Proposing a new definition of theurgy, the book explores Proclus’ conception of it as a way of life aiming at existential transformation through reconnecting with the deep structure of reality.
After introducing Proclus and his historical context, David Vachon moves to an overall discussion of theurgy, presenting selected research approaches to propose his own definition of theurgy as the animation of a material receptacle by a divine or intelligible entity (pp. 60, 97, 128). Only afterwards does he turn to the history of theurgy (ch. 2). In Plato’s references to mysteries and Orphic lore, especially in the Phaedrus, Vachon detects theurgy “en germe” (p. 64). After a brief survey of Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus, he begins his analysis of Proclus in ch. 3 with the interpretation of Theologia Platonica (TP) 1.25, which links three divine attributes derived from the Phaedrus (goodness, wisdom, beauty; introduced in TP 1.22) to faith, truth and love, the three Chaldaean anagogic virtues. In so doing, Proclus mentions erotic mania, “divine philosophy” and the “theurgic power which is higher than human rationality and knowledge” (TP 1.25, p. 113, 4-10 Saffrey/Westerink).[1] Does Proclus assert the superiority of theurgy over philosophy? Vachon explores similar passages opposing divinely induced states to merely human ones, concluding that TP 1.25 points out the divine causality of what Vachon calls “théurgie inspirée”; this causality places this theurgy above human philosophy (p. 96). This is not surprising, as the phrasing of TP 1.25 and of the other passages Vachon collects builds on the Phaedrus’ concept of divinely-caused mania. To link the “théurgie inspirée”or “supérieure” (p. 108) with his definition, Vachon postulates that the animated receptacle is “toujours le corps humain ou, plus précisement, son véhicule psychique” (p. 97, cf. pp. 58, 108, 128). This theurgy involves a state of absolute receptivity, encapsulated in the notion of silence in Proclus and Iamblichus’ De vita Pythagorica (VP; pp. 103-6).
Ch. 4 explores the ritual burial mentioned in TP 4.9, Syrianus’ interpretation of the rites performed by Achilles during Patroclus’ funeral (Procl. In remp. 1.152f. Kroll) as well as Proclus’ theory of names and of prayer. Ch. 5 focuses on mystagogy, discussing Iamblichus’ and Proclus’ uses of the term and defining mystagogy as an esoteric doctrine symbolically transmitting ancient knowledge to effect an existential transformation (p. 184). The subsequent interpretation of the Eleusinian mysteries and the Orphic myth of Dionysus together with Proclus’ theology of their protagonists culminates in a return to silence in Iamblichus and Proclus (pp. 213-8) as denoting the outcome of a transforming mystical experience (p. 215).
Part II turns to the implications of theurgy for Proclus’ system. Vachon follows Carlos Steel and Gregory Shaw in assuming that the integration of theurgy results from the shift in the conception of the soul from Plotinus to Iamblichus and Proclus (pp. 230-3), without adducing evidence to prove that Neoplatonists connected the total descent to the need for theurgy. Vachon points out that Proclus’ idea of total descent is mitigated by his valuation of materiality (pp. 233-242). Ch. 2 outlines Proclus’ vision of reality as unfolding from the first cause in a continuous procession in which divine entities are successively replicated at lower levels, in a blending of monadic and triadic structures that ensures both continuity and plurification. Adapting a phrase of Benoît Mandelbrot, Vachon calls this “ontologie fractale” (pp. 243f.) and associates it with the figure of the spiral, which he detects in Proclus’ description of Eternity (Aion), the stars, the soul, and the Ananke of the Er myth. Concluding that Chaldaean theurgy conceives ontology in terms of the spiral (p. 265), Vachon proceeds to interpret the Orphic egg and mirror as expressing the same ontology (pp. 265-272). Plato, the Orphic tradition, Chaldaean theurgy and Proclus thus converge in a non-dualist worldview that sacralises even the material cosmos; awareness of this unity of reality hinges on the soul’s vehicle (pp. 273f.), explored in ch 3. The theurgic purification of the ethereal vehicle is seen as a means of return to its pre-descent state through the vision of the cognate divine light (p. 286). This prompts a survey of Proclus’ approach to divine visions (ch. 4), followed by a discussion of symbola and synthemata (ch. 5) and the anagogic role of eros (ch. 6).
Although aware that “de manière stricte” for Proclus theurgists are Chaldaean, Vachon postulates that “de manière plus large”, by theurgy Proclus means a way of life (p. 53; cf. p. 38f.). Throughout the book, Vachon blurs the boundary between theurgy and mysteries to suggest an alternative worldview, against the backdrop of ‘the’ modern worldview distorted by positivism (p. 42, 273), nihilism (272), and the Jewish-Christian tradition (p. 273); Vachon includes a number of strongly negative, historically problematic allusions to Christianity or the Jewish-Christian tradition in Late Antiquity throughout the study (cf. pp. 19f, 26, 255, 298 n.26) .
The book illustrates the complexity involved in any analysis of the Neoplatonic discourse on theurgy and correctly highlights core themes, such as the importance of receptivity and the paradigmatic role of the Phaedrus, notably its concept of divine mania superior to merely human rationality and activity. The vocabulary of illumination as well as that of silence is indeed characteristic for descriptions of the theurgic ascent. Also, the pattern captured in the definition is recurrent in Neoplatonic mentions of theurgy.
However, it is not the only pattern, as we can see from the very passage Vachon starts from. In TP 1.25 as well as in the parallel description of the Platonic and the theurgic ascent in TP 4.9, there is no discussion of an illumination or animation of the body or the soul’s vehicle, as the ascent and the anagogic action of the Chaldaean virtues, especially of faith, which in TP 1.25 is the correlate of theurgy, concern exclusively the soul on her path to the summit of reality. The same is the case for Proclus’ theory of prayer in the Timaeus commentary (In Tim. 1.209-214 Diehl), with its undisputed Chaldaean and Iamblichean undertones. Vachon’s definition thus over-simplifies the matter and distorts the perception of the sources.
A related danger is to assume that the various texts the researcher perceives as theurgic use notions such as silence or symbolon with the same meaning. Vachon rightly emphasises the importance of silence for Proclus’ conception of the soul’s encounter with the higher realities, whether philosophical or theurgic (e.g. TP 4.9). However, in such metaphysical contexts silence (sigē etc.; siōpē rarely carries in Proclus’ oeuvre metaphysical and/or theurgic connotations: In Tim. 1.303, 8; In Tim. 3.222, 13; TP 5.27, p. 105, 6) is couched in a specific conceptual and lexical framework absent from VP, which moreover does not use sigē, but siōpē, etc., so that the claim that “le thème central de l’hagiographie de Pythagore composée par Jamblique est le silence (σιγή)”, p. 213, ital. i.o., is terminologically (as well as factually) mistaken. The mention of silence therefore cannot be taken to indicate theurgy in VP (p. 64. 104). Also, the symbola of VP are not the theurgic efficacious symbols of, e.g. Iambl. myst. 2.11, but the enigmatic Pythagorean teachings which are not objects of ritual but of exegesis (e.g. quotation on p. 104; different meanings in VP 13.62: omen and VP 33.238: secret sign).
The book would have profited from a thorough engagement with previous research. The overview of scholarship omits major names such as Sarah Iles Johnston (missing from the bibliography altogether, as is the article by Christoph Helmig and Antonio Vargas),[2] Gregory Shaw, John Finamore, Robbert van den Berg or Anne Sheppard (introduced as an important voice briefly on pp. 92f.). Vachon does not mention the controversy surrounding the myth of Dionysus.[3] On philosophy and mysteries at least the volumes edited by Nicole Belayche, Francesco Massa, and Philippe Hoffmann should have been consulted.[4]
The mistakes in the Greek and Latin may be partly put down to typography (pp. 66, 103, 104, 123, 130, 163, 171, 178, 194, 214, 262, 282, 295, 311, 324), along with the typos on pp. 124, 127 297, and the two citations not typeset as such on pp. 172 and 259. However, some of the mistakes and of the selections of original fragments included within the translations indicate unfamiliarity with the language (e.g. pp. 91, 117, 122, 124, 159, 174, 247 n. 20, 279, 297). “In alter” is consistently used instead of “inter alia”.
The author does not signal the translations employed, indicating only his own (and even these not always, cf. p. 172). Most of these contain inaccuracies or mistakes (p. 11 n. 49, pp. 19, 58, 71 n. 40, 164, 165, 168, 172, 209, 259, 309). On p. 11, n. 49, the Greek text is taken not from the original work, but from Concetta Luna and Alain-Philippe Segond’s article on Proclus in the Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques (cf. p. 216, n. 182).
Some examples of factual errors: Marinus does not call Proclus the hierophant of the entire cosmos (p. 6) – he reports Proclus’ adage about the role of the philosopher. The dream about Athena desiring to dwell with Proclus does not occur despite, but because of the removal of her statue (p. 22). The first book of Proclus’ Platonic Theology describes not the attributes of the first principle (p. 91, italics. i.o.) but the general attributes of the gods. Poetry is a distinct form of divine mania in the Phaedrus and correspondingly in Proclus and cannot be equated with inspired divination (p. 100). Procl. In Alc. 60-67 also does not refer to inspired divination (p. 101f.); the daimonic is furthermore not introduced by Proclus (p. 101), but is part of the Platonic text (Alc. 103a). The quotation from TP 4.9 (p. 111) is read to indicate the opposite of what it means. Proclus draws on the Phaedrus myth in TP 4 not because of the ineffability of the theurgic union with the divine (p. 112), but as a map of the noetic and noeric world. The pneumatic nature of the (lower) vehicle of the soul does not mean that its nature is “animique” (p. 134): Neoplatonic pneuma is not soul. Vachon conflates two passages from different contexts within Proclus’ account of prayer to suggest that the only true prayer is the theurgic prayer (p. 174), something the text does not assert. To my knowledge, Neoplatonists never mention Plato’s Seventh Letter in connection with theurgy (p. 177). The interpretation of In Tim. 3.176f. is wrong (p. 190). Proclus’ Chaldaean-grounded pistis denotes not a “forme d’humilité de l’esprit” (p. 217), but an anagogic force leading to a supra-cognitive union with the Good (TP 1.25). For Proclus, the Father immediately above Eternity is not the One (p. 257), but the Limit or Chaldaean Father (TP 3.16-17. 21). Vachon mistakes the report of Porphyry’s argument for Proclus’ own view (p. 312) and wrongly connects TP 2.8 to the demiurge (pp. 316f.) instead of the first principle.
Despite its shortcomings, the book attempts a connected reading of the various aspects of theurgy as part of Proclus’ philosophy and draws attention to works less discussed in this context, such as the treatises on providence and evil. Thereby, it invites us to proceed further towards a fresh analysis of theurgy in Proclus and beyond.
Notes
[1] Translations mine.
[2] Ch. Helmig/A.L.C. Vargas, “Ascent of the Soul and Grades of Freedom. Neoplatonic Theurgy between Ritual and Philosophy”, in: P. d’Hoine/G. van Riel (eds.), Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought: Studies in Honour of Carlos Steel, Leuven 2014, 253-266.
[3] Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion, Cambridge 2013, versus A. Chrysanthou, Defining Orphism. The Beliefs, the teletae and the Writings, Berlin/Boston 2020.
[4] N. Belayche/F. Massa/Ph. Hoffmann (eds.), Les mystères au IIe siècle de notre ère: un tournant, Turnhout 2021; F. Massa/N. Belayche (eds.), Les philosophes et les mystères dans l’empire romain, Liège 2021.