Religious Competition in the Third Century CE: Jews, Christians, and the

Greco-Roman World

edited by Jordan D. Rosenblum, Lily C. Vuong

and Nathaniel P. DesRosiers

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

2014

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Gottingen

Heidi Marx-Wolf

Pythagoras the Theurgist

Porphyry and Iamblichus on the Role of Ritual in the Philosophical Life

In his work, On the Mysteries, the philosopher and theurg ist, lamblichus of Chalcis famously criticised his fo rmer teacher, Porphyry, for his views on ritual and, in particula r, blood sacrifice. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that this is not the only text in whi ch Iamblichus registered crit icisms of Porphyry. The debate between these two thinkers co ntinued in the context of their respective biographical sketches of the pre-Socratic sage, Pythagoras, a figure shrouded in mystery and the subject of a good deal of myth -making in later antiquity.'

The context for each philosopher's sketch is importantly different. Porphyry wrote his Life of Pythagoras as part of a larger historical work devoted to describing the lives of a number of key philosophical figures starting with Homer (whom Porphyry considered a philosopher, but one who wrote primarily in a figural mode) and ending with Plato.2 Iamblichus' biography of Pythagoras, on the other hand, serves as an introduction to a ten­book work on Pythagoreanism as the true philosophical path, a work whose fun ction was to lead the student into the study of philosophy in general, and then fo r the mo re d il igent, into the study o f Pythagorean thought and life more specificall y. 3 If we consider the o ther main biographical account which Porphyry wrote, namely his Life of Plotinus with which he prefaced the Enneads, it may not be too great a stretch to suppose that Iamblichus wrote his On the Pythagorean Way of Life and his Pythagorean program as an alternative to (and competitor with) the philosophical program of the Enneads. The choice of Pythagoras is tell ing in this regard. Many m iddle and late Roman Platonists saw Pythagoras as Pla to's most important predecessor. Hence,

I As Mark Edwa rds notes. many scholars have assu med that lamblich us was not aware of or did not use his teacher's account of Pythagoras' li fe . However, Edwards contends that this was not the case, that lamblichus was in fact fami liar with the work and made use of it. Although Edwards notes some of the episodes discussed in this paper, he does not comment on the significance of the connections. Sec M. Edwards, "Two Images of Pythagoras : lamblichus and Po rphyry", in ). Blumcntha l/G. Clark (ed .), T/Jc Divine /11111blichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods (Bristol : Bristol Classical Press: 1993) I 59 - 72.

2 References to Porphyry's Life of Py thagoras (Porph. VP) make use of Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie' s translation: The Py thagorean Sourcebook 1111d Library, edited by David l'idcler (G rand Rapids: Phanes Press, 1987).

3 References to la mblichus' On the Py1l111g<>re1111 Way of Lif e (Iambi. VPyth.) refer to the edition and t ranslation by J. Dillon/ ). Hershbcll (Atlanta : Scholar's Press, 199 1 ).

Pythagoras the Theurgist 33

where Porphyry presents Plotinus as the true heir of Platonic philosophy in part through his association with Ammonius Saccas, Iamblichus chooses the more ancient sage, one who was supposed to have influenced Plato.

Before turning directly to the debate on ritual that takes place in the Pythagorean works of Porphyry and Iamblichus, it is important to review briefly the main points of difference between the two philosophers on this topic.4 In the course of making an impassioned plea for vegetarianism as a facet of the philosophical life, Porphyr y, in his work On Abstinence from Animal Food, argued that blood sacrifice was part of a conspiracy on the part of fa llen, evil daemons to secure the vapors and moisture that fed their pneumatic vessels, weighing them down and keeping them in cosmic realms that were not their true domain.s In turn, these malign spirits were responsible for al l manner of human and natural misfortune as well as various misconceptions about the true and highest gods.6 Iamblichus disagreed with Porphyry on the issue of blood sacrifice. He held the view that it was a god-given ritual effective in activating certain cosmic connections between humans and greater spirits that would aid souls in one part of th ei r journey toward union with the highest gods. The debate over blood sacrifice was one moment in a larger disagreement between Porphyry and Iamblichus on the place of ritual in the life of the philosopher seeking union with his or her divine origins. It was this larger debate that served as the starting point for lamblichus' writ ing of his On the Mysteries. Porphyry seems to have held the view that ritual (or theurgy as it was called by some sages) could only get one so far on the path to reunion with the highest gods and was in fact optiona l for philosophers.7 Iamblichus, on the other hand, held that every stage of the path toward union was attended by god-given, efficacious rituals without which even the most devoted philosopher could not advance. It is this argument which, I contend, lamblichus continued in his portrai t of the Pythagorean way of li fe.

In order to understand both the aforementioned debate over ritual and the intellectual milieu in which Porphyry and Jamblichus wrote their biographical sketches and philosophical programs, we must keep a few points regarding ancient philosophy in mind as we proceed. In The Inner Citadel, Pierre Hadot clearly demonstrates that philosophy in antiquity involved a good deal more than the mere subscription to a particular school o r system of thought or

4 The best overview o f this debate can be found in Chapter 4, "Schism in the Ammonian Com · munity : Porphyry v. lamblichus'', of E.D. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012), 98- 127. See also recent work by Daniel Ullucci in which he discusses this deba1e as a kind of co mpetitio n between cultural producers over how to define proper o r ideal sacrifice; The Christian Rejectio11 of Animal Sa·

crifice (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 201 2), S - 6; 58 - 9. 5 Porph. Abst. 2.40; 2.42. 6 Porph. Abst. 2.40. 7 Digeser. A Threat to Public Piety. 119- 27.

34 Heidi Marx-Wolf

training in certain rational principles.8 Rather philosophy's true value lay in its practical dimensions, its prescriptions for how to live, and its ability to supply its adherents with a comprehensive approach to life. This understanding of philosophy did not end in the second century. Indeed, philosophy as a guide to right thought, action, and passion continued into the third century and also expanded to include previously de-emphasised spheres of action. For instance, in the worldview of late Platonist thinkers such as Porphyry and lamblichus, we find an increasing focus on the philoso pher's involvement in civic affairs or politics, and on the proper practice and meaning of traditional religious ritual - the subjec t of the debate between the two philosophers under discussion here.9 As we shall see, these two aspects of the philosophical life in late Roman Pia ton ism are not unrelated. Both are part of the larger discussion between Porphyry and Iamblichus on the role of the philosopher and theurge in the salvation of other souls.

Although Iamblichus does not address Porphyry's portra it of Pythagoras in any explicit manner, there are a number of junctures in the text where he appears to correct Porphyry on matters of both detail and significance. Indeed, even their approach to their subject matter reveals important differences. Porphyry's approach is more diverse. He records multiple accounts of the same events, especially with reference to Pythagoras' parentage, place of origin, and childhood, and he does not resolve the contradict ions he notes among diverse accounts. As Dominic O'Meara notes, Porphyry writes more as a historian and compiler. 10 He pays homage by giving as complete an account as possible of the varying reports concerning his subject. Porphyry's account, as mentioned earlier, "was once part of the first book of a philosophical history in four books, beginning with Homer and ending with Plato."11 Apart from the sections on Pythagoras and some short extracts, this work is no longer extant. When placed side by side with some of Porphyry's o ther writings, his approach to Pythagoras is consistent with what emerges from a more general survey of his works as a search for a universal religious philosophy reflected in the teachings of the ancient Greek sages and poets, the Egyptian and Chaldean priesthoods, Indian Brahmans, and even Hebrew wise men and prophets. Thus Porphyry is not a "Pythagoreanising Platonist." According to O'Meara, however, Iamblichus is.

8 P. Hadot, Tire Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge: Harvard Uni ­versity Press, 1998).

9 Both Dominic J. O'Meara and Jeremy Schott have brought this polit ical facet of laie Platonism 10

the attcnlion of scholars in rccenl years . Sec D.J. O'Meara, Platonopolis: Platonic Political Plrilosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) and J. Schott, "Founding Plaionopolis: The Plaionic 'Poli1cia' in Euscbius, Porphyry, and lamblichus", JECS 11 (2003)

SOI - 31.

10 D.J. O'Mcara, Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosopl1y in I.ate A11tiq11ity (Oxfo rd : Cla rendon Press, 1989), 26.

11 O'Mcarn. t>ytl1ngorns Revived. 25.

Pythagoras the Theurgist 35

Unlike Porphyry's more ad hoe approach, lamblichus weaves a harmonised and for the most part internally consistent portrait of Pythagoras and his way of life. For instance, he resolves a number of key differences that Porphyry lets stand. Some of these resolutions are accomplished by ordering the diversity we find in Porphyry's life within hierarchical frameworks. In general, Iamblichus very consciously sets forth the definitive view of Pythagoras. This may be because he has judged Porphyry's to be deficient in some way.

One example of Iamblichus' efforts to set the record straight on Pythagoras occurs at VPyth. 5.2 1 - 25. lamblichus tells the stor y of how Pythagoras, when he returned to Samos and found a less than enthusiastic reception, chose a poor athletic youth as a pupil and offered to keep him well-provisioned if the youth would agree to accept lessons from Pythagoras. In this way the philosopher hoped to "give his fellow countrymen a taste of the fineness of his teachings", perhaps by showi ng them through this Pygmalionesque scenario that his teachings could transform such an ignorant creature into a true adherent. 12 Pythagoras managed very well in this regard. The youth, who also happened to be named Pythagoras, grew so addicted to his master's teachings that not only did he continue when Pythagoras begged poverty and could no longer pay him to learn, but in the end, the youth was paying Pythagoras for his lessons, as any good pupil of philosophy should do. After describing the scene of the young athlete's conversion to philosophy, Iamblichus notes that "treatises on the art of athletic training are ascribed to this one [namely Pythagoras the younger), including the decree that athletes have a meat diet instead of dried figs." "These treatises", writes Iamblichus, "are not correctly attributed to Pythagoras, son ofMnemarchus."13 In Porphyry's account, upon returning to Samos, Pythagoras trained the Samian athlete Eurymenes, who "though he was of small stature, conquered at Olympia through his surpassing knowledge of Pythagoras' wisdom." 14 How did he accomplish this feat, and what part of Pythagoras' great store of knowledge did he find particularly helpful in this regard ? The athlete achieved his victory by following the sage's advice " to feed daily on flesh rather than on the usual athlete's diet of cheese and figs."15 It is not a stretch to see Iamblichus as setting Porphyry st raight on this episode. For Porphyry, who in On Abstinence from Animals remarks that eating meat binds the soul more closely to the body, it makes good sense that if Pythagoras were to undertake the training of an athlete that he would enjoin practices that strengthen this connection and nourish the body. Furtherm ore, the young man was an athlete and not a philosopher, hence, he was not on the path toward union with the highest gods. Therefore, it was acceptable to engage in polluting practices such as eating meat. But Iamblichus, by

12 Iambi. VPyth. 5.2 1 - 5. 13 Iambi. VPytli. 5.25.

14 Porph. VP. I 5. 15 Porph. VP. I 5.

36 Heidi Marx-Wolf

attributing knowledge of these matters to a different Pythagoras, divorces the sage from involvement in anything so base as the training of athletes for competition and the injunction that one ought to eat meat in order to win in physical contests. Although lamblichus' Pythagoras knew everything there was to know about medicine and diet as it pertained to the purification and heal ing of the body, he was no t involved in anything so contrary to the philosophical life as preparing an a thlete for competition. Indeed, Iamblichus' Pythagoras would have seen the participation in athletic co ntests as anathema to the virtue of friendship which ought to govern human bei ngs' relations with each other and indeed the entire cosmos, a point which he makes in Chapter 33.16 On the contrary, through Pythago ras' friendship, the athlete is turned into a philosopher and thus is saved.

Additionally, at VPorph. 18.84, we find Iamblichus interpreting some of Pythagoras' acusmata in ways that differ from Porphyry's. These acusmata, or "things heard," are supposedly the authentic teachings of Pythagoras passed down over the course of centuries. They tend to be brief, pithy, and at times cryptic or at least opaque philosophical principles and behavioural prescrip­tions. For instance, both Porphyry and lambl ichus address the injunction "Do not wear a god 's image as a signet on a ring." In explanation, Porphyry writes that this saying indicates that one should not reveal to the vulgar one's opinions about the gods or discourse about them with the ignorant. 17

lamblichus corrects this interpretation by arguing that to wear an image in this way pollutes it, "for it is an image which ought to be set up in the house." 18

In other words, where for Porphyry the concern is about ensuring that the vulgar are not privy to the philosopher's knowledge about the gods, for Iamblichus, Pythagoras is indicating which kind of divine images ought to be where, which is one aspect of the way in which they ought to be used in a ritual context. Misuse, in this case wearing a sacred image on one's finger, is a source of pollution and is contrary to r ight practice. Again, Porphyry seems to distinguish between d ifferent orders of human existence, outlining what is appropriate for philosophers as opposed to what ordinary people may do. Iamblichus, on the other hand, reads this saying as a universal principle concerning ritual as it pertains to everyone.

Even more telling is the way in which Iamblichus harmonises conflicting opinions on Pyth agoras' positio n on animal sacrifice and eat ing meat. Famous for enjoining a vegetarian diet, some reports also describe Pythagoras or his adherents as participating in animal sacrifices. Porphyry, despite his strong arguments for the necessity of a vegetarian diet among true philosophers, records accounts of Pythagoras that assert he a te meat on occasion, as well as other reports tha t he kept to a very st rict vegetarian regimen and found the

16 Iambi. VPy1l1. 33.230 - I.

17 Po rph. VP. 42.

18 Ia mbi. VPy1lr. 18.84.

Pythagoras the Theurgist 37

slaughter of animals abhorrent. In other words, he presents a number of conflicting reports on this subject without providing an explanation for the divers ity. 19 Iamblichus does two things in the VPyth. with regard to this question. First, he marks a distinction between those animals which can be eaten and those which should not be: one can eat animals that are lawful to sacrifice, the reason being that they are not the ones into which human souls enter when reincarnated.20 However, according to Iamblichus, certain orders within the Pythagorean community were completely abstemious, avoiding meat altogether. 21 Here Iamblichus mirrors his stance fou nd in On the Mysteries where he argues that animal sacrifices were necessary for the worship of the material gods, but they were not appropriate for the worship of higher cosmic divinities, namely the ones with whom true theurgists have the most involvement. Hence, we can see that, in a number of places in Iamblichus' biography, he subtly but resolutely corrects Porphyry's portrait of Pythagoras.

Indeed, Iamblichus is at great pains to portray the ideal philosopher, in this case Pythagoras, as someone universally concerned about and capable of brokering the salvation of other souls. For instance, Iamblichus spends a good portion of the work describing Pythagoras' and his followers' involvement in civic affairs. They admonish tyrannical and unjust rulers, often imperiling their own Jives. They also advise cities on proper governance and justice. 22 It is easy to see this emphasis in the text as part and parcel of Iamblichus' soteriological program, as the ideal philosopher must work to establish a society in which it is possible for others to pursue virtues such as piety, justice, wisdom, and the ultimate Iamblichaean virtue, namely friendship. 23

Additionally, Pythagoras teaches others the arts of prayer and sacrifice based on his extensive sacerdotal knowledge. In this regard, Iamblichus' definition of piety in the VPyth. comes curiously close to th at of the young theologian with whom Socrates tangles in the Euthyphro. Pythagoras' knowledge in these matters is detailed and comprehensive. He even knows what bedclothes one ought to use to commune with the gods. This signals Iamblichus' firmly held view that theurgy (god-work) is more important than theology (philosophical discourse about the gods) for union with d ivi nity -the main bone of contention between Porphyry and himself.

19 Sec Porph. VP. 7, 16, 34, and 36. 20 Iambi. VPyth . 18.85. 21 Iambi. VPyth. 24.1 06 - 8. 22 In general, lamblichus portrays the Pythagoreans as active participants in c ivic affairs. This

port rai t accords well with the argument O'Meara makes in Platonopolis about the political philosophy of the la te Roman Platonists. Not only has he convincingly argued that they had a political philosophy, but he notes that in this period, philosophers in the Platonic tradition tended to favour the model found in the Laws, where the philosopher serves as the advisor to

rulers , rather than that of the Rep11blic, where the philosopher himself rules. 23 Like Porphyry, lamblichus o rders key ancient virtues into a hierarchy, friendship bei ng the

highest virtue for him. Porphyry's hierarchy of virtues can be found in Sent. 32.

38 Heidi Marx-Wolf

Iamblichus' Pythagoras is also involved in ministering to the physical bodies of his charges, healing them with his knowledge o f both music and medicine. Presumably by doing so he makes it possible for their souls to become increasingly free from attachment to the body, a process he indicates is aided by good daemons in On the Mysteries. 24

Iamblichus' emphasis on the salvific work of the ideal philosopher is further demonstrated in two rather delightful episodes in the VPyth. where Pythagoras contends with the problematic eating habits of animals. At one juncture he successfully admonishes an ox with a penchant for beans to give up this particular victual.25 On another occasion he convinces a bear to stop eating humans.26 These episodes demonstrate Iamblichus' view that the true sage participates in salvific work that affects all creatures, all aspects and realms of the cosmic hierarchy. This attention to animals should not be surprising given the widely held view among late ancient Platonists and Pythagoreans that human souls can be reincarnated in an imal form. 27

This focus in the VPyth. also serves as a corrective to Porphyry's view of the philosophical life as a path quite separate from the lives of ordinary people. Iamblichus was deeply critical of Porphyry's inte rpretation of blood sacrifice because it consigned large portions of humanity to a deceived and polluted existence. Instead, Iamblichus saw these sacrifices as the starting point on a pa th of ordered ritual ac tions, the end of which was union with the highest gods. Philosophers such as Pythagoras could serve as guides for others along this via universalis. Iamblichus' Pythagoras both teaches and models an ideal way of life in which all c reatures and persons can participate to so me measure. But despite the universality of the path, lamblichus makes it clear that a select few are suited to g uide others to their salvation, their suitability being dependent on their vast wisdom, impeccable virtue, and most important, their close association and even identity with divinity.

24 Iambi. Myst. 5. 16. 25 Iambi. VPytli . 13.61. 26 Iambi. VPytli . 13.60.

27 For example, see Porphyry's 0 11 What is i11 Our Power, a work entirely devoted to questions of (re· ) incarnation.