H. B., Greek Horoscopes (1959)Google Scholar, passim, esp. 176–90. For Plotinus' criticism of the discipline, III.1.5; in II.3.3 he condemns astrology on the grounds that its principles are incompatible with those of astronomy, a true science. For the problematic passage II.3. 12–32, see A. H. Armstrong in his edition of the Enneads 11 (1966), 54–5. For Plotinus' punishment for his attack on fate and astrology, F. Maternus, Math. 1.7.14–22.

78 Myst. IX.3.275.

79 ibid. IX.1–2.

80 ibid. IX.3.276.

81 ibid. IV.2.184; VIII.7; IX.6. For the case of Plotinus, Porphyry, Plot. 10.

82 Myst. IX.4.

83 ibid. VII.3; VIII.4.

84 Origen, Philoc. 23 and Eusebius, PE VI.11. For the important distinction between astronomy, a science, and astrology, a pseudo-science, Plotinus II.3.3. For the semantic evolution of the term, see Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940), s.V. .

85 C Th IX.16.8; 12; Fowden, G., The Egyptian Hermes (1986), 178–9Google Scholar. Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa and a pupil of Eusebius, lost his see for dabbling in astrology: Socrates, HE II.9; Sozomen, HE III.6. Basil of Caesarea, Hex. VI.5, faces the practice of astrology as a major social evil; Dagron, G. and Rougé, J., 'Trois horoscopes de voyages en mer (5e siècle après J.-C.)’, REB 40 (1982), 118–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Marinus casting Proclus' horoscope, Vita Procli 35.

86 Ep. Aneb. II.2a: .

87 Myst. III.13.

88 Bonner, Campbell, ‘Magical amulets’, HTR 39 (1946), 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. P. Mag. II.150–82, for a detailed description of an with characters; 1.262–78 and V.305–68, a clear account of the use of characters for magical purposes; VII. passim (1–148, a Homer oracle); X.36–50, XI.1–11, literally standing on characters, as suggested by the Porphyrian text. Cf. also Porphyry, Phil. 1, pp. 137–8, 164.

89 Or. VII. 216c.

90 De Diis 15, and Athanassiadi, P., Julian: an Intellectual Biography 2 (1992), 154Google Scholar.

91 On magically obtained oracles: Ammianus XXIX.29–32; Eunapius, VS VII.6.3, cf. VI.6.1–3; Synesius, Insomn. XII. 144a–145b; Zacharias Scholasticus, V.Sev., PO 2, 57–70, 90–1; John of Ephesus, HE 27–34. By contrast, Plotinus, in whose spirit Iamblichus speaks, defines the art of divination as the spontaneous (III. 3.6), that is the reading of signs which are ubiquitous, as he explains in another passage: (II.3.7).

92 See Cerný, J., Ancient Egyptian Religion (1952), 64ff.Google Scholar; Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I., ‘The imperial chamber at Luxor’, DOP 29 (1975), 242–3Google Scholar. The ferrying of the statue of Isis from Philae to the land of the Blemmyes and the Nobadae at fixed intervals for the giving of oracles is still attested in the mid-fifth century: Priscus, FHG IV.100 (= Blockley, fr. 27).

93 Myst. III.28.167.

94 Ep. Aneb. II.6B; cf. Phil. 1, pp. 130–4. For practical adaptations, see Harris, J. R., ‘Iconography and context: ab oriente ad occidentem’, in Henig, M. and King, A. (eds), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire (1986), 175Google Scholar.

95 Myst. III.28–9.

96 Isid. fr. 174.

97 See above, p. 119. by the help of : Hermias, In Phdr. 87, 4 ft.; Porphyry's question endorsed by Proclus: In Ti. III.6.9ft.; ritually purified statues symbolizing the presence of the gods: Proclus, In Ti. 1. 273. IIff.; statues becoming animate: ibid. III.6.12; Theol. Plat. 1.29. In Ti. 111.155.18ff. contains a straightforward statement that the god can be constrained to enter a statue and render oracles.

98 Myst. III.30.175. For Maximus animating a statue of Hecate, see Eunapius, VS VII.2.6–10. For violence used against the gods, cf. ibid, VII.3.10–12: .

99 Julian, Ep. 12 (Bidez); Or. XI.157C: in Iamblichus there is to be found . On Maximus, Ep. 89a.452a; 89b.298b.

100 Myst. III.29.173.

101 Phil. 1, p. 137; see also n. 97; Marinus, Procl. 28; Psellus, Ep. 187 in Sathas, , Μεσαιωνιϰὴ Βιβλιοϑήϰη V (1876), 474Google Scholar.

102 ‘The procedures of theurgy were broadly similar to those of vulgar magic’ (n. 73), claims Dodds in his influential article (above, n. 8), an axiom which still seems to be universally accepted (cf. e.g. Fowden, G., The Egyptian Hermes (1986), 126ff.Google Scholar).

103 cf. above, n. 6.

104 Myst. III.II; cf. III.22.154. On the transfer of the numinous from institutions to individuals in late antiquity see now Athanassiadi, P., ‘Philosophers and oracles: shifts of authority in late paganism’, Byzantion 62 (1992), 45–62Google Scholar.

105 See above, n. 56.

106 Ammianus XXV.4.17. CTh XVI. 10.12.1 (A.D. 392).

107 Myst. VI.1.4.

108 ibid. VI.4: . Cf. above, n. 102, and CTh IX. 16.4–9; XVI.7.2; XVI.10.7, 9; CJ I.11.7.

109 A distinction imposed on us by Christian polemic (e.g. Eusebius, PE III.14.1–2) and propagated by modern prejudice, as in MacMullen, R., Paganism in the Roman Empire (1981), 72Google Scholar; for a corrective view, Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians (1986), 135–6Google Scholar. On the distinction between the ‘Roman’ and the ‘Christian’ use of the term superstitio in the fourth century, see Gascou, J., ‘Le rescrit d'Hispellum’, MEFR LXXIX (1967), 652–5Google Scholar.

110 See above, nn. 52, 53.

111 Abundant evidence for dream oracles from the fifth/fourth centuries B.C. to the third/fourth centuries A.D., with the second century A.D. particularly well represented, is to be found in van Straten, F. T., ‘Daikrates’ dream: a votive relief from Kos, and some kat'onar dedications', BABesh 51 (1976), 1–38Google Scholar; for the third century see Veyne, P., ‘Une évolution du paganisme gréco-romain: injustice et piété des dieux, leurs ordres ou “oracles”’, Latomus 45 (1986), 259–83Google Scholar. See also below, n. 134.

112 Myst. III.2 and Artemidorus I.1 (Pack) p. 3.

113 Myst. III.2–3, 23.

114 See above, n. 82.

115 Myst. III.3; cf. Philostratus, VA III.44; Fowden, G., The Egyptian Hermes (1986), 163–4Google Scholar (on Thessalus).

116 Zosimus I.57 2–4. On the history of the site, see Dagron, G., Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle (1978), 55–73, 85–8Google Scholar, and Hellenkemper, H. and Hild, F., Neue Forschungen in Kilikien (1986), 44–7Google Scholar.

117 Thecla appears to Jews and pagans, Mir. Intr. ll. 91–2, and bestows her blessings on them, Mir. 14, 17, 18, 39, 40; those who ask for prophecy are Mir. 10, ll. 34–5, cf. Mir. Intr. ll. 84–91; she is perpetually dashing all over the place, like Asclepius, Mir. 12, ll. 100–101; her yearly festival attracts people from the whole area, including Cyprus, Mir. 15, 26, 29, 33, 34, and even rhetorical contests take place, Mir. 41; but her church is always thronged with the sick of all ages, Mir. 24, 38, while the whole suburb has become an informal sub monastic refuge, Mir. 43, 46. The point concerning the universality of dream divination was explicitly made by Synesius of Cyrene, Insomn. XIII.145d–146a.

118 Mir. Intr., Mir. 1, cf. 11, 18,40.

119 For Zeno's vision, in which St Thecla prophesied that he would regain the throne, his subsequent campaign and his construction on the site of a , see Evagrius, HE III.8 and Dagron, op. cit. (n. 116), 59–63.

120 Cyril of Alexandria, De Cyro et Johanne, PG 77, 1101: 1105: (i.e. Isis)· .

121 cf. the case of Asclepiodotus of Alexandria, living in Aphrodisias in Caria, when he received an order in his sleep to go to Menuthis, Zacharias, Vita Severi 17.

122 ibid. 18, 22–31 and Cyril of Alexandria, op. cit. (n. 120), PG 77, 1105.

123 Zacharias, V. Sev. 33–6; for a fuller description of the situation, see Herzog, R., ‘Der Kampf um den Kult von Menuthis’, Pisciculi: Studien zur Religion und Kultur des Alterums, Franz Joseph Dölger…dargeboten (1939), 117–24Google Scholar. For the eventual Islamization of the dream oracle (re-named in due course Abukir after Aba Cyrus!), see Athanassiadi, P., ‘Persecution and response in late paganism: the evidence of Damascius’ JHS 113 (1993, forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Latest edition by Marcos, N. Fernandez, Los Thaumata de Sofronio. Contribución al estudio de la incubatio cristiana (1975)Google Scholar. For the history of the site, see Maraval, P., Lieux saints et pelerinages d'Orient (1985), 318–19Google Scholar and Athanassiadi, op. cit. (n. 123).

125 Ammianus XIX. 12.3.

126 Perdrizet, P. and Lefebvre, G., Les graffites grecs du Memnonion d'Abydos (1919), xix–xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

127 For a case of high treason under Constantius II, implicating high officials and intellectuals in Egypt and Syria, who had consulted Bes by correspondence, see Ammianus XIX. 12.3–15.

128 Memnonion no. 528.

129 ibid., no. 489: ; no. 492: , no. 493: ; no. 500: , no. 503: ; no. 528: , together with Robert, L., Hellenica XIII, 102Google Scholar.

130 Memnonion no. 524: , who may, of course, be of Jewish extraction.

131 Amélineau, E., Mémoires de la mission archéologique française au Caire IV.2 (1895) fr. VI, pp. 689–90Google Scholar. For the prosperity of paganism in the area in the early sixth century, cf. ibid., 685–6. For the date of Apa Moses, see Coquin, R.-G., ‘Christianismes orientaux’, Annuaire de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Ve Section (Sciences religieuses) 92 (1983–1984), 374Google Scholar.

132 Synesius, Insomn. XII. 145c.

133 ibid., 146a.

134 cf. above, n. 111; for a systematization of the evidence for inducing dreams, see now Eitrem's, S. posthumous study, ‘Dreams and divination in magical ritual’ (trans. Graf, F.), in Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D. (eds), Magika Hiera (1991), 176–87Google Scholar; also Nock, A. D., ‘Studies in the Graeco-Roman beliefs of the empire’, JHS 45 (1925), 95–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar [= Essays, 45–6]; Robert, L., Hellenica I, 72, n. 1; II, 148Google Scholar; W. Günther, Ist. Mitt. 35 (1985), 189–91 (first dedication made at Didyma ), together with Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians (1986), 150–67Google Scholar. The practice was not limited to the lower classes: Dio Cassius LXXIII.23.4; LXXV.3; LXXIX.10.1–2; Herodian 11.9.3, 5–7; IV.8–3;, VI.8.6. According to tradition, Delphi had originally been a dream-oracle: Euripides, IT 1259ff.; cf. Mark the Deacon, V. Porph. 59.

135 P.Mag. I. 328ff.; may also mean horoscope-casting at the hour a patient takes to his bed, as in Galen 19. 529.

136 Damascius, Isid. E.P. 12.

137 Nilsson, M., Geschichte der griechischen Religion II (1974 3), 336–7Google Scholar.

138 As the order of Isis to Asclepiodotus implies (see above, n. 121). Belief in the god's residence in his main sanctuary was well entrenched, cf. Roux, G., Delphes: son oracle et ses dieux (1976), 73Google Scholar; Herzog, R., Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros, Philologus Suppl. XXII.3(1931), 16Google Scholar, no. 23: at the Asclepieion at Troezen, Aristagora had her head cut off from her body by Asclepius' sons, who then found it impossible to replace it; Asclepius was immediately sent for, but could not come from Epidaurus until the following night, while in the meantime the patient remained headless . See also the famous passage in Lucian, Bis Acc. 1.

139 cf. the characteristic inscription on an amulet from Rome, IG XIV.2413.16: . Also PMag. VII.664–85 ; 704–26 .

140 Myst. III.2.

141 See above, n. 23; Theodoret, Affect. II.97, for the specific admission that he depends on the PE; X.2–3, on demons. For the survival of belief in the demonic power of statues, see Mango, C., ‘Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder’, DOP 17 (1963), 59–64Google Scholar; and more recently, Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (1984), 127–50Google Scholar; Cameron, Averil and Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (1984), 31–4Google Scholar.

142 For Aphrodite at Gaza, Mark the Deacon, V. Porph. 61: For the temple of Isis at Philae, converted into a church of St Stephen in 537, see Bernand, E., Les inscriptions grecques et latines de Philae II (1969), nos 200–4Google Scholar (esp. 201: ). CTh XVI.10.25 (A.D. 435).

143 Myst. III.30.175.

144 ibid. III.17.141–2.

145 ibid. III.28–9.

146 Myst. V.23, where the ũλη apt to receive divinity is surely our own body; besides, this is only a way of speaking (: Myst. V.23.232). On the eternity of matter, Myst. VIII.3 and On the Chaldaean Oracles ap. John Lydus Mens. IV.159.

147 On Syrianus' influence on Proclus, see Sheppard, Anne, ‘Proclus' attitude to theurgy’, CQ 32 (1982), 214–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dillon, J. in his introduction to Proclus' commentary On the Parmenides (1987), pp. XIII, XVGoogle Scholar. For Iamblichus and Syrianus, ibid. p. xxxi.

148 In Ti. I.19.9; 77.24; 147.25; 152.28; 156.31; 159.27; 165.23; 209.11307.15; III.33.1134.5; 334.3 etc.

149 Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 9: Cf. Proclus, In Ti. III. 107. 29ff. and Dillon, J., JHS 108 (1988), 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the attribution.

150 In In Ti. frs 34 and 71 Iamblichus disapproves of unnecessary distinctions; in frs 58 and 61 he opts for the simplest explanation.

151 cf. Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 6; ibid. 82a, where Iamblichus is accused by Proclus of not being a careful reader of Plato.

152 A juxtaposition of the methods applied by the two men is to be found in Proclus, In Ti. III. 14, 16ff.; cf. Iamblichus, In Ti. fr. 63; see also below, n. 159.

153 cf. Theol. Plat. IV.9; also the valuable remarks of Westerink, L. G. in the introduction to his edition of Olympiodorus' commentary on the Phaedo (1976), 19Google Scholar.

154 In Ti. I. 158. 12ff.

155 ibid. I. 51. 24ff.; III. 6. 12ff.; 155. 18ff.

156 Damascius, In Phaed. 1.172 (Westerink); cf. John Lydus, Mens. IV.53.

157 For Iamblichus agreeing with Plotinus, Proclus, Theol. Plat. IV.5; In Ti. I. 307. 15ff. Unlike Porphyry, Iamblichus was sometimes felt to be a pure Platonist: Damascius, In Phil. 10, p. 7 (Westerink). The essential relation between Plotinus and Iamblichus is one of vision and methodology, as observed by Westerink, L. G., The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo I (1976), 15Google Scholar: ‘Iamblichus’ purpose is to make Plotinus' belief of the superiority of intuition to reason the guiding principle of a new systematic approach to Plato. Intuition, which is a superior form of sight, does not proceed from point to point, but has a unified vision of the structure of all reality.’ See also nn. 45–9, 55.

158 Iamblichus' manner is ὲποπτιϰώτεϱον (intuitive), as opposed to Porphyry's which is μεϱιϰώτεϱον (analytical): Proclus, In Ti. I. 204. 26–7; he writes ὲνϑεαστιϰῶς (in an inspired manner): op. cit. I. 156. 31; cf. Olympiodorus, In Phaed. p. 57.1ft. N).

159 For Proclus' daily programme, Marinus, Procl. 22. A good example of Proclus' incapacity to grasp Iamblichus' simplicity of thought is provided by his interpretation of Ti. 28c (In Ti. I. 307–9), where he is obliged to convict Iamblichus of inconsistency, cf. Dillon, J. M., Iambl. Chalc. in Plat. dial. comm. fragm. (1973), Appendix C, 417–19Google Scholar.

160 According to John Philoponus, in his lost treatise πεϱὶ ὰγαλμάτων Iamblichus attempted to prove the intrinsic sanctity of statues: Photius, Bibl. cod. 215, 173b. Dodds, who takes the statement of Photius-Philoponus at face value, is nevertheless slightly uneasy about it (art. cit. (n. 8), 64, n. 94). Even Julian seems to have understood what Iamblichus was saying on the divinity of statues and to have followed his teaching on this issue: Ep. 89b, 293ab.

161 Insomn. XI.143b: . It is in this work that Synesius offers abundant information about private oracular consultation as an expensive, but widely practised pastime which was persecuted by the state, XII. 144a.

162 Ep. 154 ad fin.

163 Insomn. V.135C: .

164 Insomn. XII. 144b.

165 See above, pp. 123–6. Synesius knew people who were collecting books on oniromancy, Insomn. XVII. 151b.

166 Insomn. XIV–XV. 148–149a. One should not forget that the Aristotelian view, which did not recognize a divine origin to dreams, enjoyed a wide following, PG 149, 557.

167 Insomn. II.131d–133a.

168 Insomn. XII.145b: .

169 cf. Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (1981), 168Google Scholar.

170 See, among others, Basil of Caesarea, Hex. VI.7 and Gregory of Nyssa, Fat., PG 45, 145–73.

171 Myst. VIII.8.272; cf. In Alc. fr. 5 (= Proclus, In Alc. 88, 10ff.).

172 Steinschneider, M., Die arabischen Uebersetzungen aus dem griechischen (1960), 144Google Scholar; Kraus, P., Jābir ibn Hayyan II (1942), 123ff.Google Scholar (Iamblichus on ritual); Walzer, R., ‘Al-Fārābī's theory of prophecy and divination’, JHS 77 (1957), 147–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar [= Greek into Arabic (1962), 218–19] (for Iamblichan influence); Rosenthal, F., The Classical Heritage in Islam (trans. Marmorstein, E. and J.) (1975), 42Google Scholar (on Pythagorean commentaries); for an unpublished Arabic commentary on the Golden Verses, attributed in the title to Iamblichus and dated 677/1278–9, see Linley, N. (ed. trans.), Ibn al-Tayyib, Proclus' Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses, Arethusa Monographs 10 (n.d.), vGoogle Scholar.