by E R Dodds
Neither the purpose nor the place of the seance need much surprise us. The belief in an indwelling is very old and widespread, and was accepted and rationalised, in their respective fashions, by Plato and by the Stoics.55 That it may have played some part in Greco-Egyptian magic is suggested by PGM vii.505 ff., where a recipe, unfortunately incomplete, is headed .56 (It should not, however, be confused with the much commoner evocation of a or "familiar," whose connection with the magician is created for the first time by the magical procedure.) For the turning out to be a god, cf., besides Plot. Enn. 3.4.6 (I.265.4 Volk.) (quoted by Eitrem),Olympiodorus in Ale. p. 20 Cr., where, after distinguishing from those of lower rank, he tells us that . . . As to the choice of place, it is sufficiently explained by the well-known requirement of a for magical operations,57 together with Chaeremon's statement that Egyptian temples were accessible at ordinary times only to those who had purified themselves and undergone severe fasts.58
But what puzzles Eitrem, as it has puzzled me, is the part played by the birds, as i.e., to protect the operators from attack by evilly disposed spirits (not, surely, to keep the birds themselves from flying away, as MacKenna, Bréhier, and Harder unanimously mistranslate: for then their presence would be wholly unexplained). Protective measures are sometimes prescribed in the papyri.59 But how did the birds act as a And why did their death banish the apparition ? Hopfner says that the impurity of death drove the god away: they were brought there so that their killing should act as an in case of need,60 but it was done prematurely and needlessly. Eitrem, on the other hand, comparing PGM xii.15 ff., where the strangling of birds is part of the ritual for animating a wax figure of Eros, thinks that the real intention must have been sacrifice and that Porphyry or his informant misunderstood what happened: he finds the motives attributed to the "invraisemblables." In support of this view he might have quoted Porphyry's own statement in the Letter to Anebo61 that which seems to put Hopfner's explanation out of court. There is, however, another passage of Porphyry which appears to imply that in killing birds on this occasion the was breaking a rule of the theurgic at de abst. 4.16 (255.7 N.) he says, , This fits the occasion at the Iseum so aptly (for can surely cover abstention from killing as well as from eating) that it is difficult not to feel that Porphyry had it in mind. We may perhaps compare also the Pythagorean rule which specifically forbade the sacrifice of cocks (Iamb. vit. Pyth. 147, Protrept. 21).
But if so, why were the birds there? Possibly because their presence was in itself a without qualifying description are usually domestic fowl, (cf. L.-S.9, s.v.). And the domestic fowl, as Cumont has pointed out,62 brought with it from its original home in Persia the name of being a holy bird, a banisher of darkness and therefore of demons:63 Plutarch, for example, knows that belong to Oromazes (Ormuzd).64 Is it not likely that in this matter, as in its fire-cult, the theurgic tradition preserved traces of Iranian religious ideas, and that Porphyry at least, if not the Egyptian priest, thought of the birds' function as apotropaic and of their death as an outrage to the heavenly phantasm? There is, in fact, later evidence to support the guess: for we learn from Proclus not only that cocks are solar creatures, but that ,
IV. The Modus Operandi:
Proclus grandiloquently defines theurgy as "a power higher than all human wisdom, embracing the blessings of divination, the purifying powers of initiation, and in a word all the operations of divine possession" (Theol. Plat. p. 63). It may be described more simply as magic applied to a religious purpose and resting on a supposed revelation of a religious character. Whereas vulgar magic used names and formulae of religious origin to profane ends, theurgy used the procedures of vulgar magic primarily to a religious end: its was (de myst. 179.8), which enabled its votaries to escape Or. chald. p. 59 Kr.; cf. de myst. 269.19 ff.), and ensured (Procl. in Remp. I.152.10).66 But it had also a more immediate utility: Book III of the de mysteriis is devoted entirely to techniques of divination, and Proclus claims to have received from the many revelations about the past and future (in Remp. I.86.13).
So far as we can judge, the procedures of theurgy were broadly similar to those of vulgar magic. We can distinguish two main types: (i) those which depended exclusively on the use of or and (ii) those which involved the employment of an entranced "medium."
Of these two branches of theurgy, the first appears to have been known as and to have been concerned mainly with the consecrating Procl. vi Tim. III.6.13) and animating of magic statues in order to obtain oracles from them: Proclus in Tim.III.155.18, Theol. Plat. I.28, p. 70, to the same effect in Tim. I.51.25, III.6.12 ff.; in Crat. 19.12.67 We may suppose that a part at least of this lore goes back to the of Julianus; certainly the go back to the Chaldaean Oracles.68
What were these and how were they used? The clearest answer is given in a letter of Psellus:69 (sc. , , This is genuine theurgic doctrine, doubtless derived from Proclus' commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles. The animals, herbs, stones, and scents figure in the de myst. (233.10 ff., cf. Aug. Civ. D. 10.11), and Proclus gives a list of magical herbs, stones, etc., good for various purposes.70 Each god has his "sympathetic" representative in the animal, the vegetable, and the mineral world, which is, or contains, a of its divine cause and is thus en rapport with the latter.71 These were concealed inside the statue,72 so that they were known only to the (Procl. in Tim. I.273.11). The (engraved gems) and (written formulae) correspond to the of Procl. in Tim. III.6.13. The (which include such things as the seven vowels symbolic of the seven planetary gods)73 might be either written down or uttered The correct manner of uttering them was a professional secret orally transmitted.75 The god's attributes might -also be named with magical effect in an oral invocation.76 The "life-giving names" further included certain secret appellations which the gods themselves revealed to the Juliani, thus enabling them to obtain answers to their prayers.77 These would be among the which according to the Chaldaean Oracles lose their efficacy if translated into Greek.78 Some of them have indeed been explained to us by the gods;79 as to the rest, if a is meaningless to us (de myst. 254.14 ff.).
In all this the theurgic was far from original. The ancient herbals and lapidaries are full of the "astrological botany" and "astrological mineralogy" which assigned particular plants and gems to particular planetary gods, and whose beginnings go back at least to Bolus of Mendes (about 200 b.c.).80 These were already utilized in the invocations of Greco-Egyptian magic; thus Hermes is evoked by naming his plant and his tree, the moon-goddess by reciting a list of animals, etc., ending lists of attributes, belong to the standard Greco-Egyptian materia magica; the use of the last was familiar to Lucian (Menipp. 9 fin.), and Celsus, and the theory of their untranslatable efficacy was stoutly maintained by Origen against the latter (c. Cels. 1.24f.). For a god revealing his true name in the course of a magical operation, cf. PGM i.161 ff.; for the importance of correct PGM v.24, etc.
Nor was the manufacture of magical statuettes of gods a new industry or a monopoly of the theurgists.82 It rested ultimately upon the primitive and widespread belief in a natural linking image with original,83 the same belief which underlies the magical use of images of human beings for purposes of envoûtement. Its centre of diffusion was evidently Egypt, where it was rooted in native religious ideas.84 The late Hermetic dialogue Asclepius knows of "statuas animatas sensu et spiritu plenas" which foretell the future "sorte, vate, somniis, multisque aliis rebus," and both cause and cure disease: the art of producing such statues, by imprisoning in consecrated images, with the help of herbs, gems, and odours, the souls of daemons or of angels, was discovered by the ancient Egyptians: "sic deorum fictor est homo."85 The magical papyri offer recipes for constructing such images and animating them xii.318), e.g., iv.1841 ff., where the image is to be hollow, like Psellus' statues, and is to enclose a magic name inscribed on gold leaf; 2360 ff., a hollow Hermes enclosing a magic formula, consecrated by a garland and the sacrifice of a cock. From the first century a.d.86 onwards we begin to hear of the private87 manufacture and magical use of com
parable images outside Egypt. Nero had one, the gift of "plebeius quidam et ignotus," which warned him of conspiracies (Suet. Nero 56); Apuleius was accused, probably with justice, of possessing one.88 Lucian in his Philopseudes satirized the belief in them;89 Philostratus mentions their use as amulets.90 In the third century Porphyry quoted a Hecate-oracle91 giving instructions for the confection of an image which will procure the worshipper a vision of the goddess in sleep.92 But the real vogue of the art came later, and appears to be due to Iamblichus, who doubtless saw in it the most effective defence of the traditional cult of images against the sneers of Christian critics. Whereas Porphyry's seems to have advanced no claim that the gods were in any sense present in the images which symbolised them,93 Iamblichus in his like-named work set out to prove "that idols are divine and filled with the divine presence," and supported his case by narrating His disciples habitually sought omens from the statues, and were not slow to contribute of their own: Maximus makes a statue of Hecate laugh and causes the torches in her hands to light up automatically;95 Heraiscus has so sensitive an intuition that-he can at once distinguish the "animate" from the "inanimate" statue by the sensations it gives him.96
The art of fabricating oracular images passed from the dying pagan world into the repertoire of mediaeval magicians, where it had a long life, though it was never so common as the use of images for envoûtement. Thus a bull of Pope John XXII, dated 1326 or 1327, denounces persons who by magic imprison demons in images or other objects, interrogate them, and obtain answers.97 And two further questions suggest themselves in connection with the theurgic though they cannot be pursued here. First, did it contribute something to the belief, familiar alike to mediaeval Italy and mediaeval Byzantium, in (talismans) or "statuae averruncae"—enchanted images whose presence, concealed or visible, had power to avert natural disaster or military defeat?98 Were some of these (usually attributed to anonymous or legendary magicians) in fact the work of theurgists ? We are told by Zosimus (4.18) that the theurgist Nestorius saved Athens from an earthquake in 375 a.d. by dedicating such a (a statue of Achilles) in the Parthenon, in accordance with instructions received in a dream. Theurgic also, it would seem, was the statue of Zeus Philios dedicated at Antioch by a contemporary of Iamblichus, the fanatical pagan Theoteknos, who practised and in connection with it (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 9.3; 9.11)- A like origin may be guessed for that statue of Jupiter, armed with golden thunderbolts, which in 394 was "consecrated with certain rites" to assist the pagan pretender Eugenius against the troops of Theodosius (Aug. Civ. Dei 5.26): we may see here the hand of Flavianus, Eugenius' leading supporter and a man known for his dabbling in pagan occultism. Again, the which protected Rhegium both from the fires of Etna and from invasion by sea seems to have been furnished with in a way that recalls the of theurgy and the papyri:
Secondly, did the theurgic suggest to mediaeval alchemists the attempt to create artificial human beings ("homunculi") in which they were constantly engaged? Here the connection of ideas is less obvious, but curious evidence of some historical linkage has recently been brought forward by the Arabist Paul Kraus,100 whose premature death is a serious loss. He points out that the great corpus of alchemy attributed to Jâbir b. Hayyan (Gebir) not only refers in this connection to a (spurious?) work of Porphyry entitled The Book of Generation,101 but makes use of Neoplatonic speculations about images in a way which suggests some knowledge of genuine works of Porphyry, including perhaps the letter to Anebo.102
V. The Modus Operandi: Mediumistic Trance
While sought to induce the presence of a god in an inanimate "receptacle" another branch of theurgy aimed at incarnating him temporarily in a human being or, a more specific technical term, As the former art rested on the wider notion of a natural and spontaneous between image and original, so did the latter on the widespread belief that spontaneous alterations of personality were due to possession by a god, daemon, or deceased human being.104 That a technique for producing such alterations goes back to the Juliani may be inferred from Proclus' statement that the ability of the soul to leave the body return to it is confirmed by And that such techniques were practised also by others is shown by the oracle quoted from Porphyry's collection by Firmicus Maternus (err. prof. rel. 14) which begins, "Serapis vocatus et intra corpus hominis collocatus talia respondit." A number of Porphyry's oracles appear to be founded, as Frederic Myers saw,106 on the utterances of mediums who had been thrown into trance for the purpose, not in official shrines but in private circles. To this class belong the directions for terminating the trance professedly given by the god through the entranced medium,107 which have their analogues in the papyri but could hardly form part of an official oracular response. Of the same type is the "oracle" quoted (from Porphyry?) by Proclus in Remp.I.11 Such private differed from official oracles in that the god was thought to enter the medium's body not as a spontaneous act of grace but in response to the appeal, even the compulsion,108 of the operator
This branch of theurgy is especially interesting because of the evident analogy with modern spiritualism: if we were better informed about it, we might hope by a comparison to throw light on the psychological and physiological basis of both superstitions. But our information is tantalisingly incomplete. We know from Proclus that before the "sitting" both operator and medium were purified with fire and water109 (in Crat. 100.21), and that they were dressed in special chitons with special girdles appropriate to the deity to be invoked (in Remp. II.246.23); this seems to correspond to the or of the Porphyrian oracle (Praep. Ev. 5.9), whose removal was evidently an essential part of the (cf. PGM iv.89, . . . the "lintea indumenta" of the magicians in Amm. Marc. 29.1.29, and the "purum pallium" of Apul. Apol. 44). The medium also wore a garland, which had magical efficacy,110 and carried, or wore on his dress, or other appropriate What else was done to induce trance is uncertain. Porphyry knows of persons who try to procure possession by "standing upon (as mediaeval magicians did), but Iamblichus thinks poorly of this procedure (de myst. 129.13; 131.3 ff.). Iamblichus recognises the use of and (ibid., 157.9 ff.), hut denies that they have any effect on the medium's mind; Apuleius, on the other hand (Apol. 43), speaks of the medium being put to sleep "seu carminum avocamento sive odorum delenimento." Proclus knows of the practice of smearing the eyes with strychnine and other drugs in order to procure visions,113 but does not attribute it to the theurgists. Probably the effective agencies in the theurgic operation, as in spiritualism, were in fact psychological, not physiological. Iamblichus says that not everybody is a potential medium; the most suitable are "young and rather simple persons."114 Herein he agrees with the general ancient opinion;115 and modern experience tends on the whole to support him, at least as regards the second part of his requirement.
The behaviour and psychological condition of the medium are described at some length, though obscurely, by Iamblichus (de myst. 3.4-7), and in clearer terms by Psellus (orat. 27, Scripta Minora I.248. 1 ff., based on Proclus: cf. also CMAG VI.209.15 ff., and Op. Daem. xiv, PG 122, 851). Psellus distinguishes cases where the medium's personality is completely in abeyance, so that it is absolutely necessary to have a normal person present to look after him, from those where consciousness persists so that the medium knows Both these types of trance occur today.116 The symptoms of trance are said by Iamblichus to vary widely with different "communicators" and on different occasions (111.3 ff.); there may be anaesthesia, including insensibility to fire (110.4ff.); there may be bodily movement or complete immobility (111.17); there may be changes of voice (112.5 ff.). Psellus mentions the risk of causing convulsive movement which weaker mediums are unable to bear;117 elsewhere he speaks of biting their lips and muttering between their teeth (CMAG VI.164.18). Most of these symptoms can be illustrated from the classic study of Mrs. Piper's trance phenomena by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick.118 It is, I think, reasonable to conclude that the states described by the ancient and the modern observers are, if not identical, at least analogous. (One may add the significant observation quoted by Porphyry,
ap. Eus. Praep. Ev. 5.8, from Pythagoras of Rhodes, that "the gods" come at first reluctantly, but more easily when they have formed a habit—i.e., when a trance personality has been established.)
We do not hear that these "gods" furnished any proofs of identity; and it would seem that their identity was often in fact disputed. Porphyry wished to know how the presence of a god was to be distinguished from that of an angel, archangel, or human soul (de myst. 70.9). Iamblichus admits that impure or inexpert operators sometimes get the wrong god or, worse still, one of those evil spirits who are called (ibid., 177.7 He himself is said to have unmasked an alleged Apollo who was in reality only the ghost of a gladiator (Eunap. vit. soph. 473). False answers are attributed by Synesius, de insomn. 142A, to such intrusive spirits, which "jump in and occupy the place prepared for a higher being"; his commentator, Nicephoros Gregoras (PG 149, 540A), ascribes this view to the (Julianus?), and quotes (from the Chaldaean Oracles?) a prescription for dealing with such situations. Others account for false answers by "bad conditions"120 Porph. ap. Eus. Praep. Ev. 6.5 = Philop. de mundi creat. 4.20), or lack of others again, by the medium's disturbed state of mind or the inopportune intervention of his normal self (de myst. 115.10). All these ways of excusing failure recur in the literature of spiritualism.
Besides revealing past or future through the medium's lips, the gods vouchsafed visible (or occasionally audible)122 signs of their presence. The medium's person might be visibly elongated or dilated,123 or even levitated (de myst. 112.3).124 But the manifestations usually took the form of luminous apparitions: indeed, in the absence of these "blessed visions," Iamblichus considers that the operators cannot be sure what they are doing (de myst. 112.18). It seems that Proclus distinguished two types of seance: the "autoptic," where the witnessed the phenomena for himself; and the "epoptic," where he had to be content with having them described to him by the 125 In the latter case the visions were, of course, exposed to the suspicion of being purely subjective, and Porphyry seems to have suggested as much; for Iamblichus energetically repudiates the notion that may be of subjective origin (de myst. 114.16; 166.13), and apparently refers to objective traces of their visit which the "gods" leave behind.126 Later writers are at pains to explain why only certain persons, thanks to a natural gift or to can enjoy such visions (Procl. in Remp. II.167.12; Hermeias in Phaedr. 69.7 Couvreur).