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,Footnote ¹⁰ it is necessary to touch on some of its salient points against which later sacrificial theories 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)Footnote ¹¹ and the appeal to cosmic sympathy (207.6–208.5), Iamblichus offers his own explanation. In Myst. 209–10, the philosopher 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 sympathy 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.Footnote ¹² Iamblichus notes that theurgic forms of sacrifice could be affiliated with more immediate 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 immaterial element trapped in matter, that is, the soul (214.4–216.6).Footnote 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:

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,

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 associated 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 anagogicFootnote ¹⁵ 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.Footnote ¹⁶ It is through the mediation of the material gods, made possible by the shared hylic qualities between deity and victims, that sacrifice effectively contributes to the soul's salvation. Divine supervision of humans, as well as the bestowal of gifts and aid from the gods,

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.Footnote 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 section 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 perfection’ (237.6–8).Footnote ¹⁸ In his explication of the reason for sacrificial success described earlier, 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).Footnote ¹⁹ The role of prayer 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.Footnote ²⁰

Iamblichus divides prayer into three categories – an introductory form that brings together deity and theurgist (συναγωγός), a conjunctive mode that produces an intellectual 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 capable 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

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).Footnote 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 associated 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 deficient works of inferior beings.Footnote ²² In this context, Iamblichus challenges Porphyry stating that if θεωρία alone is a sufficient means of approaching the gods,

Ἕνωσις is conjoined in this passage to theurgic ritual and is depicted as exceeding mere philosophical knowledge. Iamblichus claims:

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.Footnote 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, material 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 religion and philosophy within the theoretical model set forth by Iamblichus, a short theological pamphlet of the mid-century exhibits important deviations from Iamblichus' sacrificial theory. Little is known about Sallustius (fl. 360–3), whose tractate, Περὶ θεῶν καὶ κόσμου (Concerning the Gods and the Universe) contains the next passage on sacrifice to be considered,Footnote ²⁴ save that he was a friend of the emperor Julian.Footnote 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 incurably diseased in soul”’ (13.1.2–3).Footnote 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 universal 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.Footnote 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 particular 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 varying 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.Footnote ²⁸ Unlike Iamblichus who, because of its roots in common social dealings, dismisses the explanatory value that the first-fruits offering provided to the question of sacrificial efficacy, 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,Footnote 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.’Footnote 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 description of sacrificial efficacy in §16:

The accent placed upon ζωήFootnote ³² as a mediating principle is an aspect that has been understood to have Iamblichan roots,Footnote 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.Footnote ³⁴ While its origins are debated,Footnote ³⁵ it becomes an important component of Platonist ontology,Footnote ³⁶ representing the ‘demiurgic mind in its procession from and reversion to the fountainhead of being.’Footnote 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’.Footnote ³⁸ Iamblichus seems to have been aware of this triadic structureFootnote ³⁹ and even may have been the first Platonist to champion it in this exact order (Being–Life–Mind).Footnote 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 philosophical 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.Footnote 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/pericosmicFootnote ⁴² 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 theurgic ritual is a progressive programme that, Iamblichus indicates, could take an entire lifetime to perfect.Footnote 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 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 brothers 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:

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 zoetic mediation is the predominant philosophical position on sacrifice in Julian's circle.

In his ‘Letter to a priest’,Footnote 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 bodies’ (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 offering 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.Footnote ⁴⁵ Just as those who 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 position 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.Footnote 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 interdependence 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 sacrifice 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 highlight further the importance of sacrifice and, more specifically, the role that the sacrificial 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 deviation from Iamblichan precedent. Nevertheless, the lack of emphasis on ζωή in this 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, perhaps, 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 precedent 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 mediating Life, along with the participation of the human's particular life, that unites the individual 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 associated 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.Footnote ⁴⁷ Such widespread disdain might explain Sallustius' emphasis on sacrifice over all other ritual matters.Footnote ⁴⁸

Christian depictions of sacrifice and, more to the point, of Jesus as the sacrificial victim 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.Footnote 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 handbook’, 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.Footnote ⁵⁰ Zoetic mediation could itself be a mediating effort by the Platonist meant to erect a bridge to Platonism for interested Christians.Footnote 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.Footnote 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 more fully the transaction that occurs in the sacrificial ritual. This reading has the additional 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.Footnote 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.Footnote ⁵⁴ At numerous points throughout the hymn dedicated to him, Helios is depicted as the equivalent of Zeus (143D; 144B; 149B, C),Footnote ⁵⁵ but he is also rendered as containing within himself the powers of a range of deities such as Apollo (144A, C; 149B),Footnote 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).Footnote 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).Footnote ⁵⁸ While the focus of the following discussion is directed to Helios, Cybele's role as the source (πηγή)Footnote 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 Augustus, an important symbol to numerous emperors.Footnote 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 cataloguing ‘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.Footnote ⁶¹ These, in turn, Julian claims, are governed by three rulers.Footnote 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).Footnote 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 intellectual, 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 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 capacity 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:

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 affectedFootnote ⁶⁴ by zoetic mediationFootnote ⁶⁵ 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’.Footnote ⁶⁶ As such, Helios grants to the one who offers to a given deity the fitting victimsFootnote ⁶⁷ 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 quality of the life of the human, mediated by the life of the animal, which makes ‘contact’ 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 ‘interpreter … 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 provide 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).Footnote ⁶⁸ Συναϕή with this god, the ruler of the intellectual gods and cause of the material gods, offers to the soul salvation from the realm of generation. By establishing a relationship 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.Footnote 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 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 divine. 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 continuation of a practice that has been officially restricted for decades. It has been suggested 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.Footnote 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 commentary on the sacrificial practices of the Athenian Platonists.Footnote ⁷¹ Attaining a firm grasp of the religious and ritual landscape of fifth-century Athens is a difficult task because an examination 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 middle of the century, the precise moment in which Proclus is at the height of his political, intellectual and, perhaps, ritual powers.Footnote ⁷² In spite of archaeological evidence of animal sacrifice,Footnote 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 cognates do appear in the commentaries on Plato's dialogues, they frequently are referring back to uses of the term in a given dialogue,Footnote ⁷⁴ in historical references to traditional sacrifices performed in festivals like the Apaturia,Footnote ⁷⁵ or in the broader, more general sense of traditional rites.Footnote ⁷⁶ In one instance in Proclus' Commentary on the Republic,Footnote ⁷⁷ sacrifice, the utterance of divine names, and prayer (in that order), a combination with Iamblichan resonances, are brought together under the rubric of the hieratic 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 philosophical 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 follows, 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),Footnote 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 associated 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 sumpatheia,Footnote 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 sagesFootnote ⁸⁰ 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.Footnote ⁸¹ Proclus proceeds to provide examples of the types of divine hierarchical ranks, associated elsewhere with the gods and goddesses of Greek religion,Footnote ⁸² that extend from the henadsFootnote ⁸³ 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.Footnote 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 ingredients 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).Footnote 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 ritually 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 cathartic 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 (ζῷά) and other materials for these services; the sages may have procured these ingredients via sacrificial ritual but, again, the possibility remains that more mundane methods were found to lay hold of the necessary elements.Footnote ⁸⁶

It is difficult to find in these passages a direct allusion to the practice of theurgic sacrifice 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 sacrifice 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 theurgic ritual.Footnote 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 salvific 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 sacrifice 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 intimations 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.Footnote 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.Footnote ⁸⁹ The proem, in which Marinus modestly reflects on his inability to find language that accurately portrays the greatness of his subject, contains the first reference to sacrifice found in the work:

It has been suggested that the use of the present tense is indicative of an ongoing practice 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.Footnote ⁹¹ At the same time, the cautionary note sounded by Edwards regarding the ‘possibility of tendentious or literary archaism’ is wholly appropriate.Footnote ⁹² The late date of the work (sometime after Proclus' death in 485) and the religious 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 purify 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 latter, 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, partakes of the sacrificial meat ‘for the sake of piety’ (καὶ τοῦτο ὁσίας χάριν, 19).Footnote ⁹³ Even then, we are told, he only tastes it (μόνον ἀπεγεύετο). Marinus also says of his master that ‘One could almost say that he observed with the proper rituals the significant holidays 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 sacrifice to the gods,Footnote ⁹⁴ but in some instances, such as we find in Porphyry's De abstinentia 2.59, this might mean agricultural forms of sacrifice.Footnote ⁹⁵ When combined with his willingness 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 participate in animal sacrifice. Even so, it must be admitted that in Marinus' account, sacrifice 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 substantive 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' recollection 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 treatments 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).Footnote 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, however, sacrifice is not identified as a necessary component of the ritual process. The following discussion will outline partially Proclus' description of prayer and then will return to the subject of sacrifice.Footnote ⁹⁷

Following a section that recapitulates a Porphyrian doxography on the topic of prayer, 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 massaging, 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 comprised of 1) knowledge of the divine ranks (1.211.8–13),Footnote 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 contact 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 theories 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 product of causative properties. For Iamblichus, the sacrificial victim, be it plant or animal, is 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 causation: 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).Footnote 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.Footnote ¹⁰⁰

Prayer is, on the one hand, a terrestrial effect of the heavenly causes found in in Tim. 213.8–18Footnote ¹⁰¹ 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 established 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 ‘perfect sacrifice’ activates all the causative levels, the ‘perfect prayer’ of Proclus performs a 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 possibility 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 theurgic 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 dangerous terrain that comprises Athenian political and civic life.Footnote 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.Footnote 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?Footnote ¹⁰⁴

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.Footnote 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 setting 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.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ A reconstitution of the theurgic regimen may be necessary to adapt to this impingement, a reformation that places into other ritual components – prayers and hymns, statue animation, ablutions, divinatory techniques and ritual burial – the anagogic and cathartic benefits that had once been associated with sacrificial theurgy.