A Few Notes on Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Theurgy

16 February 2023

A Few Notes on Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Theurgy

1.  In the late classical period Platonism divided into two broad streams.  I refer to one of those streams as ‘contemplative’, meaning that it is focused primarily on the practice of contemplation and that contemplation is understood to be the means for the divine ascent to The One.  The other stream is referred to as that of ‘theurgy’, and regards ritual as the essential means for the divine ascent.  This is a fairly standard analysis of the way Platonism manifested from the late classical period to the present day.

2.  Part of this difference is seen in the way the two different interpretations related to vegetarianism and the killing of animals for the purposes of ritual sacrifice.  The contemplative tradition advocated for a vegetarian way of life for philosophers as well as refraining from animal sacrifice.  In contrast, the theurgic tradition advocated for ritual animal sacrifice in their theurgic rituals.

3.  The two representative figures for these two positions are Porphyry, who argued for vegetarianism and against animal sacrifice, and Iamblichus who argued for animal sacrifice as necessary.  Iamblichus was a student of Porphyry, but on this issue they parted ways.

4.  In English Porphyry’s book on the topic of a philosopher’s relationship to animals is translated as “On Abstinence from Killing Animals”.  It has two emphases.  The first is an advocacy for a vegetarian, or vegan, way of life for philosophers.  The second is Porphyry’s critique of animal sacrifice which is quite thorough.  Porphyry offers a kind of history as to how animal sacrifice emerged, arguing that it was not the original method of very ancient humanity.  In addition, Porphyry suggests alternative means of sacrifice, including herbs, kinds of wood or bark, incense, and plant substances, which are ceremonially burned instead of animals.  In the classical world in which Porphyry lived, animal sacrifice was pervasive; such sacrifice was standard for all Pagan ceremonies both large and small, as well as many oracular procedures and divinations.  By combining an advocacy for a vegetarian diet along with detailed recommendations on methods of sacrifice to the gods that do not include animal sacrifice, Porphyry provided the philosophers of that time with a complete guide for living a life free from killing animals.

5.  Porphyry’s view was not original.  There existed a very long tradition of refraining from killing animals in the classical philosophical communities going back to Pythagoras and the Orphics.  But what Porphyry did was to bring this heritage and its views into a thorough presentation, addressing the objections to such abstinence, and offering a unified vision of a philosophical life free from killing animals.  (Unfortunately, we do not have the whole book; perhaps additional chapters will be discovered in the future.)

6.  Iamblichus viewed this differently, particularly when it comes to ritual animal sacrifice in theurgy.  It seems that Iamblichus considered blood sacrifice to be necessary for a ritual sacrifice to be complete, because without this blood sacrifice the sacrifice would not reach, or connect with, or align with, the deity for whom the sacrifice was done. 

The point I want to make, without going into all the details of the dispute between Porphyry and Iamblichus, is that Theurgy is rooted in animal sacrifice; that is its origin and the belief in the efficacy of such sacrifice is its foundation.

7.  There has been a tendency, I think, to water down the meaning of theurgy.  For example, in a contemporary book on Platonism that has a favorable view of theurgy, the practice of theurgy is described as having various facets such as hymns, incense, set prayers, altars, bodily gestures, music, etc.  There is no mention of animal sacrifice.  When I read this kind of description it feels to me like a way of teaching ritual veneration or worship or honoring.  For example, all of these elements are included in ancestor veneration found in many cultures.  But I wouldn’t call ancestor veneration theurgy.  I don’t mind having a ritual element in Platonic practice; I’m rather fond of ritual myself.  But what I’m getting at is that not all ritual is theurgic.

I don’t think practitioners of Platonic theurgy today engage in animal sacrifice, but the shift in focus that classical theurgy rests upon in order to justify theurgic practice remains.

8.  Porphyry’s foundation advocating for abstaining from killing animals is purification through asceticism.  Theurgic views undermine Platonic asceticism and take Platonic practice in a different direction.  That direction is to be aligned with various deities rather than aligned with The One.

9.  This is an ancient dispute.  It won’t be resolved here on my blog.  But I think it is worth bringing up because many contemporary Platonists are rooted in interpretations of Platonism that have what I think of as an uncritical acceptance of the theurgic teachings of Iamblichus (along with his metaphysical cosmology) and the successors of Iamblichus.  Along with this there is a tendency to downplay the teachings of Porphyry; for example, a contemporary book that contains introductory teachings of classical Platonism, consisting of quotations from their writings, does not contain anything from Porphyry.

10.  Personally, the more I study Porphyry the more I admire his teachings.  Porphyry has a clarity and directness of style that I find attractive; he refrains from making topics unnecessarily complicated.  At the same time, he is able to address sophisticated philosophical issues such as the categories of Aristotle. 

Porphyry is also clear about the connection between Platonism and asceticism and he does not hesitate to speak of those connections.  He understands the foundational nature of the virtues and ascesis in the Platonic Way, as the Platonic Way. 

Porphyry had his human flaws.  He was prone to deep depression, as he reports in his Life of Plotinus.  And Porphyry allowed himself to become involved in political conflicts, particularly where it concerned the rise of Christianity which Porphyry adamantly opposed. 

However, he was, in my opinion, a deeply dedicated practitioner and his insights on why a philosopher should abstain from killing animals arise from years of ascetic and contemplative practice.  For this reason, I often take Porphyry as a good guide and resource for those hiking on the trail to The Good and The One.