Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo
&
Iamblichus’ On the Mysteries
An analysis

© Stephen Ronan, 1998

Introduction

Porphyry of Tyre’s (c. 232/300-305 AD) Letter to Anebo (Epistula ad Anebonem) and Iamblichus of Chalcis’ (c. 242-325 AD) On the Mysteries (De mysteriis ) are two of the most important religious and philosophical documents of Late Antiquity. Porphyry and Iamblichus were both highly esteemed and influential Pagan Neoplatonic philosophers whose views, especially their religious views, have not tended to receive a fair and unprejudiced treatment, and this is particularly true of Iamblichus. Oddly enough, despite the reputations of these documents, a careful analysis will show that neither of them are primarily concerned with magic. What they are concerned with is traditional Pagan religion, its apparent contradictions, and its relationship to philosophy.

Neoplatonism, ’irrationalism’ and magic
Anybody who has read almost anything on Neoplatonism will be familiar with the popular view that the later Neoplatonists were ‘sliding downwards’ towards irrationalism and magic. It is certainly true that terms like ‘superstition’, ‘irrationality’, ‘magic’ and ‘lower forces’ have been, and still are, carelessly bandied around by many of those who write on Neoplatonism. But I feel that a careful and unprejudiced reading of the sources will reveal that theurgy involves no more ‘magical’ assumptions than any other religion which believes its rituals to have real efficacy. And that position was, of course, shared by Christian, Jew and Pagan alike.
As for the terms ‘superstition’ and ‘irrationality,’ one looks in vain for anything in the way of examples in modern commentators on Neoplatonism explaining just what views the Pagan Neoplatonists held which were more ‘superstitious’ or ‘irrational’ (from the point of view of modern rationalism) than their Christian contemporaries. I plan to discuss these interesting points in much more detail, and give more background on Porphyry and Iamblichus, at a future date on these pages. Stay tuned!

On the Mysteries and Porphyry’s Letter
The De mysteriis takes the form of a point-by-point refutation of the Letter to Anebo. Since the Letter to Anebo was ostensibly written to an Egyptian priest, Iamblichus replied in the guise of Anebo’s superior, Abammon. The best way to understand the De mysteriis then, is to look at the points Porphyry raises and the arguments used by Iamblichus in refuting them. What I have done here is try to provide a lucid analysis of the points under discussion, as far as possible in modern English, and referenced to the original documents (see the bibliography at the end).
The analysis does not attempt to reproduce Porphyry and Iamblichus’ exact language, but rather the points they seem to me to be making.
In what follows the numbers in parentheses ( ) are either references to Parthey’s sections of the Letter to Anebo, or to Parthey/des Places’ pagination, together with the Book/Chapter divisions, of the De mysteriis, for example: (39-40). (I, 11).

….to d’ atrekes en bathei esti.
Chaldean Oracles 183 (ed. des Places)
Stephen Ronan
Hastings UK, September 1988 (Updated 2007)

Notes are indicated like this: (n. #).
Porphyry’s questions and Iamblichus’ answers (n. 1)

Porphyry’s Questions : (Letter to Anebo section 2 Parthey) What are the distinctions between the Superior Races (i.e. Gods, Angels, Daemons (n. 2) etc.)? Are they based on their different degrees of activity and passivity, or on what sort of bodies they have?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Active and passive do not apply in the Divine realm (p.12 Parthey/des Places). Different kinds of bodies are the result of distinctions on a higher level, not the causes of them. Nothing physical limits or defines the Gods (pp. 23-9) (De mysteriis Book I, Chapters 3-8)

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 3) Since the Gods are unlimited, undivided and uncircumscribed in power, how does it happen that religion and ritual treat them as allotted to different spheres of influence?

Iamblichus’ Replies : The differences do not lie in the Gods, but in the recipients and their varying capacity the receive different types of Divine power (30-3: cf. n.3). (I, 9)

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 4) Why are shocking and obscene events and language used in the Mysteries?

Iamblichus’ Replies : (a) Because this is the correct way of worshipping the generative forces (38-9), (b) because it ‘inoculates’ those elements in matter seeking order, showing them the better by demonstrating the worse (39). (c) Repressing emotions makes them more destructive, moderate release is cathartic (39-40). (I, 11).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 4 & 5) Why are so many things at Sacred Rites performed as though they were directed to beings who are swayed by emotions?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Prayer and invocation do not mean that the Gods are persuaded to come down to us, but rather that by their means we adhere to and become like them (42, 46-9). The ‘anger’ of the Gods is not their turning away and desertion of us by them. The situation is rather that we render ourselves incapable of receiving their beneficence. And the same argument holds true for expiatory sacrifices (43-4). (I, 12-15; VIII, 8).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 6) How is it that some (planetary) Gods are givers of good things, but others of evil?

Iamblichus’ Replies : These things arise from a misunderstanding of Astrology, which talks of benefics and malefics. All the Gods are good, but material conditions may distort that which emanated from the Divine in a state of harmony and lead to conflict. (53-7). (1-18).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 8) What is the difference between Gods and Daemons?

Iamblichus’ Replies : The governance of the Gods is all-embracing and unrestricted. That of the Daemons is limited in time and place; Daemons do not completely transcend that which they rule (63-4). (1, 20).

[Porphyry’s Questions : (For section 9: What are the differences between Daemons, Heroes and Souls? (See 69-70 = II, 1-2. For section 10: What signs of their presence do the different orders of Divine beings give? See 69-70 = II, 1 – 2. Cf. 70 – 90 = II, 3-9)]. < /FONT >

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 10) All Divine beings speak boastfully (periantologein) and present illusory images.

Iamblichus’ Replies : No they do not. Such manifestations are due to faulty technique on behalf of the practitioner and the consequent appearance of inferior grades of entity (91-4). (II, 10).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 12) What is the origin of divination?

Iamblichus’ Replies : It comes from the Gods and is not the product of the realm of generation (99-102). (III, 1)

[Porphyry’s Questions : (For section 12: On divination through dreams. See 103-9 + III, 2-3. For section 13: On Divine possession in general, see 109-III III, 4. For section 14: On the conditions, signs and varieties of Divine possession, see 111-136 = III, 5-15)]< /FONT >

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 15) How could any Divine being be so subservient to man as to be manipulated even by those who divine by something so lowly as barley-meal (alphitomanteia)?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Divine power is not brought down under human control in divination: rather this power uses all things as its tools. The fact that it can make active agents out of even lifeless materials is evidence of supremacy, not subservience. (139-143). (III, 17).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 16) Can Divine beings really be present at religious rituals—what power do human beings have that could draw them down?

Iamblichus’ Replies : In fact, it is not possible for rituals to work without the presence of such beings (144). They are naturally present whenever the circumstances are right, but they are not forced to be there in any way. (145-7). (III, 18-19).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 17) Is religious experience generated by inherent faculties of the human mind? (n.4)

Iamblichus’ Replies : Divine experience is brought about by the Divine alone, not by the mechanical operation of inferior causes. Like causes like, and the superior cannot be produced by the inferior. (148-150 cf.151). (III, 20).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 18) Or is religious experience brought about by mixing Divine and human faculties?

Iamblichus’ Replies : This view is superficially attractive but misleading. It must be rejected because the Divine is unchanging and cannot be mixed with the changeable. Another objection is that this view tends to make the soul an equal partner with the Gods and implies that the Divine can become subjected to human conditions (150-2). (III, 21).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 19) Another possibility is that the faculty of prediction is generated by the activities of the human soul, or that predictive Daemons are generated from forces inherent in animals.

Iamblichus’ Replies : Daemons are not generated and perishable things. Primary natures cannot be generated from those which are secondary. (152-4). (III, 22).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 21) That divination is caused by the subjective state of the recipient is evidenced by (a) the loss of sensory awareness during trance, (b) the use of incense and invocations, and (c) the use of simple-minded and young people as mediums.

Iamblichus’ Replies : Why should subjective states of mind qualify for Divine knowledge when even higher states of mind cannot achieve it (156)? Subjective states are tied to the things of the sensory world (157). Loss of sensory awareness during trance indicates that the imagination and other human faculties are not active. (b) Incense and invocations are directly connected to the Gods, not the recipient. (c) Simplicity and youth are evidence of receptivity to the external Divine force. (156-8). (III, 24).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 22) Isn’t divination caused by diseased or aberrant states of mind, and aren’t visionary experiences like the illusions produced by sorcery?

Iamblichus’ Replies : No. The causes of mental disturbances and illusions are opposite to those Divine inspiration. These latter rise above normal consciousness whereas the former fall below it (158-162). (III, 25-26).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 23-4) Can’t divination be attributed to the actions of Sympathy, one thing affecting another? Isn’t the notion of Sympathy evident in the substances and actions made use of in ritual?

Iamblichus’ Replies : The force of Sympathy certainly operates, since all things are ultimately derived from the Gods, (and are therefore inherently related). But indications drawn from sympathetic relations are somewhat obscure due to their distance from the Divine. They cannot be used to judge the higher causes. The examples from ritual which Porphyry uses demonstrate the existence of external powers, and not just inherent sympathies (162-7) (III, 26-7).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 25) The makers of working images (drastikôn eidôlôn) are not be despised….(n. 5)

Iamblichus’ Replies : Image-making uses the lowest degrees of matter and, unlike other human arts such as medicine and gymnastics, it does not even act in accordance with Nature. No good or truth can possibly come of it. (167-175). (III, 28-30).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 26) Is divination caused by delusive evil Daemons?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Those in contact with the Gods can only receive goodness and truth. However, there are men who because of their impurity, lack of power and faulty technique cannot contact the forces of Good: instead they become utterly corrupted by evil spirits (175-180). (III, 31)

[Porphyry’s Questions : (For section 27: attacks by frauds, see 287 = X, 2; cf. III, 31)] < /FONT >

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 28) How can superior beings be commanded as though they were inferiors?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Because (a) the entities which are invoked as superiors but commanded as inferiors are forces that — though they are more powerful than human beings in specific fields — are nevertheless inferior because they are limited to those fields (183). (b) The practitioner invokes them as a human being, but commands them as inferiors because he is invested with Divine power. (184). (IV, 1-3).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 28) Why do the Gods demand justice and purity from their worshippers, but do unjust and impure things when requested?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Because (a) The Gods’ view of justice is not that of men – they may be punishing the sins of a former lifetime (168-8). (b) Evil Daemons may pose as Gods, demanding justice and purity as part of their deceit (190-1). (c) In the imperfect material world, individuals must sometimes suffer for the good of the whole (191-3). (d) The forces of Sympathy may be put to perverse uses by black magicians and evil Daemons (193-9). (IV, 4-13).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 28a-29) What is the use of sacrifices? And why do men have to abstain from meat to be pure, although the Gods are allured by animal sacrifices?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Although physical things can be injurious to human beings, they are not so to the Gods (200-201). Abstinence from meat has nothing to do with polluting the Gods (201-20). Higher beings cannot be affected in any way through matter (205-5). There are many benefits for us through sacrifice (206: cf. 232). The principle of Sympathy is not the reason for sacrifices (207-8). Sacrifices are not food for Gods or Daemons (212-14). The fire of sacrifices spiritualises matter (212-18). A material form of worship is necessary to material human beings (219-20). Every link in the ‘chain’ connecting a God with the physical world must be honoured otherwise discord results, just as missing notes can make music inharmonious (288-31: cf. 237). Pure matter is an appropriate receptacle for the Gods (232-34). The function of prayer (237-40) (V passim).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 29a) Why must the worshipper be pure from contact with the dead things, although the Divine rites themselves are made effective by dead animals?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Because (a) touching or not touching a dead body depends on whether or not the body has been consecrated (241) (b) Dead bodies may produce a stain since death is the opposite of life (242). (VI, 1-4)

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 30-31) What is the meaning of threats to the God? How can a Divine being be forced to tell the truth by means of lies? What sort of ‘Gods’ would be swayed by such groundless fears?

Iamblichus’ Replies : The explanation is that (a) the threats are not directed towards the Gods but towards low-grade irrational powers which are naturally led by forcible utterances (246: cf. 182). (b) The threats emphasise the identity of the practitioner with the supreme power of Gods (246-7: cf. 184). (c) Daemons cannot bear to hear any threat to the Divine order which sustains them (247-8). A pure language, dedicated to the Gods alone, does not need threats (249). (VI, 5-7).

[Porphyry’s Questions : (On sections 32-3: On the symbolism of the phases of the sun, see 249-54 + VII, 1-3.)].

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 33-4) Why does ritual make use of meaningless sounds and foreign words, as though the Gods only understood certain languages? Surely it’s the intention that counts with the Gods and not the terms used, so isn’t this all just mystification by sorcerers?

Iamblichus’ Replies : ‘Barbarous names’ may be unintelligible to us, but they are meaningful at the Divine level (254-6). The precise terms used do count, because they are not formed by conventional agreement and, unlike human language, actually resemble Divine realities (257). The languages of Sacred Nations are to be preferred because they preserve ancient and hallowed forms inviolate, whereas Greek forms may be spoiled through innovation (256-9). (VII, 4-5).

[Porphyry’s Questions : (For sections 35-37: Porphyry’s questions on Egyptian philosophy see 260-68 = Viii, 1-5)]< /FONT >

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 38) Why do the Egyptians say that we are completely under the sway of Fate but nevertheless worship Gods as the dissolvers of Fate?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Only the lower soul is under the sway of Fate. The higher soul, which is not, can liberate the lower (268-9). Fate only comes from the lowest powers of the Gods and is dissolved as we rise above the constraints of the earthly world of generative existence (270-72). (VIII, 6-8).

[Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 39-45: For answers to Porphyry’s questions about the Guardian Daemon, see 272-285 = IX passim.)].

Porphyry’s Questions : (Section 46) Isn’t there some other way to happiness and fulfilment than through (the worship) of the Gods? Can’t the soul achieve great things by remoulding what it has been allotted by chance?(n. 6) Aren’t there methods, other than those of ritual, for divining the future?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Since the Gods must be the source of everything beneficial, no true Good can be attained without them or their rituals (268-7). Prediction of the future through other methods bears no comparison with Divine inspiration (287-290). (X, 1-4).

Porphyry’s Questions : (Sections 48-49) Don’t those who consult the Divine Mind do so in relation to trivial matters, passing over important affairs like Truth and Fulfilment?

Iamblichus’ Replies : Important spiritual matters are not passed over by Egyptian priests, not do theurgists call upon the Divine Mind for trivial reasons (293). (X, 7).

Notes

1. A few of Porphyry’s questions have been omitted because their problems are tackled within the context of other questions.

2. ‘Daemons’ (daimones) were, by Porphyry and Iamblichus’ day, considered to be middle-ranking divine forces which were an essential part of the divine order, and were not usually considered evil. They were not ‘Demons’ in the Christian sense, and it is usually very misleading to translate the Greek daimôn (plural daimones) as ‘Demon’ in Pagan literature. Where D(a)emons were considered evil, the essential difference between Christian and Pagan thinkers was that Christians would tend to view them as members of an infernal hierarchy, essentially opposed to the Divine. But for Pagans, they were the products of the turbulent, disorderly and distorted conditions which, of necessity, accompanied the limited and inferior realm of the material world.

3. Religion and ritual, since they are based in the physical world, must necessarily deal with the recipients.

4. These ‘inherent faculties’ are referred to as ‘small sparks’ aithugmata mikra. See des Places Jamblique p128 n.1.

5. The makers of working images (drastikôn eidôlôn) are not be despised…. There seems to be a misunderstanding here on the part of Iamblichus’ editors and translators, based on the ambiguity of the phrase drastikôn eidôlôn ‘working images’ (or ‘models’), and the fact that Porphyry’s argument is particularly truncated here.
Porphyry’s argument seems to require that these drastikôn eidôlôn are ‘working models’; probably he particularly had in mind the mechanised statues of the Gods. For Porphyry can hardly, in the middle of a highly critical analysis of religion, have started to suggest that some of its practitioners were admirable. I would suggest he was arguing along the lines of: "If you’re inclined to admire those who can produce effects by means of Sympathy, then why not admire those who make working models of things, since these also work by sympathetic relations ; they look like the things they’re modelled after, and work a bit like them." Porphyry also perhaps had in mind working models of the heavens, such as that designed by Archimedes (on which see T. Heath A History of Greek Mathematics Oxford 1921, vol.2, p17 and notes). The point of that example would be that these contrivances are able to predict what will happen in a purely mechanical way, without the need for invocations. Hence they must be as worthy of respect as divinatory techniques.

However, in his refutation, Iamblichus also takes the opportunity to castigate ‘producers of illusions’ as black magicians involved in creating low-grade mirages. Hence the editorial confusion mentioned above.

6. hê psuchê ek tou tuchontos anaplattei megala. This phrase has been misunderstood by des Places and Sodano as well as by both English translators.

Legal stuff
Apart from downloading a copy for your own use, please do not reproduce or disseminate this document without written permission. © 1998 Stephen Ronan.