As part of a consistent contemplative practice in lectio divina recently, I have been re-reading the Divine Iamblichus’ Response to Porphyry. I have never been very good at announcing or publicising my personal praxis, hence the longer time frame between posts on here while my group works on translation for the next few texts. Still, I tend to write when I’m inspired or come across something I feel is worth mentioning that I have either:
1) Integrated into my personal praxis and had experience with or 2) Have had verified from another experiential source that I trust
As many of you know, my personal praxis is a triadic mix of primarily Hermetic Theurgy -admittedly with a strong Iamblichan leaning, British Cunning Craft, predominantly 16th & 17th century & local deity veneration, which -for my area and ancestral background, is largely a mix of Insular & Alpine Celtic.
On the surface, these systems seem mutually exclusive, one being concerned with the intelligible cosmos, noetic reality & immaterial gods and another being intensely practical, client-oriented & mostly materialist. I don’t necessarily deny the contradiction, but in all honesty, the system works in practice. I can fairly justify Cunning Craft under the rubric of application of material suthenmata for gradual assimilation and familiarity to the Divine.
There are some initial concepts here that should be familiar to any Late Platonist or Theurgist, but i’ll cover them briefly for those who are not.
Theories on the Causation of Theurgic Sacrifice
In a discussion on the efficacy of sacrifice in DM Book 51, Iamblichus elaborates an earlier discussion on the encosmic gods and points out that:
The law of sacrifices is dependent upon the order of the gods themselves. Let us, therefore, posit once again that, among the gods, some are material, others immaterial. Those are material that embrace matter within themselves and impose order upon it, while immaterial are those that are exempt from matter and rise above it. According to the art of the priests, one must begin the sacrificial process from the material gods; for by no other route is ascent possible to the immaterial gods. The material gods, then, have a certain communion with matter inasmuch as they preside over it; it is they, therefore, that are responsible for those phenomena that arise in matter, such as divisions, impacts and resistance, and the alteration, generation and destruction of all material bodies.
Of notable importance here is Iamblichus’ frequent allusion to the Divine Administration, notably that there is not only a distinction between Material & Immaterial Gods, but that the kind of ritual and sacrifice accorded to each should suit the subject. Material Gods are more closely associated with Matter, and, as he elaborates later, more directly intercede in the Sublunary World, and so should be the object of material sacrifices. While Immaterial Gods, separate from matter, are more reserved for contemplative or immaterial activity on the part of the theurgist.
He continues2:
If, then, one wishes to worship such gods with theurgic rites, it is in accordance with their nature and with the sphere of authority which they have been allotted that one should render them worship, that is to say, material worship, even as they are material; for it is thus that we would draw them in their entirety into familiarity with us, and offer them in our worship a proper degree of affinity
He makes a point of saying that even if they transcend matter in being and principle, the Material Gods are nevertheless “present to it”, even if by virtue of some immaterial power, they subsist as in combination with it. In typical bureaucratic language, he reminds us “administered entities are not alien to their administrators.”
His other major contribution to the theurgic theory of sacrifice is from earlier in Book 5 where he arguably refutes Theophrastus’ reasons for engaging in it3 namely: conferring honour, acknowledging graces, showing gratitude for divine gifts and the giving of first fruits or general Du ut Des. Iamblichus explicitly rejects these reasons for engaging in sacrifice on the grounds that they are motivations “borrowed from vulgar social relations” and “do not at all preserve the utter superiority of the gods and their status as transcendent causal principles.”4
Interestingly, Iamblichus also seems to reject the Stoics theory of cosmic sympathy as a cause of the efficacy of sacrifice: “For it is not in nature, nor in physical necessity, that the essence of the gods resides, so as to be roused up by natural influences or by powers which extend throughout the whole of nature, but it is defined in its own terms, external to these influences, having nothing in common with them either in essence or in potency or in any other respect”5
His subtle cause behind efficacy is revealed a little later and is in fact Divine Philia, i.e love and friendship of the Gods and their creations. As he explains6:
It is better, then, to seek the cause of the efficacy of sacrifices in friendship and affinity, and in the relation that binds together creators with their creations and generators with their offspring. When therefore, under the guidance of this common principle, we comprehend that some animal or plant growing in the earth simply and purely preserves the intention of its maker, then, through this intermediary, we set in motion, in an appropriate manner, the creative cause which, without in any way compromising its purity, presides over this entity. Since these relationships are numerous, and some have an immediate source of influence, as in the case of daemonic ones, while others are superior to these, having divine causes, and, higher than these again, there is the one pre-eminent cause, all these levels of cause are activated by the performance of perfect sacrifice; each level of cause is related to the sacrifice in accordance with the rank to which it has been allotted. If, on the other hand, the sacrifice is imperfect, its influence proceeds to a certain level, but it cannot progress beyond that.
So, in a manner of speaking, choosing and engaging the right sacrifice is a way of offering a deity themselves, which is itself an expression of the divine friendship and love that binds the cosmos together. Naturally, their essence is immaterially present in all material things. In Classical Iambli fashion, we see that divine bureaucracy rearing its head again. Such relationships are numerous, he says, and the ones closer to us -the daemonic, have more immediate sources of influence. So each chain of sacrifice is headed up by its own lane, which the corresponding entity topology stays within.
There are also clearly differing degrees of sacrifice for him, as there are types of prayers and visions of deities. Notably, even imperfect sacrifice7 can still be successful, but it will only reach a certain level of the cosmic hierarchy and go no further.
On Indigenous & Ancestral Gods
Towards the end of Book 5, Iamblichus brings up a discussion that really captured me, and ultimately inspired the writing of this article. In 5.24.234-5.1-15, he points out another supplementary way of understanding what he’s talking about with the whole idea of Divine Friendship & material expressions preserving the ideas and intentions of their makers:
The same lesson may be learned also from the division of divine influence around the regions of the earth, and from the particular administration of each of the classes of being, such as has allotted the greater or lesser roles that now obtain to the various different orders. It is obvious, after all, that for those gods who preside over one region or another the products of those regions are the most suitable to bring to sacrifice—to the administrators the fruits of their administration; for in all cases their own creations are particularly pleasing to the creators, and to those who are the primary producers of something such things are dear to a primary extent. So whether it is a case of animals or plants or any other products of the earth that are administered by higher beings, they have no sooner received a share in their authority than they procure for us indivisible communion with them. Some among such things, when preserved and kept intact, serve to increase the kinship of those who preserve them with the gods—that is to say, those which, in remaining intact, preserve the power of community between gods and men.
He then continues in the very next section, elaborating what -to me, provides an insight into his line of thinking at the Incident of the Spring at Gadara where he asked his students to inquire about the local gods:
If all this were just a matter of human customs, and derived its validity merely from our conventions, there would be some justification for declaring that the cultic practices honouring the gods were discoveries arising from our conceptions; as it is, however, God is the initiator of these things, he who is called “the god who presides over sacrifices,” and there is a great multitude of gods and angels in attendance upon him. Also, to each race upon the earth he has allotted a general supervisor, and a particular one for each holy place; and sacrifices that are directed towards a god have as their overseer a god, while those to angels have an angel, those to daemons a daemon, and in the case of all others likewise, whatever entity suitable to their proper class has been allotted to them.
So when we perform our sacrifices to the gods with the backing of gods as supervisors and executives of the sacrificial procedure, we should on the one hand pay due reverence to the regulation of the sanctity of divine sacrifice, but on the other we may have due confidence in ourselves on the assumption that we are celebrating the rites under the supervision of the gods, while at the same time observing the proper precautions against inadvertently offering to the gods a gift unworthy of, or alien to, them.
Finally, we make this recommendation also, that one should make an accurate study of all the entities that surround us, those that inhabit the universe, the gods, angels and daemons assigned to the various nations, and to present one’s sacrifices to all in a manner agreeable to them in all cases; for only in this way will our ritual practice come to be worthy of the gods who preside over it.
This section, to me, is absolutely fascinating and has become instrumental in my own practice of theurgy. In line with Plato’s Parmenides and the idea of the One expressing itself through Plurality and yet remaining undivided, Iamblichus appears to take this literally and acknowledge the importance of engaging with the local/indigenous gods of any given land as a way of understanding the Divine Philia. Naturally, the background here is the typical Greek attribution of deities to ethnic groups (Athena ruling the Athenians for example), but Iambli seems to extend it to every clime and region of the earth.
In his hierarchy, it’s not entirely clear which God he is referring to here when he says “the initiator of all things” but given that the next sentence expounds a proliferation of lesser divinities attend it, I’m inclined to agree with Clarke & Dillion that its probably the Intellectual Demiurge.
Next, as part of that divine bureaucracy, he tells us that every region of the earth -and in fact, every holy place or temple, has its own deity(ites) assigned to it as a kind of Spiritual Supervisor who oversees the administration of sacrifices in that region. Not only that, but it seems every region has its own classes of Intelligibles, whether they be Angels (read Messengers), Daimons or Gods. Combining this with the previous section we can infer that the primary way in which a theurgist can connect with the gods of their own country or locale is to trace the sympathies of that region through their understanding of correspondences and various invocations and offer suthenmata that are from that land in itself. After all:
The products of those regions are the most suitable to bring to sacrifice
As Clarke & Dillon point out in their notes, Iamblichus seems to have taken this advice himself and actually begun a contribution to the topic in the form of commentaries on his native gods of Syria. Hypothetically in his lost treatise On the Gods, they note that Emperor Julian cites him as having discussed the precise identity (in Greek terms) of the gods Monimos and Azizos, whom he equates with Hermes and Ares respectively.
Monimos is of course the Hellenised form of the Aramaic Mun’im, a deity native to Iamblichus’ Syria and Northern Arabia, identified as the god of the Evening Star and equated with the Palmyrene deity Arsu. Ridgway (2001) notes that Arsu was equated with Mercury early on, and along with his twin brother Azizos was considered the patron and protector of trade caravans, which are inherently commercial and therefore mercurial. Azizos respectfully was the Morning Star.
Implications for Practice
So what does this mean? Iamblichus is pretty clear with respect to the offerings and suthenmata required for operating in your own locale, so I won’t address that. The important thing here is the effective justification to form relationships with the local and indigenous deities and spirits of your native land and community as a means of fostering our receptivity for the Gods and further understanding Divine Philia.
As I mentioned, we see this principle in action at the spring of Gadara where Iamblichus asks his students to find the names of two local daimons belonging to the spring in which they are bathing. I find it interesting that he goes to lengths to evoke a local spirit over an arguably more familiar Hellenic one for his students.
For me, living in Southern England surrounded by the Weald and South Downs, there is no shortage of old place names that give clues to indigenous Celtic deities, or sacred wells that were later overtaken by Christian Saints. To see Iamblichus not only justify but actively encourage the cultivation of a relationship with local deities is -to me, a sign of the inclusivity, natural diversity and advantage of a Soft Polytheist worldview.
I follow the translation in Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003) here. DM 5.14. 217. 4-13
DM 5.14.218
Clarke & Dillon note that the fragment in question for Iamblichus is likely frg. 584A, cf Fortenbaugh et al. Iamblichus perhaps came across it by reading Porphyry’s De abstinentia 2.24
DM 5.5.205-6. 1-10
DM 5.7.207-8. 6-10
DM 5.9.209-10.10-15. 1-10
I do wonder if he has in mind here an early/beginner theurgist confusing a suthenmata for example, and offering a deity a “wrong” or antipathic sympathy in ritual
Mun’im is an Arabic name not Aramaic. Arsu is Aramaic though.