And Theurgy Sacrificial Theory in PDF

The Classical Quarterly
http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ
Additional services for The Classical Quarterly:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
ΘΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN

FOURTH- AND FIFTH-CENTURY PLATONISM
Todd C. Krulak
The Classical Quarterly / Volume 64 / Issue 01 / May 2014, pp 353 - 382

DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000530, Published online: 16 April 2014
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838813000530
How to cite this article:

Todd C. Krulak (2014). ΘΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN FOURTH-
AND FIFTH-CENTURY PLATONISM . The Classical Quarterly, 64, pp 353-382
doi:10.1017/S0009838813000530
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ, IP address: 71.82.8.247 on 16 Nov 2014

Classical Quarterly 64.1 353–382 © The Classical Association (2014) 353
doi:10.1017/S0009838813000530
ΘϒΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN FOURTH-

AND FIFTH-CENTURY PLATONISM1
The centrality of sacrifice in ancient life has elicited a steady stream of scholarship on
the subject that continues unabated.2 Treatments of the ritual in the works of the philo-
sophical authors of this period and, in particular, within Late Platonism3 are less preva-
lent.4 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.5 The official resurgence of the practice under the emperor Julian (reigned
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.
2
The following is only a representative list: M.P. Nilsson, ‘Pagan divine service in Late Antiquity’,
HThR 38.1 (1945): 63–9; W. Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial
Ritual and Myth, tr. P. Bing (Berkeley, 1983); M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice
Among the Greeks, tr. P. Wissing (Chicago, 1989); J.-L. Durand, ‘Greek animals: toward a typology
of edible bodies’, in Detienne and Vernant, 87–118; R. Girard, Violence and the Sacred, tr. P. Gregory
(Baltimore, 1977); R.G. Hamerton-Kelly (ed.), Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard, and
Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation (Stanford, 1987); G. Heyman, The
Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict (Washington, DC, 2007); M.-Z.
Petropoulou, Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC–AD
200 (Oxford, 2008); J.Z. Smith, ‘The domestication of sacrifice’, in Hamerton-Kelly, 191–238;
S.K. Stowers, ‘Greeks who sacrifice and those who do not: toward an anthropology of Greek religion’,
in L.M. White and O.L. Yarbrough (edd.), The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor
of Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis, 1995), 293–333; G. Stroumsa, The End of Sacrifice (Chicago,
2009); 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 onto-
logical 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
F.R. Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, c. 370–529 A.D., Part I (Leiden,
New York and Cologne, 1993), 1–97; K.W. Harl, ‘Sacrifice and pagan belief in fifth- and sixth-
century Byzantium’, P&P 128.1 (1990), 7–27, at 12–13, 25; N. Belayche, ‘Sacrifice and theory of
sacrifice during the “pagan reaction”: Julian the emperor’, in A.I. Baumgarten (ed.), Sacrifice in
Religious Experience (Leiden, 2002), 101–26; A. Johnson, Religion and Identity in Porphyry of
Tyre (Cambridge, forthcoming), ch. 3; B. Nasemann, Theurgie und Philosophie in Iamblichs de mys-
teriis (Stuttgart, 1991); E.C. Clarke, Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous
(Aldershot, 2001), 39–57; H.-D. Saffrey, ‘Les livres IV à VII du De mysteriis de Jamblique relus
avec la Lettre de Porphyre à Anébon’, in H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark (edd.), The Divine
Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods (London, 1993), 144–58; C. Van Liefferinge, La
Théurgie des Oracles Chaldaïques à Proclus (Liège, 1999), 100–23; S. Bradbury, ‘Julian’s pagan
revival and blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49.4 (1995): 331–40.
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.
354 TO D D C . K R U L A K
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 com-
rade, Sallustius, have also received some scholarly attention.6 The fortunes of the ritual
in the Platonic Academy of fifth-century Athens have come under even less scrutiny.7
This essay seeks to make its own contribution to the study of sacrifice in Late Platonic
philosophy.
The term, ‘sacrifice’, might conjure up images of the grand public ceremonies known
to us from epigraphical and literary depictions, but the interests of this paper are of a
more particular and, likely, private sort. On the Mysteries, Iamblichus’ account of late
Platonic theurgy, a ritual programme believed by its practitioners to aid in the soul’s
purification and emancipation from the material body, details at great length the central
role sacrifice played in the accommodation of the human to the divine. It is this form of
sacrificial practice and, more to the point, the theory behind it, that is the central interest
of this article. In other words, what conceptual role did sacrifice play in the restoration of
the relationship between the soul and the divine and to what degree was there continuity
and change in the understanding of that role over the span of approximately two centur-
ies (fourth–sixth centuries C.E.)? A comparative approach that highlights the similarities
and differences between the sacrificial theories of four figures – Iamblichus, Sallustius,
Julian and Proclus – will help to illuminate important contours and shifts in the concep-
tual terrain. The first two men, Iamblichus and Sallustius, have been selected for this
study because they provide two treatments of varying length on the role of sacrifice
in the philosophical life; the third, Proclus, stands as the representative of the
fifth-century Athenian school because of both the quantity of his writings still extant
and the half-century span of his service as scholarch. In spite of the tendency to view
Sallustius and Proclus as uncritically continuing the tradition of Iamblichan thought
on sacrifice, it will be suggested that the two mark crucial deviations from
Iamblichus which are determined by different socio-political contexts and shifting philo-
sophical emphases.
One final introductory matter remains. In the sources is found a variety of sacrificial
media – animal, vegetable, liquid – so a precise definition of the type of victim denoted
by the term ‘sacrifice’ is important. The amount of space devoted to rites involving ani-
mals, in comparison to these other sacrificial options,8 suggests that it is this practice
that captures most the Late Platonists’ imagination. It is possible that the emphasis on
animal sacrifice is driven, in part, by external factors, but the comparative infrequency
of references to the other sacrificial media suggests the primacy of animal sacrifice in
Platonist theory and practice.9 As a result, unless otherwise noted, the term ‘sacrifice’
will denote animal sacrifice.
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), refer-
ences 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 S. Bradbury, ‘Constantine and the problem of anti-pagan
Θ ϒ Σ Ι Α A N D T H E U R GY 355
IAMBLICHUS
In Book 5 of his treatise on the mechanics and efficacy of theurgy, The Reply of
the Master Abammon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, better known as On the
Mysteries of Egypt (De mysteriis Aegyptiorum), Iamblichus tackles the thorny issue
of theurgic sacrifice. On the Mysteries is a response to the Letter to Anebo, an inquisitive
missive in which Porphyry addressed questions to the eponymous Egyptian priest about
the nature and mechanics of theurgy. As he takes up Porphyry’s inquiry, Iamblichus,
perhaps in a show of one-upmanship and/or a bid to lend authenticity to his account
of Egyptian wisdom, assumes the guise of Abammon, Anebo’s superior. In Book 5,
Iamblichus turns his attention to sacrifice and the role it plays in theurgic ritual.
Although the purpose of this article is not to expound on Book 5 comprehensively,10
it is necessary to touch on some of its salient points against which later sacrificial the-
ories might be measured. Three aspects of Iamblichus’ explication of the rite will be
noted: its ability to evoke divine ϕιλία, its somatic nature and the consequences thereof
on the body and soul, and its symbiotic relationship with prayer.
DIVINE ΦΙΛIΑ
Iamblichus begins with the fundamentals of theurgic sacrifice: why did it work and, more
to the point, why did the gods respond to the offerings (whether animal or botanical)?
This line of questioning is born of Porphyry’s inquiries about the propriety and efficacy
of animal sacrifice (199.5–10). After rejecting a number of previous theories including
those of Theophrastus (206.3–10; to which Porphyry assented in Abst. 2.24, and which,
as shall be seen below, Sallustius later would take up)11 and the appeal to cosmic sym-
pathy (207.6–208.5), Iamblichus offers his own explanation. In Myst. 209–10, the phil-
osopher argues that sacrificial efficacy is based upon a divine friendship (ϕιλία) and
affinity (οἰκείωσις) that binds the created to their creators. Certain plants and animals
preserve perfectly their creator’s purpose (βούλημα) and, when utilized in sacrifice,
allow the bonds of friendship to be established and maintained. Whereas cosmic sym-
pathy is limited to the encosmic realm, this divine friendship is a transcendent principle
that enables contact with all levels of divinity, both encosmic and hypercosmic.12
legislation in the fourth century’, CPh 89.2 [1994], 120–39 and J. Curran, Pagan City and Christian
Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century [Oxford, 2002], 169–81, 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 through-
out 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 pre-
serve 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 hyper-
cosmic 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
Iamblichus notes that theurgic forms of sacrifice could be affiliated with more immedi-
ate causes, for example, daimones, or with higher entities such as the gods or perhaps
even the One; the ‘perfect sacrifice’ (210.3) activated (συγκινεῖν) all levels of the causal
hierarchy.
SOMATIC SACRIFICE
The thorny question of how a material victim could affect an immaterial entity was one
that perplexed Porphyry and seems to be a cause of some uncertainty to Iamblichus too,
as he offers several different, though not incompatible, explanations. An analogy is
drawn between the work of the altar fires and that of the divine, immaterial fire. Just
as the sacrificial fire purifies and liberates the offering and renders it suitable for
assimilation to the divine, so too does the immaterial fire purify and separate the imma-
terial element trapped in matter, that is, the soul (214.4–216.6).13 Beginning in 217,
Iamblichus constructs an argument in which he suggests that material sacrifices are
necessary when dealing with entities such as daimones or the material gods who rule
over matter directly, but that an immaterial sacrifice is to be offered to the immaterial
divinities:
Εἰ δή τις τοὺς τοιούτους βούλοιτο θεραπεύειν θεουργικῶς, ᾗ πεϕύκασι καὶ ᾗ τὴν ἀρχὴν
εἰλήχασι ταύτῃ προσεκτέον αὐτοῖς τὴν θεραπείαν, ἐνύλοις οὖσιν αὐτοῖς ἔνυλον οὖσαν·
οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὅλους αὐτοὺς δι’ ὅλων προσαγοίμεθα εἰς οἰκείωσιν, συγγένειάν τε αὐτοῖς
ἐν τῇ θεραπείᾳ προσϕέροιμεν τὴν προσήκουσαν· καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θυσιῶν τοίνυν τὰ νεκρὰ
σώματα καὶ ἀπεστερημένα τῆς ζωῆς, ϕόνος τε τῶν ζῴων καὶ κατανάλωσις τῶν σωμάτων
μεταβολή τε παντοία καὶ ϕθορά, καὶ ὅλως ἡ πρόπτωσις <τοῖς> τῆς ὕλης προϊσταμένοις
θεοῖς προσήκει· οὐκ αὐτοῖς δι’ ἑαυτούς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ὕλην ἧς ἐπάρχουσιν. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ
ὅτι μάλιστα χωριστοί εἰσιν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, ἀλλ’ ὅμως αὐτῇ πάρεισι· καὶ εἰ περιέχουσιν αὐτὴν
ἐν ἀύλῳ δυνάμει, σὺν αὐτῇ ὑπάρχουσι …. Διόπερ τοῖς μὲν ἀύλοις θεοῖς ὕλην προσϕέρειν
διὰ θυσιῶν ἐστιν ἀλλότριον, τοῖς δ’ ἐνύλοις οἰκειότατον ἅπασιν.
If, then, one wishes to worship such gods [the material gods] with theurgic rites, it is in accord-
ance 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. And so, in sacrifices, dead bodies deprived of life, the
slaughter of animals and the consumption of their bodies, and every sort of change and destruc-
tion, and in general processes of dissolution are suitable to those gods who preside over matter –
not to them in themselves, but because of the matter over which they rule … For this reason, to
offer matter in sacrifices to immaterial deities is alien to them, but it is most proper to material
ones.
(217.14–218.8; 218.12–13)14
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 G. Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus
(University Park, PA, 1995), 149 ff.; see also G. Shaw, ‘The role of aesthesis in theurgy’ (paper pre-
sented 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. E.C. Clarke, J.M.
Dillon and J. P. Hershbell (Atlanta, 2003).
What are the benefits brought about by sacrificing to the material gods? Iamblichus
depicts sacrifice as part of a larger ritual programme that is characterized by its complexity
and its hierarchy. Each of the divine entities that occupy the ontological spectrum between
the material realm and the One has to be approached in the appropriate manner (228.11–
230.5). Failure to do so would result in an unsuccessful ritual and the potential for harm to
be visited upon the theurgist (230.5–11). Another, more specific, purpose of sacrifice is to
enlist the aid of the material deities in coping with the limitations of the body,
… οἷον καθαίροντες αὐτὸ ἀπὸ κηλίδων παλαιῶν ἢ νόσων ἀπολύοντες καὶ ὑγείας
πληροῦντες, ἢ τὸ μὲν βαρὺ καὶ νωθρὸν ἀποκόπτοντες ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ δὲ κοῦϕον καὶ
δραστήριον αὐτῷ παρέχοντες, ἢ ἄλλο γέ τι τῶν πάντων ἀγαθῶν αὐτῷ παρασκευάζοντες.
Τότε δὴ οὖν οὐ δήπου νοερῶς καὶ ἀσωμάτως τὸ σῶμα μεταχειριζόμεθα· οὐ γὰρ πέϕυκε
τῶν τοιούτων τρόπων τὸ σῶμα μετέχειν· τῶν δὲ συγγενῶν ἑαυτῷ μεταλαγχάνον, σώμασι
σῶμα θεραπεύεταί τε καὶ ἀποκαθαίρεται. Ἔσται δὴ οὖν καὶ ὁ τῶν θυσιῶν θεσμὸς ἐπὶ
τῆς τοιαύτης χρείας ἐξ ἀνάγκης σωματοειδής, τὰ μὲν ἀποκόπτων τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν
περιττευόντων, τὰ δὲ ἀναπληρῶν ὅσα ἡμῖν ἐλλείπει, τὰ δὲ εἰς συμμετρίαν ἄγων καὶ τάξιν
ὅσα πλημμελῶς ἐπιτετάρακται. Καὶ μὴν πολλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον ἐπιτηδείων
δεόμενοι ἡμῖν γενέσθαι παρὰ τῶν κρειττόνων ἱερουργίαις χρώμεθα· ταῦτα δ’ ἔστι δήπου
κηδεμονίαν σώματι παρέχοντα ἢ ἐκείνων ἐπιμελούμενα ἃ τῶν σωμάτων ἕνεκα κτώμεθα.
… as for instance when we are purifying it from long-standing impurities or freeing it from dis-
ease and filling it with health, or cutting away from it what is heavy and sluggish and providing
it with what is light and active, or furnishing it with some other among all the goods. Then,
indeed, we do not deal with the body on an intellectual or incorporeal plane, for the body
does not naturally relate to such modes of treatment; it is, rather, through participating in
what is akin to itself, through bodies, in fact, that a body is nourished and purified. The proced-
ure of sacrifices for such a purpose will be, then, necessarily corporeal, on the one hand cutting
away what is superfluous within us and completing what is lacking in us, while on the other
bringing into symmetry and order those elements that are disordered and confused. And
then, very often, we have recourse to sacred rites in seeking to obtain from the higher powers
the necessities of human life, that is to say, those things that provide care for the body, or secure
those things we seek to acquire for the body’s sake.
(221.3–13)
Material sacrifice plays a purifying role that is efficacious precisely because the victim is
itself material and, more specifically, somatic. It is the animal’s corporeal quality that
enables the material gods to heal and to purify the theurgist’s body from the taint asso-
ciated with embodiment and, too, to gain or maintain bodily health.
Along with its cathartic functions, somatic sacrifice is important also because of its
primary role in anagogic15 matters; any connection made between the theurgist and the
hypercosmic gods is mediated through the encosmic deities, those gods who consort in
some way with the material realm. In Myst. 222.4–223.7, a matryoshka-like ontology is
described in which the encosmic/material entities are depicted as being embraced
(περιέχειν) by the hypercosmic gods who, though this is left unstated, presumably
are enveloped, ultimately, by the One.16 It is through the mediation of the material
gods, made possible by the shared hylic qualities between deity and victims, that sacri-
fice effectively contributes to the soul’s salvation. Divine supervision of humans, as well
as the bestowal of gifts and aid from the gods,
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 A. Smith,
Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague, 1974), 107–8 and 107 n. 12.
… μετά τινος ἐπιστροϕῆς ἐπιτελεῖται, χωριστή τε οὐκ ἔστι πάντῃ σωμάτων, καὶ οὐ δύναται
δέξασθαι τὴν καθαρὰν καὶ ἄχραντον ἐπιστασίαν. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τρόπος ἱερουργίας ἐπὶ τῶν
τοιούτων ἔργων ὁ συμμιγὴς πρὸς τὰ σώματα καὶ τῆς γενέσεως ἐχόμενος ἁρμόζει, οὐχ
ὅστις ἐστὶν ἄυλος παντελῶς καὶ ἀσώματος.
… is performed with a certain degree of (downward) attention, and it is not entirely separated
from bodies, and it cannot receive pure and unsullied domination. So then, for such operations a
mode of cultic procedure is suitable that is involved with bodies and dependent upon generation,
not one which is entirely immaterial and incorporeal.
(222.13–223.3)
The somatic nature of sacrifice is portrayed here by Iamblichus as a limiting factor that
does not allow for a direct connection to the hypercosmic deities. Even if restricted to
the lower ontological levels, these sacrifices are foundational and necessary to further
advancement in the course of the theurgic programme.17
SACRIFICE AND PRAYER
The final aspect of Book 5 to be considered is the brief, but important, exposition of the
relationship of sacrifice and prayer found in Myst. 237–40. Iamblichus begins this sec-
tion by tying prayer to the sacrificial ritual, writing in the first line of this section that
prayers are ‘by no means the least part of the sacrificial procedure … and indeed …
serve to confer the highest degree of completeness upon sacrifices and … it is by
means of them that the whole efficacy of sacrifices is reinforced and brought to perfec-
tion’ (237.6–8).18 In his explication of the reason for sacrificial success described earl-
ier, it will be recalled that Iamblichus states that the perfect sacrifice affects all causative
levels from daimones to the ‘one pre-eminent cause’ (209.15–210.3).19 The role of pray-
er in the execution of the ‘perfect sacrifice’ is not broached in 209.15–210.3, but is the
focus of 237.6–240.14 and is portrayed there as crucial to the ritual’s success.20
Iamblichus divides prayer into three categories – an introductory form that brings
together deity and theurgist (συναγωγός), a conjunctive mode that produces an intellec-
tual union from which flow benefactions from the gods (συνδετικός), and, finally, that
of ineffable unification (ἡ ἄρρητος ἕνωσις) which establishes the soul’s rest in the gods.
The purifying and unifying benefits of theurgic invocations are described as being cap-
able of rendering those who petition the divine through prayers ‘the familiar consorts of
the gods’ (ὁμιλητάς τῶν θεῶν, 239.9–10). These prayers may be uttered at different
times in the course of the theurgic θυσία, but the bond between prayer and sacrifice
is a critical one. If prayer has the intense anagogic power credited to it and
… ἔχει τε πρὸς τὰς θυσίας ἣν εἰρήκαμεν κοινωνίαν, πῶς οὐ καὶ διὰ τούτου καταϕανὲς
γίγνεται τὸ τῶν θυσιῶν τέλος, ὡς συναϕῆς καὶ αὐτὸ δημιουργικῆς μετείληχεν ἐπειδὴ
δι’ ἔργων οἰκειοῦται τοῖς θεοῖς, τό τε ἀγαθὸν αὐτῆς ὡς τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὅσον ἀπὸ τῶν
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 J.M. Dillon (ed.), Iamblichi Chalcidensis in
Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta (Leiden, 1973), 407–11.
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.
δημιουργικῶν αἰτίων καταπέμπεται εἰς ἀνθρώπους; καὶ μὴν ἀπ’ ἐκείνου γε αὖθις τὸ τῶν
εὐχῶν ἀναγωγὸν καὶ τελεσιουργὸν καὶ ἀποπληρωτικὸν εὔδηλον γίγνεται, πῶς μὲν
δραστήριον πῶς δὲ ἡνωμένον ἐπιτελεῖται πῶς δὲ ἔχει τὸν ἐνδιδόμενον ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν
κοινὸν σύνδεσμον. τὸ τρίτον τοίνυν, ὡς ἄμϕω δι’ ἀλλήλων βεβαιοῦται, καὶ δύναμιν
ἐντίθησιν εἰς ἄλληλα ἁγιστείας τελείαν ἱερατικήν, ῥᾳδίως ἄν τις ἀπὸ τῶν εἰρημένων
κατανοήσειεν.
… possesses the connection with sacrifice which we have claimed for it, how would this not
cast light on to the final purpose of sacrifice, that is to say it brings us into contact with the
Demiurge, since it renders us akin to the gods through acts; and on its good, that it is
co-extensive with all that is sent down from the demiurgic causes to men? And this in turn
will make clear the anagogic and efficacious and fulfilling power of prayer, how it produces
unification, and how it preserves the common link granted to us by the gods. And, thirdly,
one could easily grasp from what has been said how sacrifice and prayer reinforce each
other, and communicate to each other a perfect ritual and hieratic power.
(239.12–40.8)
Sacrifice and prayer are portrayed here as intertwined and enjoying a symbiotic embrace
that ultimately enables the theurgist to experience union with the divine. The importance
of this symbiosis is emphasized again by Sallustius and will be considered more fully in
that context.
A brief excursus is necessary to examine the technical expression of a term, συναϕή,
which recurs in the relevant works of Sallustius and Proclus. This technical usage is
viewed first in the description of the sunagogic mode of prayer, which is described by
Iamblichus as leading ‘to connection (συναϕή) and acquaintance with the divine’
(237.13).21 Less specific uses of συναϕή and its cognates are found scattered throughout
On the Mysteries where it is employed to refer to the connection between different divine
strata (20.3, 61.4), a form of relationship with the divine that exceeds knowledge (8.2–3),
and a capacity possessed by the soul to find union with Being and the Divine (269.3). In
the section on prayer, the union designated by συναϕή is that of a preparatory sort and is
to be differentiated from ἕνωσις, the ultimate aim of theurgic prayer and sacrifice.
Ἕνωσις, too, is found throughout De mysteriis where it frequently denotes the unity
inherent to the gods and its influence on entities and forces proximate to them (for
example, its usage in 59–60). The term is employed in an especially illuminating
way in 95.12–98.11; in this section, Iamblichus corrects Porphyry’s misunderstanding
of the relationship between philosophy and theurgy. The contemplative methods asso-
ciated with philosophy are rooted in the intellect and, ultimately, in human effort.
‘Pure thought’, we are told, does not unite ‘theurgists to the gods’ (96.11). Theurgy,
on the other hand, is successful because the gods respond to the divine symbols (stones,
plants, animals, aromas, etc.), in which reside images of themselves, and not to the defi-
cient works of inferior beings.22 In this context, Iamblichus challenges Porphyry stating
that if θεωρία alone is a sufficient means of approaching the gods,
… ἐπεὶ τί ἐκώλυε τοὺς θεωρητικῶς ϕιλοσοϕοῦντας ἔχειν τὴν θεουργικὴν ἕνωσιν πρὸς τοὺς
θεούς; νῦν δ’ οὐκ ἔχει τό γε ἀληθὲς οὕτως. ἀλλ’ ἡ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀρρήτων καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν
νόησιν θεοπρεπῶς ἐνεργουμένων τελεσιουργία ἥ τε τῶν νοουμένων τοῖς θεοῖς μόνον
συμβόλων ἀϕθέγκτων δύναμις ἐντίθησι τὴν θεουργικὴν ἕνωσιν.
21
Clarke, Dillon and Hershbell have chosen to translate the term as ‘contact’, but I think ‘connec-
tion’ 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.
… what would hinder those who are theoretical philosophers from enjoying a theurgic union
with the gods? But the situation is not so: it is the accomplishment of acts not to be divulged
and beyond all conception, and the power of the unutterable symbols, understood solely by the
gods, which establishes theurgic union.
(96.11–97.2)
Ἕνωσις is conjoined in this passage to theurgic ritual and is depicted as exceeding mere
philosophical knowledge. Iamblichus claims:
Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄνευ μὲν τοῦ γνῶναι παραγίγνεταί ποτε ἡ δραστικὴ ἕνωσις, οὐ μὴν ἔχει γε πρὸς
αὐτὴν ταὐτότητα· ὥστε οὐδ’ ἡ καθαρότης ἡ θεία διὰ τῆς ὀρθῆς γνώσεως, ὥσπερ ἡ τοῦ
σώματος διὰ τῆς ἁγνείας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ γιγνώσκειν μᾶλλον ὑπερήνωται αὕτη καὶ
ἀποκεκάθαρται.
Effective union certainly never takes place without knowledge, but nevertheless it is not iden-
tical with it. Thus, divine purity does not come from right knowledge, in the way that bodily
purity does from chastity, but complete unity and purification actually go beyond knowledge.
(98.6–10)
The theurgic ἕνωσις described in Myst. 96–8 sheds light on Iamblichus’ use of ἕνωσις
in the section on sacrifice and prayer and informs one more fully of the difference in
degree between ἕνωσις and συναϕή.23 The former term describes a union of the most
desirable kind in which the soul rested completely in the gods and was the quintessence
of theurgic union. Συναϕή is valuable as a praeparatio for ἕνωσις, but it is an initial
stage of contact that comes prior to the conjunctive meeting of minds that characterizes
the second mode of prayer, which, in turn, precedes the third mode of ineffable ἕνωσις.
Συναϕή is a term that re-emerges in subsequent discussions of prayer and, therefore, it is
necessary to understand the nuance Iamblichus attaches to it.
SUMMARY OF IAMBLICHAN SACRIFICIAL THEORY
To summarize Iamblichan theory, then, sacrifice is a crucial component of the theurgic

regimen and is important for several reasons: first, it elicits from the gods divine ϕιλία,
and it is expressly this friendship that is responsible for theurgic efficacy. Second, mater-
ial forms of sacrifice purify the body and release the soul from polluting effects that bind
it to the body. Somatic sacrifice is an initial stage of the theurgic process in the course of
which one honours properly the material gods who, in turn, enable the theurgist to make
contact with and to worship appropriately the immaterial, hypercosmic deities that
embrace the material gods. Finally, it is the combination of sacrifice and prayer that
comprises perfect theurgic ritual and enables ἕνωσις with the divine.
SALLUSTIUS
In spite of the modern tendency to see later fourth-century philosophers as mixing reli-
gion and philosophy within the theoretical model set forth by Iamblichus, a short theo-
logical pamphlet of the mid-century exhibits important deviations from Iamblichus’
sacrificial theory. Little is known about Sallustius ( fl. 360–3), whose tractate, Περὶ
23
See Shaw (n. 13), 112.
θεῶν καὶ κόσμου (Concerning the Gods and the Universe) contains the next passage on
sacrifice to be considered,24 save that he was a friend of the emperor Julian.25 Περὶ
θεῶν has been described by one scholar as a ‘Neoplatonic handbook … designed for
popular appeal, aimed at “those who neither can be steeped in philosophy nor are incur-
ably diseased in soul”’ (13.1.2–3).26 One probably should not understand ‘popular’ to
be referring to a treatise for the masses as the requirements for those who would
wish ‘to understand (ἀκούειν) about the gods’ (1.1.1) are somewhat restrictive. The
desirable qualities of the prospective student are that he is to have been ‘well educated
from childhood … good and intelligent by nature … [and] must be acquainted with uni-
versal opinions … that every god is good (ἀγαθός) and impassive (ἀπαθής) and
unchangeable (ἀμετάβλητος)’ (1.1.1–7).
Any discussion of ritual in Περὶ θεῶν is incidental and could even be seen to be a
distraction from the loftier goal of explicating philosophical truths.27 Fortunately, the
most concentrated consideration of ritual in Sallustius’ work centres upon the issue of
sacrifice, an unsurprising development, perhaps, given the priority placed upon this
form of ritual by Julian. The section, though brief, allows for a comparison with the
materials in Book 5 of De mysteriis and gives evidence both of continuity between
Sallustius and his philosophical forebear and of subtle, but not insignificant, change.
The continuity is evident in the unabated desire to find in sacrifice, and in the animal
victims, something of salvific value. Sallustius could have left the practice unaddressed
and no one would have been the wiser, but he chooses to insert a discussion of this par-
ticular practice into his philosophical handbook. As shall be seen below, the religio-
political environment of Julian’s court also may play a role in Sallustius’ decision to
concentrate specifically on animal sacrifice.
The differences between the theories of Iamblichus and Sallustius demonstrate vary-
ing degrees of divergence. A minor departure from his predecessor is found in
Sallustius’ partial adoption of the Theophrastian (and Porphyrian) position that sacrifice
represents a type of first-fruits offering. He views sacrifice as one of three types of such
offerings stating, ‘We offer first-fruits of our possessions in the form of votive offerings
(ἀναθήματα), of our bodies in the form of hair (κόμη), of our life (ζωή) in the form of
sacrifices (θυσίαι)’ (16.1.1–4). Iamblichus, it will be recalled, explicitly rejects this
approach viewing it as an inadequate reason to sacrifice to the gods.28 Unlike
Iamblichus who, because of its roots in common social dealings, dismisses the
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 attempt-
ing to disseminate this stock explanation to a wider audience. Further, an absence of theurgic discus-
sion 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 F. Cumont, ‘Sallust le Philosophe’, RPh 16.1 (1892): 49–56; Sallustius, Concerning the
Gods and the Universe, ed. A.D. Nock (Cambridge, 1926, repr. Chicago, 1996), ci–civ.
Translations are taken from Nock with minor adaptations.
26
E.C. Clarke, ‘Communication human and divine: Saloustios reconsidered’, Phronesis 43.4
(1998), 328.
27
Sallustius ends his section on sacrifice in a hurried fashion stating, ‘Concerning this subject I
have said enough’.
28
Myst. 206.3–10.
explanatory value that the first-fruits offering provided to the question of sacrificial effi-
cacy, Sallustius finds meanings in his catalogue of first-fruits that are more symbolic
than anything offered by Iamblichus or Porphyry. Sallustius demonstrates his approval
of animal sacrifice, and thus his general agreement with Iamblichus’ inclusion of the rite
in the philosophical life, by including it in his taxonomy,29 but he simultaneously
misses, or dismisses, the Syrian’s loftier vision of ϕιλία-inspired theurgic sacrifice.
Clarke suggests that the inclusion of the first-fruits offering is a ‘concession to popular
opinion.’30 If this is so, it is a theoretical shift filled with irony as popular opinions on
sacrificial efficacy are precisely what Iamblichus is attempting to dispense with in Myst.
205.13–209.8.
ZOETIC MEDIATION
The principal Sallustian deviation from his predecessor’s theory is found in the descrip-
tion of sacrificial efficacy in §16:
… αἱ μὲν χωρὶς θυσιῶν εὐχαὶ λόγοι μόνον εἰσίν, αἱ δὲ μετὰ θυσιῶν ἔμψυχοι λόγοι, τοῦ μὲν
λόγου τὴν ζωὴν δυναμοῦντος τῆς δὲ ζωῆς τὸν λόγον ψυχούσης. Ἔτι παντὸς πράγματος
εὐδαιμονία ἡ οἰκεία τελειότης ἐστίν, οἰκεία δὲ τελειότης ἑκάστῳ ἡ πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
αἰτίαν συναϕή· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡμεῖς εὐχόμεθα συναϕθῆναι θεοῖς. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ζωὴ μὲν
πρώτη ἡ τῶν θεῶν ἐστι, ζωὴ δέ τις καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη, βούλεται δὲ αὕτη συναϕθῆναι
ἐκείνῃ, μεσότητος δεῖται· οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν πλεῖστον διεστώτων ἀμέσως συνάπτεται. Ἡ δὲ
μεσότης ὁμοία εἶναι τοῖς συναπτομένοις ὀϕείλει· ζωῆς οὖν μεσότητα ζωὴν ἐχρῆν εἶναι.
Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ζῷα θύουσιν ἄνθρωποι, οἵ τε νῦν εὐδαίμονες καὶ πάντες οἱ πάλαι· καὶ
ταῦτα οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ ἑκάστῳ θεῷ τὰ πρέποντα, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἄλλης θρησκείας.
… prayers separated from sacrifices are only words, prayers with sacrifices are ‘ensouled’
words, the word giving power to the life and the life ensouling the words. Furthermore, the hap-
piness of anything lies in its appropriate perfection, and the appropriate perfection of each object
is union with its cause.31 For this reason also we pray that we may have union with the gods. So
though the highest life is that of the gods, yet man’s life also is life of some sort, and this life
wishes to have union with that, it needs an intermediary (for objects most widely separated are
never united without a middle term), and the intermediary ought to be like the objects being
united. Accordingly, the intermediary between life and life should be life, and for this reason
living animals are sacrificed by the blessed among men today and were sacrificed by all men
of old, not in a uniform manner, but to every god the fitting victims, with much reverence.
(16.1.5–2.9)
The accent placed upon ζωή32 as a mediating principle is an aspect that has been
understood to have Iamblichan roots,33 but it is possible that Sallustius is tapping
into a technical meaning of the term that gained increasing usage in fourth- and fifth-
century Platonism. The Noetic Triad of Being–Life–Mind is born of the interpretive
activity that surrounds a passage from Plato’s Sophist.34 While its origins are
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, indi-
vidual, 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
debated,35 it becomes an important component of Platonist ontology,36 representing the

‘demiurgic mind in its procession from and reversion to the fountainhead of being.’37
The middle term, Life, acts ‘as the principle of motion in the “procession” of
Existence into Mind and again in the “conversion” of Mind back to its source’.38
Iamblichus seems to have been aware of this triadic structure39 and even may have
been the first Platonist to champion it in this exact order (Being–Life–Mind).40 Given
its prevalence in the ontology of Proclus (and, likely, Syrianus before him), it is not
stretching credulity to suggest that the Being–Life–Mind triad is a model that gains
prominence in Platonism over the course of the century or so between Iamblichus
and Proclus, a time period into which Sallustius slots neatly. Its mediating qualities
might prove attractive to Platonists seeking to incorporate sacrifice into the philosoph-
ical life. More will be said of mediating Life below.
As has been seen, however, Iamblichus does not opt to anchor his sacrificial theory
in ζωή, instead preferring to find value in the somatic qualities of the victim.41 This
emphasis on materiality is important as it limits the immediate efficacy of this form
of sacrifice to a very specific set of deities, i.e. the material/encosmic/pericosmic42
gods, daimones and other such entities, who preside over the material realm. Through
the mediation of these beings, the theurgist accesses higher ontological strata, but the-
urgic ritual is a progressive programme that, Iamblichus indicates, could take an entire
lifetime to perfect.43 Sallustius, on the other hand, finds value in the mediating term,
‘life’, and roots his theory not on somatic similarities, but on the bond forged by shared
ζωή. Whereas Iamblichus’ theory is based on the sacrifice’s materiality, that of
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 P.
Hadot, ‘Être, Vie, Pensée chez Plotin et avant Plotin’, in E.R. Dodds (ed.), Les sources des Plotin
(Vandoeuvres–Geneva, 1960), 107–57; id., ‘La metaphysique de Porphyre’, in H. Dörrie et al.,
Porphyre (Vandoeuvres–Geneva, 1966), 127–57; id., Porphyre et Victorinus (2 vols., Paris, 1968);
M.J. Edwards, ‘Porphyry and the intelligible triad’, JHS 110 (1990), 14–25; id., ‘Being, life, and
mind: a brief enquiry’, Syllecta Classica 8 (1997), 191–205; J.D. Turner, ‘The Chaldaean Oracles
and the metaphysics of the Sethian Platonizing treatises’ ZAC 12 (2008), 39–58; this article is repro-
duced in J.D. Turner and K. Corrigan (edd.), Plato’s Parmenides and its Heritage, Volume 1: History
and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism (Atlanta, 2010), 213–32.
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.
Sallustius depends on the psychic life force, released in the killing moment, which acts
as the catalyst for its efficacy.
JULIAN AND ZOETIC MEDIATION
Zoetic mediation is not limited to Sallustian material, but is found also in the emperor
Julian’s writings suggesting that it is a favoured theory in the Julianic court. In Contra
Galileos, Julian records an exegetical encounter he has with a bishop in which the
emperor effectively deploys a similar line of argumentation to that of Sallustius. In a
discussion of the Genesis 4 account of Cain and Abel, Julian reports that he had queried
the churchman as to why it was that the varying sacrificial media used by the two broth-
ers were deemed unacceptable (Cain) and acceptable (Abel). Embarrassingly, the bishop
had been unable to come up with a response, so Julian answered his own question:
ὁ θεὸς ὀρθῶς ἐμέμψατο. τὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς προθυμίας ἴσον ἦν ἀπ’ ἀμϕοτέρων, ὅτι δῶρα
ὑπέλαβον χρῆναι καὶ θυσίας ἀναϕέρειν ἀμϕότεροι τῷ θεῷ. περὶ δὲ τὴν διαίρεσιν ὁ μὲν
ἔτυχεν, ὁ δὲ ἥμαρτε τοῦ σκοποῦ. πῶς καὶ τίνα τρόπον; ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντων τὰ
μέν ἐστιν ἔμψυχα, τὰ δὲ ἄψυχα, τιμιώτερα δὲ τῶν ἀψύχων ἐστὶ τὰ ἔμψυχα τῷ ζῶντι καὶ
ζωῆς αἰτίῳ θεῷ, καθὸ καὶ ζωῆς μετείληϕε καὶ ψυχῆς οἰκειότερα – διὰ τοῦτο τῷ τελείαν
προσάγοντι θυσίαν ὁ θεὸς ἐπηυϕράνθη.
God rightly disapproved the thing you speak of. For the zeal of the two men was equal, in that
they both thought that they ought to offer up gifts and sacrifices to God. But in the matter of
their division, one of them hit the mark and the other fell short of it. How, and in what manner?
Why, since of things on the earth some have life and others are lifeless, and those that have life
are more precious than those that are lifeless to the living God who is also the cause of life,
inasmuch as they also have a share of life and have a soul more akin to his – for this reason
God was more graciously inclined to him who offered a perfect sacrifice.
(C. Gal. 347C)
The similarities between the theories of Sallustius and Julian are apparent as both view the
zoetic quality of the sacrificial victim to be the mediating factor that bridges the divide
between humanity and divinity. These parallels are significant enough to suggest that zoe-
tic mediation is the predominant philosophical position on sacrifice in Julian’s circle.
In his ‘Letter to a priest’,44 Julian does offer another theoretical twist that, in some
ways, resonates more with the Iamblichan position. He writes, ‘As we live, however, in
a body, so must the cult of the gods be somatic, though they are themselves without bod-
ies’ (Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡμᾶς, ὄντας ἐν σώματι, σωματικὰς ἔδει ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὰς
λατρείας, ἀσώματοι δέ εἰσιν αὐτοί). The emphasis here is on the somatic parallels found
between human and beast and this is, in fact, the only reason why one might wish to offer a
material sacrifice. The gods have no need for anything humans can offer and a burnt offer-
ing could not affect them in any way. All this accords rather well with the basics of
Iamblichan theory. Unlike Iamblichus, however, Julian proceeds to note that even the
material, visible gods (the celestial bodies) are not to be offered material sacrifice; rather,
the victims should be offered to material representations of the gods.45 Just as those who
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
pay homage to statues of the emperor are able to gain imperial favour, Julian continues, so
it is with those who sacrifice to images of the gods who thereby are persuaded ‘to help and
to care for’ the worshipper. In spite of the similarities in somatic emphasis, Julian’s pos-
ition in the ‘Letter’ is significantly different from that of Iamblichus – who claims that the
material gods are affected by the hylic nature of the victims – and also from the sacrificial
theory espoused in Contra Galileos. The late date of Contra Galileos suggests that zoetic
mediation became the ultimate and consensus position in the Julianic court.46
ZOETIC MEDIATION, SACRIFICE AND PRAYER
The relationship enjoyed by sacrifice and prayer is another area in which there are found
general similarities and subtle differences between the theories of Iamblichus and
Sallustius. As it does with sacrificial mechanics more generally, zoetic mediation too
is said by Sallustius to play a crucial role in ensuring the efficacy of the combination
of the two ritual forms. It will be recalled that nothing is said in De mysteriis of the
mechanics of the relationship; prayer perfects sacrifice in some undetermined manner,
according to Iamblichus, but there is also a symbiotic reinforcement of each on the
other. In Περὶ θεῶν, continuity with Iamblichus is found in the continued interdepend-
ence of the two acts but, once again, the victim’s ζωή plays a critical role not found in
De mysteriis. According to Sallustius, the victim’s life ensouls, or gives life to, the
words and simultaneously receives power from the prayers which enables it to affect
more powerfully the divine (16.1.5–8); it is this mutual invigoration that makes the sac-
rifice efficacious.
Given the broad aims of De mysteriis, it is unreasonable to expect that Iamblichus
address comprehensively the mechanics of the relationship between sacrifice and prayer.
Still, Iamblichus is expansive in his description of the intricacies of sacrifice elsewhere
in Book 5 and his comments on prayer would have been an appropriate venue to high-
light further the importance of sacrifice and, more specifically, the role that the sacrifi-
cial victim’s ζωή plays in the execution of successful theurgic prayer. Unfortunately, a
full explanation of the symbiotic relationship between the two acts is not found in De
mysteriis and, therefore, it is not possible to demonstrate conclusively a Sallustian devi-
ation from Iamblichan precedent. Nevertheless, the lack of emphasis on ζωή in this
(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 import-
ant 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 philosoph-
ical 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).
section of De mysteriis is consistent with Iamblichus’ general indifference to its role in

the sacrificial process throughout Book 5 and suggests that Sallustius has altered or, per-
haps, fleshed out his predecessor’s theory. Ζωή is the missing ingredient in Iamblichan
theory and is an element proving to be critical to that of Sallustius.
SALLUSTIUS AND ΣϒΝΑΦH
One last discrepancy to note is the manner in which Sallustius employs συναϕή in his
description of the benefits of sacrifice. Once again, a recollection of Iamblichan prece-
dent is instructive. In his discussion of prayer and sacrifice, Iamblichus gives to συναϕή
a technical meaning by which he indicates a preliminary connection to the divine that he
understands to be one of the benefits of the introductory stage of prayer. The unifying
qualities indicated by the term are not entirely absent in this stage of the ritual regimen,
but Iamblichus uses another term, ἕνωσις, to signify the highest form of theurgic union.
Sallustius, on the other hand, does not use ἕνωσις to describe the soul’s union with the
divine, preferring instead to use συναϕή: ‘Furthermore, the happiness of anything lies in
its appropriate perfection, and the appropriate perfection of each object is union
(συναϕή) with its cause. For this reason also we pray that we may have union with
the gods (συνάπτειν).’ There is no indication that Sallustius is aware of the technical
meaning his predecessor imparted to συναϕή; rather, he employs the term in a way
that suggests a synonymous relationship with the ἕνωσις of Iamblichus.
The multivalence of ζωή and its centrality to Sallustius’ narrative is further displayed
in connection with his use of συναϕή and its cognates: ‘So, since … the highest life is
that of the gods, yet man’s life is also life of some sort, and this life wishes to have union
(συναϕθῆναι) with that, it needs an intermediary (for objects most widely separated are
never united [συνάπτεται] without a middle term), and the intermediary ought to be like
the objects being united (συναπτομένοις).’ So far the focus has been upon the mediating
qualities of the sacrificial victim’s ζωή, but here the spotlight points to that which is
experiencing συναϕή, i.e. the zoetic qualities of human and divinity. It might be argued,
rightly, that Sallustius was aspiring to be conceptually (and thematically) consistent in
his presentation of sacrifice, i.e. the act took the life of a victim, and it is its ζωή as medi-
ating Life, along with the participation of the human’s particular life, that unites the indi-
vidual with the Divine Life. This dynamic release of life, rather than the victim’s
somatic nature, is foundational to Sallustius’ unitive theory. Although Sallustius appears
not to recognize the technical usage of συναϕή and ἕνωσις in Iamblichus, assuming he
is familiar with it in the first place, he does advance sacrificial theory by stressing the
importance of ζωή in the relationship between sacrifice and prayer. In Περὶ θεῶν 16,
then, Sallustius is shifting the theoretical basis of sacrificial efficacy in a way that, as
will be seen, works within the particular theological and ritual framework of Julian’s
court, while simultaneously attempting to remain within the boundaries of the broader
theological and ritual system established by Iamblichus.
SACRIFICE, POLITICS AND RELIGION IN THE JULIANIC COURT
Socio-political and religious factors might also help to explain the theoretical shifts in
the Sallustian material. The issue of sacrifice becomes a particularly heated and
contested one in the early 360s. As one of the most visible ceremonial displays asso-
ciated with Julian’s restoration of the cults, the emperor’s Christian adversaries deride
the rite. More surprisingly, it seems that even practitioners of the ancestral traditions
are taken aback by the quantity of blood spilled upon the altars.47 Such widespread dis-
dain might explain Sallustius’ emphasis on sacrifice over all other ritual matters.48
Christian depictions of sacrifice and, more to the point, of Jesus as the sacrificial vic-
tim who gives his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), also could factor into
Sallustius’ emphasis on the mediating abilities of ζωή. Numerous texts in the New
Testament allude to the sacrificial qualities of Jesus (Heb. 10:1–18; the passion narrative
in John 19; 1 John 2:2 and 4.10; 1 Cor. 5:7) and to his role as an intercessor for the
believer (Rom. 8:34). These texts did not go unnoticed by fourth- and fifth-century
Christians and Jesus frequently is portrayed in later works as a sacrificial victim.49
Sallustius likely was aware of such a fundamental element of Christian ritual doctrine,
and it reasonably could be postulated that he sought to incorporate into his sacrificial
theory components that would be familiar to Christian readers. As a ‘Neoplatonic hand-
book’, Περὶ θεῶν is written to be an introduction to philosophy and, although Sallustius
suggests that ‘those who would learn about the gods’ ought not to have been brought up
among ‘foolish ideas [Christianity?]’ (1.1.1–2), he surely would expect to have readers
with Christian backgrounds.50 Zoetic mediation could itself be a mediating effort by the
Platonist meant to erect a bridge to Platonism for interested Christians.51
HELIOS AND ZOETIC MEDIATION
It is one thing to speak airily of how a victim’s life mediates between the human and the
Divine, but is it possible to gain a more specific understanding of this process? As has
been seen, Sallustius describes the mechanics of sacrifice in general terms, which is in
accord with the tone of his tractate. The reader is informed that, via the process of zoetic
mediation, the symbiotic pair of sacrifice and prayer is the means by which one is able to
gain union with the gods. After succinctly making his point, Sallustius is content to
leave behind discussion of ritual and to proceed to contend for the imperishability of
the universe.52 To gain deeper insight into the sacrificial process and the value of zoetic
mediation requires that we look elsewhere for clues; by examining Julian’s hymn To
King Helios, addressed to none other than Sallustius himself, it is possible to understand
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 J.M. Robertson, Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of
Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford, 2007).
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 phil-
osophy in the personal and political life; see G. Downey, ‘Themistius and the defense of Hellenism in
the fourth century’, HThR 50.4 (1957), 259–74.
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.
more fully the transaction that occurs in the sacrificial ritual. This reading has the add-
itional benefit of establishing continuity between Sallustius’ sacrificial theory and the
religio-philosophical interests of the Julianic court.
As a preface to a discussion of To King Helios, it is necessary to acknowledge the
role played by Cybele/Rhea, the subject of To the Mother of the Gods, Julian’s other
great oration of praise to a divinity.53 In some ways, it is appropriate to speak of
Helios and Cybele/Rhea in a collective sense, for both are portrayed as liminal gods
who are located centrally between the intelligible gods and the created cosmos.54 At
numerous points throughout the hymn dedicated to him, Helios is depicted as the
equivalent of Zeus (143D; 144B; 149B, C),55 but he is also rendered as containing with-
in himself the powers of a range of deities such as Apollo (144A, C; 149B),56 Athena
(149B–150A), Oceanus (147D–48A) and Dionysus (144C). The association of Helios
with Zeus, and his demiurgic powers in particular, is significant because of the position
he occupies in To the Mother of the Gods. In this piece, the goddess Cybele is described
both as the spouse of Zeus who sits enthroned with him and as the mother of Zeus and
of all the intellectual (noeric) gods (166A–B).57 Helios, too, is portrayed as one ‘who
shares the Mother’s throne and with her creates all things, with her has providence
for all things, and apart from her does nothing’ (167B). Zeus-Helios, identified by
Julian with the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus, is dependent on Rhea, the mistress of
Life and the cause of all generation, from whom pour zoetic properties that enabled
him to create the cosmos (166A).58 While the focus of the following discussion is direc-
ted to Helios, Cybele’s role as the source (πηγή)59 of life from which the cosmos is
crafted via the mediating capabilities of Helios, is not to be understood to be diminished
in any way. Theirs is a zoogonic partnership without which the universe could not come
into being. Why, then, the present focus on the role of Helios? For the answer to this
question, it is necessary to turn to the hymn written in his honour.
Drafted on the occasion of the celebration of the festival of Sol Invictus held in Rome
in December of 362, Julian’s hymn To King Helios lauds the eponymous god as ‘the
common father of all men’ (131C). In one form or another, reverence for the sun had
been a component of religion and philosophy for centuries and, beginning with
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 R. van den Berg [tr.], Proclus’
Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary [Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001], 252–73) 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 G. Mau, Die
Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seine Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter (Leipzig,
1908); J. Geffcken, Kaiser Julianus (Leipzig, 1914); J. Bidez, La vie de l’empereur Julien (Paris,
1930); R. Browning, The Emperor Julian (Berkeley, 1976); G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate
(Cambridge, MA, 1978); P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, ‘A contribution to Mithraic theology: the emperor
Julian’s Hymn to King Helios’, JThS (1977): 360–71; id., Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual
Biography (Oxford, 1981); R. Smith, Julian’s Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and
Action of Julian the Apostate (London and New York, 1995).
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 R. Majercik, ‘Chaldean triads in
Neoplatonic exegesis: some reconsiderations’, CQ 51 (2001), 291–2; Turner (n. 35), 218–21.
Augustus, an important symbol to numerous emperors.60 Julian’s hymn can be located

squarely in that tradition, but the Helios found therein is a distinctly Late Platonic deity.
In the oration, the emperor acknowledges a deep debt to Iamblichus (4.157D–58A)
whose lost treatise, entitled Περὶ θεῶν (and, likely, influencing the title of Sallustius’
work), is believed to underlie the work; certainly, the cosmic structure as portrayed in
the hymn closely resembles Iamblichan ontology. Julian seeks to praise the god by cata-
loguing ‘his substance and his origin, and his power and his energies, both visible and
invisible, and the gift of blessings which he bestows throughout all the kosmoi’ (132B).
These kosmoi, of which Julian tells Sallustius that there are three, correspond to the
Iamblichan triad of the intelligible, intellectual and visible realms.61 These, in turn,
Julian claims, are governed by three rulers.62 The entire universe in general, and the
intelligible realm in particular, is overseen by the One (or the Platonic Good), or
what the emperor calls the ‘Idea of Being’ (132D).63 This deity produces two aspects
of Helios that rule the remaining two realms, each being made in the likeness of the
One and each communicating the beauty, existence, perfection, unity and goodness of
the One to their domains in ways appropriate to their respective kosmoi.
The role and attributes assigned to the Helios who reigns over the intellectual realm
and the gods who reside therein prove particularly interesting. Of this noeric god, Julian
says that the One ‘produced as middle among the middle (μέσον ἐκ μέσων) and intel-
lectual, creative causes, Helios, the most mighty god, proceeding from itself and in all
things like unto itself ’ (132D–133A). This positioning of the noeric Helios as a deity
who occupies a median place is one of extreme importance to Julian’s soteriology, so
much so that he strives to be punctilious in his definition of μεσότης (i.e. of the
god’s centrality in the cosmic structure) and is as careful to say what its meaning is
not as he is to say what it is. Μεσότης is not ‘that mean which in opposites is seen
to be equally remote from the extremes, as, for instance … warm in the case of hot
and cold, and the like, but that which unifies and links together what is separate’
(Μεσότητα … οὐ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις θεωρουμένην ἴσον ἀϕεστῶσαν τῶν ἄκρων,
οἷον … ἐπὶ δὲ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ τὸ χλιαρόν, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, ἀλλὰ τὴν
ἑνωτικὴν καὶ συνάγουσαν τὰ διεστῶτα, 138D, emphasis added). As to Helios,
Julian continues, his centrality is located between ‘the visible gods who surround the
universe and the immaterial and intelligible gods who surround the Good’ (τῶν τε
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. J. Dillon, ‘Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 240–325 A.D.)’, ANRW 2.36.2
(Berlin, 1987), 880–5, 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).
ἐμϕανῶν καὶ περικοσμίων θεῶν καὶ τῶν ἀύλων καὶ νοητῶν, οἳ περὶ τἀγαθόν εἰσιν,
138D–39A). The emperor points to qualities, such as unity and the cohesive force
that created order, found both in the intelligible and visible kosmoi, as being indicative
of perfection in these realms and posits that a similar perfection, located in the noeric
Helios, must also be found in the intellectual world.
Not only were the unitive aspects of Helios critical to his role as a mediator; his cap-
acity as a creative force situated between the One and the ‘demiurgic gods who revolve
in the heavens’ also contributes to his mediative status. As stated above, the zoogonic
force of Cybele is critical to the creative process, but Helios serves as a conduit of
this power and is generative life in action. As such, he is able to fashion the cosmos
and all that resides within it:
εἷς μὲν ὁ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργός, πολλοὶ δὲ οἱ κατ’ οὐρανὸν περιπολοῦντες δημιουργικοὶ θεοί.
Μέσην ἄρα καὶ τούτων τὴν ἀϕ’ Ἡλίου καθήκουσαν εἰς τὸν κόσμον δημιουργίαν θετέον.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γόνιμον τῆς ζωῆς πολὺ μὲν καὶ ὑπέρπληρες ἐν τῷ νοητῷ, ϕαίνεται δὲ ζωῆς
γονίμου καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὢν πλήρης. Πρόδηλον οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὸ γόνιμον τοῦ βασιλέως Ἡλίου
τῆς ζωῆς μέσον ἐστὶν ἀμϕοῖν, ἐπεὶ τούτῳ μαρτυρεῖ καὶ τὰ ϕαινόμενα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τελειοῖ
τῶν εἰδῶν, τὰ δὲ ἐργάζεται, τὰ δὲ κοσμεῖ, τὰ δὲ ἀνεγείρει, καὶ ἓν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃ δίχα
τῆς ἀϕ’ Ἡλίου δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως εἰς ϕῶς πρόεισι καὶ γένεσιν.
… the creator of the whole is one, but many are the creative gods who revolve in the heavens.
Midmost of these also we must place the creative activity which descends into the world from
Helios. But also the power of generating life is abundant and overflowing in the intelligible
world; and our world also appears to be full of generative life. It is therefore evident that the
life-generating power of King Helios also is midway between both the worlds: and the phenom-
ena of our world also bears witness to this. 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.
(140A–B, emphasis added)
Helios’ role as the zoetic gateway has profound ramifications on Sallustian sacrificial
theory. As the one through whom life enters the universe and who serves as the
cause of life in the encosmic realm, Helios is singularly positioned to be affected64
by zoetic mediation65 and to act on behalf of the ritualist; the victim’s ζωή allows the
worshipper to participate in the mediating Life that flows forth from this life-generating
god and to tap into the benefits offered by him. As one who is ruler and ‘midmost of the
intellectual gods’ and who connects the noetic and visible gods, Helios has unique
access to the entirety of the divine spectrum. He is ruler of the intellectual gods who,
as was viewed above, are understood to be ‘“parts” of him: a power, or a function,
or a portion of his essence’.66 As such, Helios grants to the one who offers to a
given deity the fitting victims67 access to these gods and to the benefits associated
with them. While an offering may be made to Apollo, for example, it is the shared qual-
ity of the life of the human, mediated by the life of the animal, which makes ‘contact’
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.
with the noeric, zoogonic Helios. In him reside those individuated qualities that are
manifested in the visible kosmos and understood by the devotee to be associated with
Apollo. These qualities, the benefits of which are sought in the sacrificial process,
flow from Helios through Apollo to the one offering the sacrifice. Apollo, as the ‘inter-
preter … of the fairest purposes that are to be found with our god’ (ἐξηγητὴς … τῶν ἐπὶ
τοῦ θεοῦ καλλίστων διανοημάτων, 144A), is properly the divinatory voice of the deity
and would rightly be honoured ceremonially in the expectation that the god would pro-
vide a response or utterance that would be of benefit to the devotee.
Sacrificial contact with Helios not only has immediate rewards, but also works to
aid in the soul’s ascent, for it is this god who ‘frees’ souls ‘from the body and then
lifts them up on high to the region of those substances that are akin to the god’
(152B).68 Συναϕή with this god, the ruler of the intellectual gods and cause of the mater-
ial gods, offers to the soul salvation from the realm of generation. By establishing a rela-
tionship with Helios through proper sacrificial practice, the devotee is able to receive the
salvific benefits of the god. Further, in the religiously mixed context of the mid fourth
century, the association of the divinity both with mediation between the divine realm
and humanity and with sacrifice would appeal to Christians whose convictions might
be wavering.69
SUMMARY OF SALLUSTIAN SACRIFICIAL THEORY
In Περὶ θεῶν, then, is found a variation on Iamblichan sacrificial theory that finds in the
life-force of the victim a means by which prayer and sacrifice are mutually efficacious
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 pro-
cess, 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 R. van den Berg,
‘Towards the paternal harbour: Proclean theurgy and the contemplation of the Forms’, in A. Ph.
Segonds and C. Steel (edd.), Proclus et la théologie Platonicienne (Leuven and Paris, 2000), 425–
44. See also H.D. Saffrey, ‘La dévotion de Proclus au soleil’, in J. Sojcher and G. Hottois (edd.),
Philosophies non-chrétiennes et christianisme (Brussels, 1984), 73–86. 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 J. Magness,
‘Heaven on earth: Helios and the zodiac cycle in ancient Mediterranean synagogues’, DOP 59
(2005), 1–52. 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.
and through which god and human might be unified. The somatic nature of the victim
emphasized by Iamblichus is no longer the crucial mediating factor; instead, it is the
animal’s ζωή that becomes a pivotal factor in the establishment of a bond with the div-
ine. While there is enough similarity in the respective theories of Iamblichus and
Sallustius (and Julian) to maintain that there is some type of dependence of the latter
on the former, a slavish reliance is not evident. Indeed, the lack of familiarity with
the technical meaning with which Iamblichus imbues συναϕή indicates that Sallustius
is not in lockstep with his predecessor. Sallustius’ move towards zoetic mediation,
prompted by a context containing new socio-political pressures, seeks to justify the con-
tinuation of a practice that has been officially restricted for decades. It has been sug-
gested here that there is a concomitant theoretical shift, rooted in Julianic theology,
that views the sacrifice as affecting directly the mediating qualities of Helios and thereby
granting to the rite an efficacy that extends beyond that found in the Iamblichan system
in which only the encosmic deities are immediately affected.70
PROCLUS
The subject of the final case study, the Athenian Academy of the fifth century, presents
an entirely different set of difficulties as evidenced by the dearth of scholarly commen-
tary on the sacrificial practices of the Athenian Platonists.71 Attaining a firm grasp of the
religious and ritual landscape of fifth-century Athens is a difficult task because an exam-
ination of the terrain finds a relatively robust adherence to the ancestral traditions in the
early 400s that only seems to give way before the rising Christian tide towards the mid-
dle of the century, the precise moment in which Proclus is at the height of his political,
intellectual and, perhaps, ritual powers.72 In spite of archaeological evidence of animal
sacrifice,73 references to sacrifice in the writings of the Athenian Platonists are rare;
indeed, there is very little direct evidence that sacrifice is for them a primary aspect
of theurgic practice in the way that it had been for Iamblichus. Whether the paucity
of data is due to the limits and nature of the sources – mostly commentaries in which
the text of the primary source, often a Platonic dialogue, guided the authors’ exegesis
and hagiographical accounts of philosophers’ lives that are short on details – or whether
it accurately reflects its role in the school is difficult to ascertain. When θύειν and its
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 noth-
ing specifically from Proclus. In one example, Harl (13) states that ‘Julian and his most notable intel-
lectual 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
A. Frantz, ‘From paganism to Christianity in the temples of Athens’, DOP 19 (1965), 185–205;
id., ‘Pagan philosophers in Christian Athens’, PAPHS 119 (1975), 29–38; E.J. Watts, City and School
in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley, 2006), 79–142. 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 A.
Karavieri, ‘The “House of Proclus” on the southern slope of the Acropolis: a contribution’, in P.
Castrén (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens A.D. 267–529
(Helsinki, 1994), 115–40.
cognates do appear in the commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, they frequently are refer-
ring back to uses of the term in a given dialogue,74 in historical references to traditional
sacrifices performed in festivals like the Apaturia,75 or in the broader, more general
sense of traditional rites.76 In one instance in Proclus’ Commentary on the
Republic,77 sacrifice, the utterance of divine names, and prayer (in that order), a com-
bination with Iamblichan resonances, are brought together under the rubric of the hier-
atic method (<ὁ> ἱερατικὸς τρόπος τῆς ἀγωγῆς, διὰ θυσιῶν, δι’ ὀνομάτων θείων, δι’
εὐχῶν συμπεπληρωμένος); unfortunately, little more is said about the roles played by
these ritual components. In all likelihood, this is the best and most positive evidence for
theurgic sacrifice in the Athenian Academy, but the reference is so bland that it betrays
nothing of its prevalence in the rites or of its contribution, if any, to theurgic anagogy. In
general, when given opportunities by a text to elaborate on the benefits of sacrifice,
Proclus opts not to do so. The relative dearth of references to theurgic sacrifice should
not necessarily be understood to mean that it is an unimportant component of the philo-
sophical life or that sacrifice does not receive extended treatment in a work no longer
extant. Nevertheless, in light of the central role of sacrifice in both extended formats
like De mysteriis and Late Platonist epitomes such as Περὶ θεῶν, its virtual absence
is quite curious. Without the sort of technical discussion found in these two works,
any evaluation of the role of sacrifice in the Athenian school is provisional. In what fol-
lows, two texts that provide insight into ritual practice in the Athenian school – Proclus’
On the Hieratic Art of the Greeks (Πρόκλου περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ἕλληνας ἱερατικῆς
τέχνης),78 and Marinus’ biography of Proclus – and a third, a selection from Proclus’
Commentary on the Timaeus, will be scrutinized for data that might help to construct
a rudimentary understanding of the place of sacrifice and, accordingly, any theory asso-
ciated with it, in the Athenian programme.
SACRIFICE AND ON THE HIERATIC ART
Thought to be a fragment of Proclus’ commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles, the three

extant pages of On the Hieratic Art are a tractate on the mechanics of encosmic theurgy.
The first portion of the document provides the theoretical basis for the success enjoyed
by theurgic practitioners. By utilizing or, perhaps, even discovering cosmic sum-
patheia,79 that force in which the ritual expert sees ‘those things which come last in
those which come first, and vice versa; earthly things in the heavens in a causal and
heavenly manner, and heavenly things on the earth in a terrestrial manner’ (ἔν τε
τοῖς πρώτοις τὰ ἔσχατα καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις τὰ πρώτιστα, ἐν οὐρανῷ μὲν τὰ
χθόνια κατ’ αἰτίαν καὶ οὐρανίως, ἔν τε γῇ τὰ οὐράνια γηΐνως), the legendary
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 J. Bidez, Catalogue des manuscrits alchemiques Grecs VI
(Brussels, 1928).
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.
sages80 were able to establish and perfect the hieratic science (148, 7; ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἡ
ἱερατική). The appeal to sympathy seems to be a retreat from the Iamblichan position
that had understood ϕιλία to be the explanation of theurgic efficacy that accounted for
the entirety of the ontological spectrum.81 Proclus proceeds to provide examples of the
types of divine hierarchical ranks, associated elsewhere with the gods and goddesses of
Greek religion,82 that extend from the henads83 down to humans, animals and even the
meanest sort of matter such as stones or botanical specimens. To take one example, in
the solar ranks can be found the lion, the rooster and the sunstone (ἡλίτης), all of which
might be used to aid the ritual performer as he or she seeks to make contact with the
terrestrial entities who, in turn, can help the theurgist to experience the hypercosmic
powers.84
While the first section of On the Hieratic Art is predominantly devoted to theoretical
matters, the second half provides examples of theory put into action. Acknowledging
once more the contribution of the theurgic pioneers (150, 24; οἱ τῆς ἱερατικῆς
ἡγεμόνες), Proclus describes both the method by which one combines different ingre-
dients to produce ἀγάλματα that have real connections to the divine and instances where
a ‘single herb or stone’ (μία πόα καὶ λίθος) is sufficient for purificatory or apotropaic
purposes. In one instance in which biological materials are utilized, Proclus advocates
the use of the heart of a mole for the achievement of divinatory success (151, 8).85 It
is possible that such ingredients could be obtained through a sacrificial ritual, but it
is equally likely that ingredients of this ilk are procured via a commercial rather than
ceremonial process. In his Apology, Apuleius famously responds to those who accused
him of procuring a certain variety of fish for magical purposes. He denies that the fish
had been used in magical ritual, but makes no effort to deny that he had, in fact, acquired
these fish, and many others, for scientific purposes. Even if Apuleius’ innocence is
accepted, this episode demonstrates that the procurement of ingredients to be used ritu-
ally was a routine, if at times suspicious, practice.
It is also possible that, when speaking of the ‘heart of a mole’, Proclus is using the
same sort of coded language as that found in PGM 12.401–44, which reveals that exotic
ingredients used in spells might actually refer to far more innocuous materials (for
example, ‘semen of Hermes’ is dill, the ‘blood of Hestia’ is chamomile, and the
‘blood of a goose’ is a mulberry tree’s milk). Proclus makes mention also of the cath-
artic value of seawater, sulphur and bitumen, but the vocabulary used for the ceremonies
associated with these items (θεραπεῖαι, τελεταί, περιρραίνειν) is of a very general
nature. It is noted that the hieratic masters were careful to choose the appropriate animals
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 H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism,
Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris, 1978), 461–6, 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 con-
sonant 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.
(ζῷά) and other materials for these services; the sages may have procured these ingre-
dients via sacrificial ritual but, again, the possibility remains that more mundane meth-
ods were found to lay hold of the necessary elements.86
It is difficult to find in these passages a direct allusion to the practice of theurgic sac-
rifice in the fifth-century Academy; the absence of specific references to θυσία in this
treatise gives pause. In De mysteriis 233.6 ff., a section of the treatise devoted to sacri-
fice that is also, in many ways, a condensed version of what would later be found in On
the Hieratic Art, Iamblichus uses θυσία language quite freely in his depiction of theur-
gic ritual.87 In the Proclan fragment, the word is not used a single time; if sacrifice was a
critical component of Athenian theurgy, it is not evident in On the Hieratic Art. It is
worth repeating that the Athenian Platonists likely practised sacrifice in some form,
but its theoretical centrality is in question. The fragmentary nature of On the Hieratic
Art should also be emphasized; the possibility that a section devoted solely to the
place of sacrifice in theurgic ritual existed in this work must be allowed, but its absence
in the introductory portion of a text in which several other aspects of Athenian theurgic
ritual are described, suggests a notable shift in the conceptual terrain. Ritually-oriented
Platonic tractates of earlier generations had emphasized the role of sacrifice and its sal-
vific value, but Proclus relegates the practice to the sidelines in favour of, amongst other
things, the composition of ἀγάλματα that serve as an important focus of ritual activity.
Ultimately, On the Hieratic Art adds very little to an understanding of theurgic sac-
rifice in Proclus’ Academy. It teases with allusions to the involvement of animals in
some of the rituals, but the references lack specificity and need not be read as intima-
tions of sacrifice. More positively, the treatise does much to suggest that the theoretical
emphasis has shifted away from viewing sacrifice as the central theurgic act and instead
looks to the construction of ἀγάλματα and ceremonies involving, primarily, botanical
elements as anagogic stimuli.88
SACRIFICE AND THE VITA PROCLI
In his biography of Proclus, Marinus pays tribute to his master by depicting him as an
exemplar of Late Platonic virtue.89 The proem, in which Marinus modestly reflects on
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 A.D. Nock, ‘The lizard in magic and religion’, in
id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA, 1972),
271–6.
89
These grades of virtue include the ethical, political, purificatory, contemplative, paradigmatic
and theurgic virtues; Luc Brisson, ‘The doctrine of the degrees of virtues in the Neoplatonists: an ana-
lysis of Porphyry’s Sentences 32, its antecedents, and its heritage’, in H. Tarrant and D. Baltzly (edd.),
Reading Plato in Antiquity, tr. M. Chase (London, 2006), 89–105; D. Baltzly, ‘Pathways to purifica-
tion: the cathartic virtues in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition’, ibid. 169–84.
his inability to find language that accurately portrays the greatness of his subject, con-
tains the first reference to sacrifice found in the work:
νυνὶ δὲ οὐ ταύτῃ παραμετρῶν τὸ ἡμέτερον, ἐνθυμούμενος δὲ ὅτι κἀν τοῖς ἱεροῖς οἱ τοῖς
βωμοῖς προσιόντες οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἴσων ἕκαστοι τὰς ἁγιστείας ποιοῦνται, ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν διὰ
ταύρων ἢ αἰγῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἐπιτηδείους ἑαυτοὺς παρασκευάζουσι πρὸς
τὴν μετουσίαν τῶν θεῶν, ὧν οἱ βωμοί, καὶ δὴ καὶ τοὺς ὕμνους κομψότερον ἐργάζονται
τοὺς μὲν ‘ἐν μέτρῳ’, τοὺς δὲ καὶ ‘ἄνευ μέτρου’, ἕτεροι δὲ τούτων μὲν οὐδὲν ἔχοντες
προσάγειν, ‘πόπανον’ δὲ μόνον καὶ ‘χόνδρον’, εἰ τύχοι, ‘λιβανωτοῦ’ θύοντες καὶ βραχεῖ
δέ τινι προσρήματι τὰς ἐπικλήσεις ποιούμενοι, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκείνων εὐηκοΐας
ἀπολαύουσι …
But as it is, I do not measure myself by that standard, but reflect that even in temples those who
approach the altars do not make their sacrifices from equal means, but some through bulls and
goats and other creatures of this kind render themselves fit for communion with the gods who
possess the altars, and furthermore produce polished hymns, some in metre and some without
metre; others, by contrast, having nothing like this to offer but, consecrating a cake or handful of
incense and making their orison with some brief invocation, enjoy no less benign a hearing than
the former …90
(VProcl. 1)
It has been suggested that the use of the present tense is indicative of an ongoing prac-
tice in late fifth-century Athens and, indeed, repeated bans on sacrifice by a series of
emperors speak to the impotence of these laws and to the real possibility that they
were disobeyed by many.91 At the same time, the cautionary note sounded by
Edwards regarding the ‘possibility of tendentious or literary archaism’ is wholly appro-
priate.92 The late date of the work (sometime after Proclus’ death in 485) and the reli-
gious climate of the 480s make improbable the claim that Marinus is drawing from
contemporary experience.
In the depiction of Proclus’ cathartic virtues, which Marinus tells us are meant to pur-
ify the soul, that is, to free it from the ‘leaden world of generation, and [to] produce an
uncurbed flight from the present world’ (ἀπολύουσι τῶν τῆς γενέσεως ὄντως
μολυβδίδων καὶ ‘ϕυγὴν τῶν ἐντεῦθεν’ ἀκώλυτον ἀπεργάζονται, 18), is found the
only other allusion to sacrifice in the Vita Procli. Among other purifying activities –
the veneration of an array of ethnic deities, apotropaic acts, perhaps of a kind with
the type mentioned in On the Hieratic Art, processions and seawater ablutions (the lat-
ter, too, finds a corresponding statement in On the Hieratic Art), and Orphic and
Chaldaean rituals – is found also Proclus’ abstention from the consumption of animal
flesh with the minor exception of those times when he, in the Pythagorean manner, par-
takes of the sacrificial meat ‘for the sake of piety’ (καὶ τοῦτο ὁσίας χάριν, 19).93 Even
then, we are told, he only tastes it (μόνον ἀπεγεύετο). Marinus also says of his master
90
M. Edwards (tr.), Neoplatonic Saints: The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students
(Liverpool, 2005), 58.
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’.
that ‘One could almost say that he observed with the proper rituals the significant holi-
days of every people and the ancestral rites of each’ (καὶ τὰς παρὰ πᾶσι δέ, ὡς εἰπεῖν,
ἐπισήμους ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰ παρ’ ἑκάστοις πάτρια δρῶν ἐνθέσμως διετέλεσε, 19).
Worshipping κατὰ τὰ πάτρια is often associated with, among other things, proper sac-
rifice to the gods,94 but in some instances, such as we find in Porphyry’s De abstinentia
2.59, this might mean agricultural forms of sacrifice.95 When combined with his will-
ingness to taste meat ‘for the sake of piety’, however, the possibility grows that
Proclus, in his purificatory celebrations of the ancestral rites of various nations, did par-
ticipate in animal sacrifice. Even so, it must be admitted that in Marinus’ account, sac-
rifice does not possess the sort of central cathartic and anagogic role it seems to have had
for Iamblichus or Sallustius. In the citation, the tasting of the meat is peripheral to the
more specific descriptions of cathartic virtues and rites. It might be argued that Marinus
is exercising discretion in the face of a culture that did not look kindly on the practice
but, given the posthumous nature of the Vita, this would hardly seem to matter. The sub-
stantive data to be gleaned from Marinus are slim and caution ought to be exercised in
defining what, precisely, might be learned. At a minimum, however, Marinus’ recollec-
tion of Proclus’ cathartic rites, in which it might be supposed that the biographer would
wish to highlight the most exemplary of his subject’s acts, does not evidence a particular
concern for animal sacrifice. Further, if there is a rich sacrificial theory undergirding the
sacrifices (possibly) alluded to by Marinus, it is not easily identified.
PRAYER IN THE COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS
The final text to be examined is Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus, in which is found
a lengthy section on prayer that, because of its topical similarity to the previous treat-
ments by Iamblichus and Sallustius and their assertions of an inseparable bond between
prayer and sacrifice, is worthy of note. In Tim. 1.206.26–214.12 is an excursus on prayer
that seeks to explicate Timaeus 27b–c, a portion of the Platonic dialogue in which the
importance of making an invocation to the gods prior to the undertaking of any project
is emphasized. Proclus claims, ‘It is necessary, therefore, that before all else we obtain
some clear knowledge about prayer, what its essence is and its perfection (τελειότης),
and from where it is instilled in souls’ (Δεῖ δὴ οὖν πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἡμᾶς περὶ
εὐχῆς τι γνῶναι σαϕές, τίς τε ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς καὶ τίς ἡ τελειότης, καὶ πόθεν ἐνδίδοται
ταῖς ψυχαῖς, 207.21–3).96 As in the depictions of ritual put forward by both Iamblichus
and Sallustius, the role of prayer is foregrounded as one of the primary means by which
to establish connection and union with the divine; unlike these prior delineations, how-
ever, sacrifice is not identified as a necessary component of the ritual process. The fol-
lowing discussion will outline partially Proclus’ description of prayer and then will
return to the subject of sacrifice.97
94
For example, Cass. Dio 46.5.2; Philo, De vit. Mos. 1.73.5.
95
See G. Clark, ‘Augustine’s Porphyry and the universal way of salvation’, in G. Karamanolis and
A. Sheppard (edd.), Studies on Porphyry (London, 2007), 140.
96
Translation taken from Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, tr. D.T. Runia and M. Share,
vol. 2 (Cambridge, 2008).
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.
Following a section that recapitulates a Porphyrian doxography on the topic of pray-

er, Proclus proceeds to laud Iamblichus whose more anagogically-minded explication
taught the Late Platonist reader ‘about both the power and the perfection of prayer, a
doctrine that is marvellous and extraordinary and exceeding all expectation’ (209.7–9).
Proclus then proposes to evaluate the passage on ‘a level with which its readers are
more familiar and more cognizant, making its meaning plain and giving the account
of prayer that accords with Plato’s views’ (209.9–12). This statement indicates that
Proclus is now going to ‘translate’ Iamblichus’ position, but it must also be allowed
that such a translation could involve further reflection upon and a consequent massa-
ging, and even expansion, of the Iamblichan structure. The succeeding material is, in
effect, an expansion of the threefold division of prayer – συναγωγός, συνδετικός and
ἡ ἄρρητος ἕνωσις – found in Myst. 237.12–238.5. ‘Perfect’ (τέλειος) prayer is com-
prised of 1) knowledge of the divine ranks (1.211.8–13),98 that is, knowledge of their
specific character (ἰδιότης); 2) familiarization or attraction (οἰκείωσις), which directs
the soul towards the divine (1.211.13–17); 3) conjunction (συναϕή) through which con-
tact is made with the divine essence (οὐσία) via the highest part of the soul (1.211.18–
19); 4) an approaching of the deity (1.211.19–24); 5) and, finally, unification (ἕνωσις),
which establishes the unity of the soul in the unity of the gods (1.211.24–212.1). This
process of perfection is succinctly described elsewhere as a movement ‘from the more
common goods [to] divine unification and the gradual accustoming of the soul to the
divine light’ (1.213.3–6). Finally, Proclus summarizes the contribution that prayer
makes to the ascent (ἄνοδος) of the soul as ‘not small’ and claims, ‘It is through prayer
that the ascent is brought to completion and it is with prayer that the crown of virtue is
attained, namely piety towards the gods’ (1.212.1–6).
Some familiar terms – συναϕή and ἕνωσις – make an appearance once more in
Proclus’ description. His is a richer and more fully articulated explanation of prayer
than that of Iamblichus, but the terminological hierarchy in which ἕνωσις is seen to
be the pinnacle of psychic unification with the divine remains the same. This stands
in contrast to Sallustius who, it will be recalled, employs συναϕή rather broadly and
haphazardly in his discussion of prayer and sacrifice. The continuity between the theor-
ies of prayer of Iamblichus and Proclus buttress the earlier claims made in this paper that
Sallustius mishandles the Iamblichan tradition and does not fully grasp the technical
aspects of these terms or only has a general knowledge of the theory and employs a
term of his choosing (συναϕή) to speak of the unification of human and divinity.
Notable, too, is Proclus’ mention of ‘perfect prayer.’ It will be recalled that in De
mysteriis, the perfect sacrifice is the ritual that activates all levels of the causal hierarchy;
imperfect sacrifice, too, is mentioned and said to be influential only to a certain,
undefined, causative level (209.15–210.5). Prayers, Iamblichus claims, are a crucial
aspect of theurgic sacrifice and, indeed, ‘it is by means of them that the whole efficacy
of the sacrifices [was] reinforced and brought to perfection’. The invocations are the
active force that aids in the execution of perfect sacrifice. As has been shown, the
prayers themselves are efficacious and produce a union between human and divinity,
but these effects are understood to be experienced in tandem with sacrificial ritual.
‘Perfect prayer’ has the unitive aspects spoken of by Iamblichus, but it is also a prod-
uct of causative properties. For Iamblichus, the sacrificial victim, be it plant or animal, is
98
Late Platonist ontology grew increasingly complex and Proclus envisioned numerous triadic
layers of deities residing between the generated realm and, ultimately, the One.
associated with a divine cause somewhere along the ontological spectrum and by acting
upon this element in an appropriate manner, the theurgist engages the causative chain
(Myst. 209.9–210.5). Prayer seems to play a similar role for Proclus. Following his
sketch of the unifying qualities of prayer, Proclus describes five different levels of caus-
ation: efficient, final, paradigmatic, formal and material (213.8–18). The material causes
of prayer are the ‘tokens (συνθήματα) which the Demiurge … placed in the souls’
essences for the recollection of the gods who caused them to exist’ (213.16–18). Of
these tokens, Proclus says elsewhere, ‘All things, therefore, both remain in and revert
to the gods, receiving this ability from them and obtaining in their very being two
lots of συνθήματα, the one in order to remain there, the other so that what proceeds
forth can return’ (210.11–16).99 The soul, too, proceeds from the divine and receives
this double allocation of συνθήματα. On the material level, prayer enables the embodied
worshipper to access the soul’s συνθήματα and to engage in the process of reversion
towards his or her divine cause. This circular system in which is found both procession
from (πρόοδος) and reversion to (ἐπιστροϕή) a more unified source is a hallmark of
Proclan metaphysics and central to theurgic efficacy.100
Prayer is, on the one hand, a terrestrial effect of the heavenly causes found in in Tim.
213.8–18101 and, on the other, an offering to the divine that returns to its sources.
Proclus’ descriptions of the other causes of prayer further illustrate its value to psychic
anagogy. Each cause resides along the ontological spectrum that stretches from the
material realm, spoken of above, to the divine. The formal causes of prayer, for example,
‘cause the souls to resemble the gods and bring their entire life to completion’ (213.14–
16) and the paradigmatic causes ‘are the primary creative principles of reality, which
have both preceded from the Good and have been unified with it in a single ineffable
union’ (213.12–14). ‘The undefiled goods which the souls enjoy when they are estab-
lished in the gods’ (213.10–12) characterize the final causes while the efficient causes
are the ‘efficacious powers of the gods’ (τὰς δραστηρίους τῶν θεῶν δυνάμεις, 213.9)
that ‘turn around and summon all things towards the gods themselves’ (τὰς
ἐπιστρεϕούσας καὶ ἀνακαλουμένας πάντα ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς τοὺς θεούς, 213.9–10).
Because prayer proceeds from and reverts to this spectrum of causes, the theurgist is
able to participate in multiple causative tiers. Just as, according to Iamblichus, the ‘per-
fect sacrifice’ activates all the causative levels, the ‘perfect prayer’ of Proclus performs a
99
πάντ' οὖν καὶ μένɛι καὶ ἐπιστρέϕɛι πρὸς τοὺς θɛούς, ταύτην λαβόντα παρ' αὐτῶν τὴν δύναμιν
καὶ διττὰ συνθήματα κατ' οὐσίαν ὑποδɛξάμɛνα, τὰ μὲν ὅπως ἂν ἐκɛῖ μένῃ, τὰ δὲ ὅπως ἂν
ἐπιστρέϕῃ προɛλθόντα. 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 mean-
ing 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 fol-
lowing 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.
similar function. For Proclus, prayer has assimilated the theoretical functions that, in
previous generations, had once belonged to sacrifice.
Proclus’ thick description of prayer provides key insights into its purposes and uses
in the Athenian Academy, but the omission of a significant role for, or even a mention
of, sacrifice is notable. Enough of Proclus’ works are extant that this evidence cannot be
dismissed as circumstantial. It is doubtful that Proclus is unaware of statements by
Iamblichus regarding sacrificial efficacy; rather, it is more likely that Proclus neglects
Iamblichus’ sacrificial theory because of a change in its relative importance in
Athenian theurgy. We know of the symbiotic relationship of prayer and sacrifice
described in De mysteriis and that Iamblichus views prayers as being ‘by no means
the least part of sacrificial procedure’ (Myst. 237.6); he clearly understands prayer to
occur within a larger ritual process of which sacrifice is an integral part. With the
lone exception of the all-too-brief allusion to sacrifice and prayer in in Remp.
2.66.18–20 ff., there are no such assurances in the extant material of Proclus. Indeed,
given Proclus’ extended elaboration of the role of prayer in ἀναγωγή, the absence of
any mention of sacrifice is striking. His silence bespeaks a new attitude to sacrifice
and its role in theurgic ritual.
It is not necessary to suggest that sacrifice was no longer a component of Athenian
theurgic ritual but, rather, its virtual absence in Proclus questions the assumption of a
stable and smooth theoretical continuity from Iamblichus to Proclus. The reasons for
this are unclear, but two proposals can be offered. The first and more optimistic
approach suggests that Proclus views the Iamblichan contribution to be definitive and
to demonstrate the cathartic and anagogic efficacy of sacrifice to such a degree that it
is unnecessary to comment further. The second and, I would argue, more likely possi-
bility is that sacrifice becomes increasingly difficult to practise as the Christian presence
in Athens grows more vibrant and so becomes a less frequently utilized aspect of the-
urgic ritual.
SACRIFICE, POLITICS AND RELIGION IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS
As one who runs afoul of Christian authorities early in his career as scholarch of the
Academy, the wiser and more wary Proclus learns to negotiate the complex and danger-
ous terrain that comprises Athenian political and civic life.102 In one example from the
Life, the philosopher is urged to heal a young woman of an illness that has passed
beyond the abilities of her doctors to heal. Proclus successfully appeals to Asclepius
on the girl’s behalf, but Marinus notes that, as was his practice, he does so in such a
way as to evade the notice of those who might wish to conspire against him.103
Interestingly, Marinus suggests that the scholarch’s home allows Proclus to maintain
this low profile; the biographer is alluding primarily to the dwelling’s close proximity
to many of the city’s shrines, but might the home also have served to conceal ritual
acts that would have raised Christian eyebrows?104
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
Watts has proposed that Proclus successfully navigates the thorny religio-political
issues by acquiring political allies who are sympathetic to the ancestral traditions and
thereby gains a modicum of protection for the school.105 With the immediate
Christian threat neutralized, or at least minimized, Proclus is able to compose works
on theological texts such as the Chaldaean Oracles and to offer a rebuttal to
Christian cosmogony. It is one thing to write theological treatises in an intellectual set-
ting that still allows a certain amount of freedom to debate philosophical matters but
quite another to advocate the practice of sacrifice in an environment in which emperors
have repeatedly banned the practice.106 A reconstitution of the theurgic regimen may be
necessary to adapt to this impingement, a reformation that places into other ritual com-
ponents – prayers and hymns, statue animation, ablutions, divinatory techniques and rit-
ual burial – the anagogic and cathartic benefits that had once been associated with
sacrificial theurgy.
CONCLUSION
The overarching issue addressed in this article has been the conceptual changes in only
one aspect of theurgic theory, that is, the role of sacrifice; as a result of its intimate rela-
tionship with the sacrificial rite, prayer has been a secondary concern. Both continuity
and change mark the course of sacrificial theory in Late Platonism. Iamblichus blazes
the trail, but it is one followed in differing degrees by his successors. Sallustius demon-
strates a familiarity with Iamblichan theory, but a closer examination of his statement on
sacrifice in Περὶ θεῶν suggests that he makes alterations to his predecessor’s theory that
were not insignificant. In particular, the shift from somatic to zoetic mediation is crucial
and supportive of the theological and socio-political needs of the Julianic court. Proclus,
on the other hand, does not put forward a theory of sacrifice in the extant materials
attributed to him. Brief allusions to the pairing of prayer and sacrifice in a hieratic con-
text hint at the continuation of the practice in the Academy, but in Proclus’ theoretical
discussion of theurgy in On the Hieratic Art, in biographical descriptions of his ritual
activities, and in his expansive description of prayer, sacrifice’s traditional ritual partner,
the rite is virtually absent. Although it is unlikely that the Athenian Platonists no longer
practised sacrifice in some form, the political and social pressures of the mid fifth cen-
tury likely contributed to a conceptual shift the result of which is that sacrifice was no
longer deemed the central act of the theurgic process. By examining diachronically the
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 possi-
bility, 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.
theoretical bases for sacrifice in Late Platonic ritual praxis, the elasticity of theurgy in
both theory and practice is brought into greater relief.107
DePauw University TODD C. KRULAK

tckrulak@hotmail.com
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”’: I. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The
Invention of a Ritual Tradition (Göttingen, 2013).

And Theurgy Sacrificial Theory in PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

And Theurgy Sacrificial Theory in PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Classical Quarterly

Additional services for The Classical Quarterly:

Email alerts: Click here

ΘΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN

The Classical Quarterly / Volume 64 / Issue 01 / May 2014, pp 353 - 382

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838813000530

How to cite this article:

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ, IP address: 71.82.8.247 on 16 Nov 2014

ΘϒΣΙΑ AND THEURGY: SACRIFICIAL THEORY IN FOURTH-

SACRIFICE AND PRAYER

SUMMARY OF IAMBLICHAN SACRIFICIAL THEORY

To summarize Iamblichan theory, then, sacrifice is a crucial component of the theurgic

debated,35 it becomes an important component of Platonist ontology,36 representing the

JULIAN AND ZOETIC MEDIATION

ZOETIC MEDIATION, SACRIFICE AND PRAYER

section of De mysteriis is consistent with Iamblichus’ general indifference to its role in

SALLUSTIUS AND ΣϒΝΑΦH

SACRIFICE, POLITICS AND RELIGION IN THE JULIANIC COURT

HELIOS AND ZOETIC MEDIATION

Augustus, an important symbol to numerous emperors.60 Julian’s hymn can be located

SUMMARY OF SALLUSTIAN SACRIFICIAL THEORY

SACRIFICE AND ON THE HIERATIC ART

Thought to be a fragment of Proclus’ commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles, the three

SACRIFICE AND THE VITA PROCLI

PRAYER IN THE COMMENTARY ON THE TIMAEUS

Following a section that recapitulates a Porphyrian doxography on the topic of pray-

SACRIFICE, POLITICS AND RELIGION IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS

DePauw University TODD C. KRULAK

You might also like