Abstract for: The International Society of Neoplatonic Studies Conference Neoplatonism in the East ex oriente lux, University of Haifa,

, 22-24 March 2011 THE PROPHET ABAMON AND THE DIALOGUES OF HERMES: IAMBLICHUS DE MYSTERIIS, PORPHYRYS LETTER TO ANEBO AND THE HERMETICA When describing the hieratic path of ascent to the gods which comprises theurgy, Iamblichus states Hermes also has set out this path; and the prophet Bitys has given an interpretation of it to King Ammon, having discovered it inscribed in hieroglyphic characters in a sanctuary in Sais in Egypt. He has handed down the name of god, which extends throughout the whole cosmos; and there are many other treatises on the same subject.1 Recent scholarship has explored the presence of Egyptian theology within De Mysteriis Books 7 and 82 and has noted Iamblichus evident allusions to the Hermetica contained therein.3 However, while scholars have noted Iamblichus espousal of Egyptian theology, less attention has been paid to important similarities in structure and literary genre between Iamblichus De Mysteriis and the Hermetica.4 It is well-known that the original title of Iamblichus De Mysteriis was in fact The Reply of the Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the Solutions to the Questions it contains (jAbavmmwno~ didaskavlou pro;~ th;n Porfurivou pro;~ jAnebw; ejpistolh;n ajpovkrisi~ kai; tw`n ejn aujth`/ ajporhmavtwn luvsei~).5 Written under the guise of the Egyptian prophet Abamon as a reply to Porphyrys Letter to Anebo, the original title places the work firmly within the philosophical genre of Problems and Solutions6: cast in an epistolary form, it is essentially a series of replies to a set of problems (aporiai) proposed by Porphyry about the nature of the gods and the proper modes of worshipping them. Meanwhile, Iamblichus adoption of the pseudonym Abamon shows a self-conscious location of the work within Egyptian religious tradition. The philosophical dialogue between Porphyry and
Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 8.5 (267.11-268.4), trs. and eds. Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. All citations and quotations refer to this edition and translation, unless otherwise specified. 2 Cf. Dennis C. Clark, Iamblichus Egyptian Neoplatonic Theology in De Mysteriis, International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 2 (2008) 164-205; Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 131-141; Algis Uzdavinys, Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity, San Rafael, CA: Sophia Perennis, 2010. 3 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 8.1 (260.14-261.3); 8.2 (262.8); 8.4 (265.9-266.1; 266.5-7); 8.5 (267.11-268.4); 8.6 (269.1). Cf. also Garth Fowden 1986, 134-139. 4 One important exception should be noted: Emma C. Clarke has commented in relation to the structure of Iamblichus De Mysteriis, the Hermetic discourses which purport to be addresses by Hermes to Tat, Asclepius or Ammon might seem particularly relevant given that they appear to be written from one pseudonymous character to another (Iamblichus De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001), 15, n.34. Cf. also Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xxxi, n.61. 5 The title of Iamblichus work which we use today, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, Chaldaeorum, Assyriorum, dates only from the Renaissance and was originally coined by Marsilio Ficino in the fifteenth century (in his 1497 edition and translation) and subsequently accepted by Scutellius, the second translator of the work into Latin in 1556. 6 The literary genre of Problems and Solutions was fairly common in the later Platonic tradition and, more generally, stretches back to the early Hellenistic period and beyond. Porphyry himself had composed both Questions on Homer (Homerika ztmata) and a Collection of Questions on Rhetoric (Synagg tn rhtorikn ztmatn), as well as a book of Miscellaneous Questions (Symmikta ztmata), many of which concern philosophical topics. Later, Damascius (the last head of the Academy) composed a work of Problems and Solutions (aporiai kai lyseis) on First Principles. Cf. Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xlviii.
1

Iamblichus has predominantly been characterised by scholars as a vicious and hostile disagreement between a sceptical Porphyry and a defensive Iamblichus.7 Yet such assessments obscure important parallels with certain dialogues within the Hermetica: this paper will argue that the exchange between Porphyry and Iamblichus evident in the Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis comprises a mystagogic dialogue and a type of philosophical and religious discourse with protreptic, educational and initiatory functions. In this sense, the exchange shares significant similarities with certain treatises of the Hermetica which will be explored. The possibility of a parallel between the exchange of Porphyry and Iamblichus evident in the Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis and the philosophical writings of the Hermetica, many of which were written in dialogue form for the purpose of philosophical paideia, is suggested by the Egyptian pseudonym adopted by Iamblichus in the De Mysteriis as well as by the nature of the programmatic statements in the first chapter of his work. Here, Iamblichus specifically locates himself within the Egyptian religious tradition by allying himself with the ancient ranks of the Egyptian priesthood and by reminding us of the tradition that Greek philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Plato, first learnt their wisdom from the Egyptians.8 Whatever the precise meaning of the pseudonym, Iamblichus deliberately chose an Egyptian name in order to provide a frame and setting for his treatise. The presence of pseudonymous authorship combined with the philosophical dialogue between Porphyry and Iamblichus on metaphysical and religious phenomena represents a very similar case in terms of structure to some of the philosophical treatises of the Hermetica. Within the De Mysteriis, a tacit link is made between Abamon and Hermes, with whose name Iamblichus says all such works are inscribed and dedicated.9 Iamblichus thus places his work under the divine patronage of Hermes and hints at the status of himself as exegete and of his text as a divine symbolon in the chain of the god Hermes (to be discussed further below). The educational and initiatory function of certain dialogues within the philosophical Hermetica has been discussed and emphasised by Garth Fowden: different dialogues are aimed at different levels of initiate; from certain initiatory texts within the Hermetica we can construct a picture of the various stages of the Hermetic paideia.10 He explicitly compares the teaching and learning structure of Hermetic initiates with that practised by Neoplatonic philosophers, stating that they ...proceed systematically from elementary to more sophisticated texts, just as the Platonic philosophers of the age graded Platos
See Emma C. Clarke 2001, 7; Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell 2003, xxii; Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, 13-15; Gregory Shaw, Living Light: Divine Embodiment in Western Philosophy, in Patrick Curry and Angela Voss (eds.), Seeing with Different Eyes: Essays in Astrology and Divination, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, 71, 74. 8 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 1.1 (2.8-3.2). Cf. also 7.5 (258.2-5); 8.5 (268.3-6); On the Pythagorean Way of Life 29.158- 31.198, trs. and eds. John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991; Garth Fowden 1986, 186-87. 9 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 1.1 (2.1-7). 10 Garth Fowden 1986, 98-100. Cf. especially Corpus Hermeticum XIII, 1-2, the dialogue On rebirth; Corpus Hermeticum I, 1, 29, The Poimandres, trs. W. Scott, Hermetica I, Boston: Shambhala, 1993. The so-called Discourse on the Ogdoad and the Ennead (Codex VI.6), a treatise from the Coptic Hermetica found at Nag Hammadi, also exhibits an initiatory structure: cf. JeanPierre Mah, A Reading of the Discourse on the Ogdoad and the Ennead (Nag Hammadi Codex VI.6) in Roelof van den Broek and Wouter J. Hanegraaff (eds.), Gnosis and Hermeticism: from Antiquity to Modern Times, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998, 79-86.
7

dialogues, for teaching purposes, according to their greater or lesser explicitness about the things of the spirit.11 Indeed Iamblichus seems to have been the first Neoplatonic philosopher to establish a definite order and number of Platonic dialogues to be studied within his philosophical school. Yet the possible paideutic and protreptic functions of his exchange with Porphyry in the Letter to Anebo and the De Mysteriis have largely gone unnoticed. I have suggested elsewhere that De Mysteriis Book 3, which deals with divination, could itself be viewed as a textual symbolon and as a sacred, ritualistic invocation of the divine reality which it describes.12 The structure of Book 3 reflects and symbolises the course of

procession and of illumination from the divine realm to the mortal realm and the reversion to the divine from the mortal world through different types and levels of divination and divine possession; in this sense, Book 3 reflects the cycle of procession and reversion and traverses the metaphysical and psychic landscape of ascent and descent.13 Such a structure may have been intended as an initiatory tool for philosophical contemplation leading to theurgic visions for the ideal philosophic or theurgic reader: in this sense Iamblichus text could itself be viewed as having protreptic and initiatory functions. This paper will explore this possibility, examining the nature and possible implications of the pseudonym adopted by Iamblichus, the structure of Porphyrys Letter to Anebo and Iamblichus De Mysteriis and possible functions of the dialogue form, as well as comparing the stages of paideia, preparation (ethical, ritual and intellectual) and initiation evident in the philosophical Hermetica with the ritual path of theurgic ascent described by Iamblichus De Mysteriis. Dr. Crystal Addey Cardiff University, UK AddeyCJ@Cardiff.ac.uk

Garth Fowden 1986, 99. Crystal Addey, Oracles, Dreams and Astrology in Iamblichus De Mysteriis, in Patrick Curry and Angela Voss (eds.), Seeing with Different Eyes: Essays in Astrology and Divination, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, 52. This idea depends upon the view that language itself can be a symbolon. Cf. Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, 5.15 (219.1-220.14), where a kind of sacrifice that is wholly immaterial is mentioned; Algis Uzdavinys 2010, 207-217. This argument draws on the recent research of Sara Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism: Non-discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus and Damascius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 167-179, who suggests that Proclus Platonic Theology presents itself as a theurgic, textual symbolon with the status of a ritual invocation, since it enumerates successive orders of gods and metaphysical grades of reality. 13 I owe this phrase to Sara Rappe 2000, 179, who states: As if it were a theurgic rite, combining all the divine series in order to re-create a sacralised cosmos, the Platonic Theology divulges a kind of cosmic prehistory, in which the psychic landscape, the geography of ascent and descent, is traversed in detail.
12

11