Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry: Traces of Christian Daemonological Discourse in Porphyry\'s De Abstinentia

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Vigiliae Christianae brill.com/vc

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry: Traces of Christian Daemonological Discourse in Porphyry’s De Abstinentia Travis W. Proctor

Department of Religious Studies, UNC-Chapel Hill 125 Saunders Hall, Campus Box #3225 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 [email protected]

Abstract Porphyry of Tyre’s discussion of daemons and animal sacrifice in De Abstinentia strays from traditional Platonic formulations of daemonic involvement in the Graeco-Roman cult. As a result, scholars have struggled to identify the intellectual pedigree for Porphyry’s daemonology. By contrast, I propose that Porphyry draws upon Christian Platonic daemonologies, best represented in the writings of Origen of Alexandria. To substantiate this hypothesis, I first outline the dissonance between Porphyry’s daemonology and his Hellenic predecessors, before outlining the several daemonological tenets he shares with Christian writers. Second, I note the extensive conceptual commonalities between Origen and Porphyry’s respective daemonologies, Finally, I reexamine Porphyry’s attribution of his daemonology to “certain Platonists,” a claim which, when read in light of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini, places Origen squarely within the intellectual circles from which Porphyry was drawing his daemonological discourse.

Keywords Ammonius Saccas – daemon – De Abstinentia – Origen of Alexandria – Porphyry of Tyre – sacrifice

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��6�/15700720-12341180

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry



417

Introduction: The Daemonology of Porphyry’s De Abstinentia

Porphyry of Tyre, in the second book of his De Abstinentia, exhorted his fellow philosopher Fermius Castricius to forgo the consumption of animal meat. Porphyry’s proscription stood in direct opposition to the traditional GraecoRoman cult, where the ritual slaughter of domestic herd animals was part and parcel of religious praxis, and the accompanying digestion of animal meat played a large role in establishing and maintaining social hierarchies. For Porphyry, however, animal sacrifice was nothing but a temptation to stray from the vegetarian lifestyle he thought necessary for the proper philosophical life. As part of his attempt to undermine animal sacrifice, therefore, Porphyry informs Castricius that the beings who lurk behind animal sacrifices are not the gods of the Graeco-Roman pantheon but malevolent daemons. Porphyry here cites the witness of “certain Platonists,”1 who claim, according to Porphyry, that the cultic apparatus is a daemonic ruse: evil daemons trick their suppliants into thinking that they are worshipping gods and gorge on the smoky vapors from sacrificial ceremonies in order to fatten their pneumatic bodies.2 Porphyry was not the first Hellenic3 intellectual to voice a critique of animal sacrifice,4 but his condemnation stands out for its invocation of daemonic 1 DA 2,36,6. 2 DA 2,37-43. 3 I use “Hellenic” throughout for non-Christian Graeco-Roman intellectuals who were selfstyled participants in the wider attempt at the “restoration” of ancient Greek paideia, often known as the “Second Sophistic.” I prefer this term not only because it lacks the negative undertones of its traditional counterpart, “pagan,” but also because it accounts better for these intellectuals’ construction of their own identities as “Greek” intellectual revivalists. In such usage I follow the approach of Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, who notes that members of Platonic philosophical circles began to use the term as a self-identifying moniker as early as the third century ce. For discussion, see Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012) 2 n. 4; Polymnia Athanassiadi, “The Oecumenism of Iamblichus: Latent Knowledge and Its Awakening,” Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995) 249; Anthony Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 160-61. 4 On the ancient critique of sacrifice, cf. Paul Decharme, La Critique des traditions religieuses chez les grecs (Paris: A. Picard, 1904); H.W. Attridge, “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.16.1, 45-78; P.A. Meijer, “Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas,” in H.S. Versnel, ed., Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 216-63; Jon Mikalson, Greek Popular Religion in Greek Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) esp. 58-77.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

418

Proctor

corruption as a reason to eschew the practice. This strays from past GraecoRoman critiques of sacrifice and traditional philosophical understandings of daemonic intervention in human affairs. C.D.G. Müller, as part of his lexicographical entry on “Geister (Dämonen)” for the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, noted that Porphyry’s ideas concerning daemons “die den Vorstellungen Plotins direct widersprechen; sie lassen zT. Den Rückgriff auf ältere, nichtplatonische Lehren sichtbar werden.”5 M.P. Nilsson likewise claimed that in Porphyry’s works, “Wüste Dämonologie ist vorherrschend.”6 André Nance, in his 2002 article “Porphyry: The Man and His Demons,” asserted that Porphyry’s idiosyncratic treatment stems from his incorporation of “prePlatonic” (Homeric) daemonologies and ideas from “the larger Greek cultural tradition.”7 Dale Martin offered a more thoroughgoing assessment in his 2004 monograph, Inventing Superstition, where he asserted that Porphyry’s depiction of malevolent daemonic involvement in sacrifice, among other ideas concerning evil daemons, was not the result of Christian influence (as might be presumed),8 but the creeping infiltration of “popular opinion” into the philosophical schools of Late Antiquity.9

5 C.D.G. Müller, “Geister (Dämonen)” in Reallexikon Für Antike Und Christentum, ed. Theodor Klauser, Vol. IX (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1976) 655. 6 M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Bd. 2: Die hellenistiche und romische Zeit 4. Aufl (München: Beck 1988. Handbuck der Altertumswissenschaft) 438. 7 André Nance, “Porphyry: The Man and His Demons,” Hirundo: The McGill Journal of Classical Studies 2 (2002), 44. 8 Martin, Inventing Superstition, 205: “I think we may quickly dismiss one possible explanation [for the Neo-Platonic shift to belief in malevolent daemons]. Someone might suggest that the late antique philosophers were themselves influenced in their notion of daimons by Christianity, say by coming into contact with the learned writings of someone like Origen. This seems to me not likely.” Martin gives two reasons for rejecting the Christian provenance of Neo-Platonic malevolent daemons: (1) the existence of malevolent daemons in the writings of earlier Graeco-Roman intellectuals, such as Xenocrates, Plutarch and Celsus, and (2) the assertion that earlier Greek intellectuals did not fall under the influence of Christian daemonologies (Martin, Inventing Superstition, 205). 9 Martin, Inventing Superstition, 206. Martin attributes the Neo-Platonists’ susceptibility to popular influence to the disintegration in the intellectual adherence to political concept of isonomia, a breakdown that occurred due to the proliferation of monarchical governments which destroyed the illusion of “equality before the law.” It was isonomia, Martin contends, that originally provided the undergirding for the intellectual construction of the “Optimal Universe,” which itself was the foundation for the consistent belief in exclusively-benevolent daemons.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

419

The conclusions of Müller, Nilsson, Nance, and Martin typify those of past scholarly assessments, which often stress that Porphyry’s De Abstinentia incorporates rather un-Platonic daemonological ideas in its treatment of animal sacrifice. In light of this consensus, however, what are we to make of Porphyry’s citation of ‘certain Platonists’ in his discussion of daemonic involvement in sacrifice? Put another way, who are the ‘Platonists’ from whom Porphyry draws his daemonology, and why do their tenets seem to stray from traditional Platonic daemonologies? This query has generated widespread scholarly disagreement. Past commentators have proposed Xenocrates, Numenius, Plutarch, Origen the Neo-Platonist, and even Origen the Christian10 as potential sources for Porphyry’s daemonological discussion. In what follows, I break the impasse by forwarding three interrelated hypotheses. First, I demonstrate that Porphyry’s discussion of daemonic sacrifice shares more in common with his Christian than Hellenic predecessors, and that scholarly negligence of such commonalities is the primary cause for the difficulty in identifying Porphyry’s 10

I here follow the “two Origen hypothesis,” which posits a distinction between Origen the Christian and Origen the Neo-Platonist, an otherwise-unknown figure mentioned briefly in various non-Christian Platonic writings. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to these two figures as Origen the Neo-Platonist and Origen the Christian in those sections where they are discussed in close proximity. (Since both figures are associated with Alexandria, geographical monikers are of little assistance here). Despite the erudite arguments forwarded for the “one Origen hypothesis” by Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, Pier Franco Beatrice, and Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, among others, the difficulties in identifying the two figures remain substantial. These include but are not limited to: (1) Porphyry and Longinus both claim that Origen the Neo-Platonist largely refrained from recording his teachings in writings, a practice that stands in direct contrast to Origen the Christian’s prolific writing career; (2) The bibliographies of these two authors never intersect in our ancient sources; that is, no ancient author ever includes works attributed to Origen the Neo-Platonist and Origen the Christian in the same bibliography; (3) Proclus asserts that Origen the Neo-Platonist held to the existence of good and malevolent daemons, a tenet that was not held by Origen the Christian, who, in line with his coreligionists, viewed daemons as entirely evil. For further discussion, see Pier Franco Beatrice, “Porphyry’s Judgment on Origen,” in Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daly. Leuven University Press (1992) 351–367; Thomas Böhm, “Origenes-Theologe und (Neu-)Platoniker? Oder: Wem Soll Man mißtrauen Eusebius oder Porphyrius?” Adamantius 8 (2002) 7-23; Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, “Origen on the Limes: Rhetoric and the Polarization of Identity in the Late Third Century,” in Frakes et al., The Rhetoric of Power in Late Antiquity, 197-218; Heinrich Dörrie, “Ammonios Sakkas,” Theologische Realenzyklopadie 2 (1978) 463-471; Mark J. Edwards, “Ammonius, Teacher of Origen,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44.2 (1993) 169-181; Richard Goulet, “Porphyre, Ammonius, Les Deux Origìne et les autres,” Revue d’Histoire et de philosophie religieuses 57.4 (1977) 471-496; Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism; Rethinking the Christianisation of Hellenism,” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 217-263.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

420

Proctor

daemonological forebears. Second, I demonstrate that Porphyry and Origen of Alexandria share strikingly similar daemonologies and agree in particular on the issue of daemonic involvement in animal sacrifice. Third, I contend that a close reading of the De Abstinentia indicates that Porphyry is not gleaning his daemonology from a singular source but providing a ‘digest’ of several contemporary Platonic daemonologies. The seemingly un-Platonic elements of this daemonological digest are best explained by the participation of Christians, and particularly Origen of Alexandria, in the Platonic intellectual networks to which Porphyry belonged. Put simply, Origen of Alexandria was one of the ‘certain Platonists’ from whom Porphyry gathered his discussion of daemonic sacrifice.

Daemonic Sacrifice among Hellenes & Christians

Porphyry’s claim that ‘certain Platonists’ ascribe to the daemonic consumption of animal sacrifice is altogether surprising in light of this position’s scarcity among his Platonic predecessors. The term daemon was used for a variety of beings in ancient Greek and Roman literature, including that of anonymous or unknown deities/divine forces,11 cosmic administrators,12 personified Fate,13 divine avengers,14 and (benevolent) personal guides.15 Throughout Hellenic literature, however, Graeco-Roman literature offers scant precedent for Porphyry’s contention that evil daemons were the ultimate recipients of animal sacrifice.16 11 Homer, Iliad III,420; I.922; Hesiod, Theogony 984-91, Theogony I.655. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus II,707-715; Euripides, Hippolytos 99; Plato, Phdr. 274c5-7, 240a9-b1; Plt. 271d6-7 and 272e6-8, Tim. 40d6-e4; Lg. 9,877a2-b2. For discussion, cf. F.E. Brenk, “In the Light of the Moon. Demonology in the Early Imperial Period,” Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II,16,3 (1986) 2068-2145. 12 Pindar, Pythian X,10, Olympian IX,28. 13 Homer, Il. XII,103-105; Hesiod, Works and Days 314; Theognis, II,149-50; Pindar, Isthmian VI,11,40-45. 14 Aeschylos, Agamemnon 1569, 1660; Persians 158, 472, 345; Seven 705. Sophocles, Philoktetes li,1464-68, Oedipus Tyrannus II,1478-79. Euripides, Trojan Women 103, Alkestis 561, 931. 15 Plato, Phd. 107d5-e4 and 108a2-3, b2-3; Rep. 10,617e1-2, 620,d7-e1. 16 The ἀγαθός δαίμων, a protective domestic spirit, did receive cultic libation offerings (Aristoph. Equites 85, Vespae 525; Plut.Symp. 655e; Porph.Sententia 31.7) but this practice is clearly not in view in Porphyry’s discussion of animal sacrifice. In Platonic literature, daemons were often conceptualized as intermediary transmitters between gods and humans, though this concept consistently depicted daemons as couriers, rather than recipients, of cultic offerings (Plato, Symposium 202d-203a). Porphyry approvingly cites

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

421

Even apparent Hellenic predecessors are in fact insufficiently analogous to Porphyry’s understanding of daemonic involvement in animal sacrifice. In Plutarch’s De Defectu Oraculorum the dramatis persona Cleombrotus cites the philosopher Xenocrates to argue that the prevalence of human sacrifice proves the existence of evil daemons, who desire to consume human blood.17 At first glance, Cleombrotus appears to provide a philosophical precursor to Porphyry’s understanding of daemonic participation in animal sacrifice. There are several problems, however, with citing this passage as an intellectual antecedent for Porphyry. First, Cleombrotus is discussing apotropaic human sacrifices—that is, cultic ceremonies designed to ward off malevolent spirits. Such ceremonies were a popular element in Graeco-Roman storytelling and are featured in writings such as Aeschylus’ Persians18 and various Graeco-Roman novels.19 Porphyry, however, explicitly rejects the efficacy of apotropaic sacrifices. In the beginning of his discussion of daemons in De Abstinentia, Porphyry acknowledges the wider belief in the practice: There is a conviction about all [daemons] that they can do harm if they are angered by being neglected and not receiving the accustomed worship, and on the other hand that they can do good to those who make

17 18

19

the “transmitter daemon,” but clearly sees this role as exclusive to benevolent daemons, and separate from the activity of the evil daemons who greedily partake of animal sacrifice. For discussion, cf. J.E. Rexine, “Daimon in Classical Greek Literature,” Platon XXXVII (1985) 35; Jon D. Mikalson, Greek Popular Religion in Greek Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 23. For daemonology nearer to Porphyry, see Brenk, “In the Light of the Moon,” 2068-2145. For Platonic daemonology more broadly, see André Motte, “La Catégorie platonicienne du démonique,” in Julien Ries, ed., Anges et démons. Actes du colloque de Liège et de Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-26 novembre 1987 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’histoire des religions, 1989) 205-221. De Defectu Oraculorum 417d. Persians II,628-46. Here, the ghost of the deceased Darius haunts the title characters, who are then required to pour libations to appease both their former general and “chthonic daemons.” Cf. Hippocrates, Regimen 4,89; Pausanias, 2,11,1. For discussion, see J.E. Rexine, “Daimon in Classical Greek Literature,” 355; Gunnel Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (Liége: Centre international d’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2002) 43. On this, see Arthur Darby Nock, “Greek Novels and Egyptian Religion”, in Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 169-75; Jack Winkler, “Lollianos and the Desperadoes,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 100 (1980) 155-181; David Frankfurter, Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006) 77-78.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

422

Proctor

them well-disposed by prayer and supplication and sacrifices and all that goes with them.20 Porphyry here is discussing the idea that all daemons are capricious but can be swayed by various offerings, the very logic for the performance of apotropaic rites. Porphyry rejects this idea, however, as “confused” and an instance of “serious misrepresentation.”21 Porphyry goes on to explain that benevolent daemons always do good in their respective spheres of influence (crops, weather, transmitting offerings), whereas evil daemons always behave maliciously. Porphyry explains that “the worst of absurdities” is to think that “there is bad in the good ones and good in the bad ones.”22 Porphyry explicitly undermines the belief in daemonic fickleness and, thus, repudiates the ideological underpinning of apotropaic sacrifice. Second, apotropaic rites were often known as θυσίαι ἄγευστοι, “sacrifices not tasted,” since these rites did not entail the consumption of sacrificial meat.23 Porphyry refers to this practice in book two of De Abstinentia: “All the theologians agreed that in apotropaic sacrifices one must not partake of the victims.”24 Porphyry’s discussion in the De Abstinentia, however, is part of his larger attempt to discourage Castricius from consuming animal meat; Porphyry’s discussion of daemonic involvement with animal sacrifice, then, assumes that cultic practitioners are eating the meat they are (ignorantly) sacrificing to daemons. Porphyry’s discussion would be rendered ineffectual if he were critiquing the θυσίαι ἄγευστοι of apotropaic ceremonies! Third, apotropaic offerings were designed to ward off the assaults of evil daemons, whereas Porphyry warns Castricius that sacrifice to daemons will invite, rather than thwart, daemonic attacks. In sum, daemonic involvement in apotropaic rites, as espoused by Plutarch’s character Cleombrotus, is unlikely to have served as the intellectual inspiration for Porphyry’s brand of daemonic sacrifice, despite their aesthetic similarities.

20

21 22 23 24

DA 2,37,5. All translations of the De Abstinentia taken from Gillian Clark, trans, Porphyry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals (Ithaca, n.y.: Cornell University Press, 2000) ad loc, unless otherwise noted. DA 2,38,1. DA 2,39,5. F.T. Van Straten, Hierà Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1995) 3-5. DA 2,44,2.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

423

As a final point regarding Plutarch’s witness, it should be noted that the majority of the dramatis personae in Plutarch’s dialogues, including Plutarch’s favored mouthpiece Lamprias, dismiss Cleombrotus’ assertion of daemonic desire for sacrifice as “extraordinary and presumptuous.”25 Plutarch himself, therefore, seemingly rejects Xenocrates’ and Cleombrotus’ association of daemons with (apotropaic) sacrifice and, thus, fails to provide Platonic precedent for Porphyry’s idiosyncratic daemonology.26 Scorn and rejection, in fact, are the favored responses among Hellenic intellectuals when confronted with discourses of daemonic sacrifice. Celsus, for example, dismisses the opinions of “wise men” who believe that daemons take delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings.27 The Neo-Platonist Iamblichus, moreover, rejects Porphyry’s assertion that the daemonic body receives nourishment from the exhalations of sacrifice.28 In sum, Hellenic literature prior to Porphyry provides no unambiguous precedent for the belief that daemons solicit and consume (non-human) 25

De Defectu Oraculorum 418d. For discussion, cf. F.E. Brenk, “‘A most Strange Doctrine’. Daimon in Plutarch,” The Classical Journal (Classical Association of the Middle West and South) 69 (1973) 1-11. 26 At De Iside et Osiride 361b, Plutarch again mentions Xenocrates’ support for daemonic desire for (apotropaic) sacrifice. This is included among a catalogue of philosophical views on daemons, and Plutarch does not explicitly endorse the view, so this passage cannot be cited, as it often is, as evidence for Plutarch’s ascription to daemonic consumption of sacrifice. Significantly, Plutarch does not cite any daemonological traditions when he discusses consumption of animal meat in his On the Eating of Flesh. 27 Apud Origen, Contra Celsum VIII, 60-63. It is difficult to delineate the identities and dogmatic position of the “wise men” whom Celsus mentions. Were they Christians? Hellenes? Did they connect daemons with apotropaic sacrifices, in similar fashion to Xenocrates and Cleombrotus, or with animal sacrifice, in a manner similar to Porphyry? The ambiguity surrounding Celsus’ testimony renders it unhelpful in discussing intellectual predecessors for Porphyry. Origen likewise claimed that a “certain Pythagorean” held that daemons delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices (Contra Celsum VII,6). K.S. Guthrie and F. Thedinga have attributed this fragment to Numenius of Apamea, though Chadwick notes that this would be a break from Origen’s typical practice of explicitly citing Numenius (Chadwick, Contra Celsum 400 n. 2; cf. K.S. Guthrie, Numenius of Apamea (Grantwood, n.j., 1917) 50; F. Thedinga, De Numenio philosopho Platonico (Bonn, 1875)). This fragment is included neither in the critical edition of E.-A. Leemans (Studie Over Den Wijsgeer Numenius Van Apamea met Uitgave der Fragmenten (Bruxelles: Palais des Académies, 1937)) nor in that of Édouard des Places (Numenius, of Apamea: Fragments (Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1973)). Ultimately, Origen’s allusive citation and lack of detail provides little assistance in filling out the pre-Porphyrian intellectual lineage for discourses of daemonic sacrifice. 28 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis V,4.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

424

Proctor

animal sacrifice. While there are some hints that Hellenic intellectuals pondered the participation of malevolent spirits in (apotropaic) sacrifices, the overwhelming majority of our Hellenic witnesses depict daemonic participation in animal sacrifice as a rejected and marginalized ideology. In contrast to Hellenic intellectual circles, the association of evil daemons with animal sacrifice finds pervasive support in early Christian literature. These texts build upon Jewish anti-foreign-cult motifs which often ridiculed rival cults as ceremonies dedicated to evil daemons.29 Early Christian sources adapted this daemonological discourse for their own polemical purposes. In perhaps the most famous example, Paul of Tarsus exhorts his Corinthian readers not to partake of meat sacrificed to idols: “I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”30 Beyond Paul’s letters, the association between Graeco-Roman sacrifice and gluttonous daemons pervades early Christian literature, including texts like Revelation, the Christian Sibylline Oracles, the Ps.-Clementine Homilies, the apocryphal Acts, and Cyprian’s On the Lapsed, among others.31 Important for my purposes, the discourse of daemonic sacrifice became particularly popular among Christian intellectuals concerned with defending Christianity against its “cultured despisers.” The “Apologists” are notable for fusing Christian daemonology with (Platonic) philosophical concepts.32 Justin Martyr, for example, asserts that evil daemons “enslaved the human race . . . by 29

Cf. Exod 32,17; Ps 105 (LXX 106); Jubilees 11,3-6; 22,16-19; 1 Maccabees 1,11-51; 4 Maccabees 5,1-4, Joseph and Aseneth 10,16-17; 4QD 12,9-11; 1QS 5,13,16, War Scroll 2,143. 30 1 Cor 10,20-21 (NRSV). 31 Cf. Apocalypse of John 9,20; Christian Sibylline Oracles VIII,377-395; Acts of Thomas 76-77; Acts of Andrew 53; Ps.-Clement, Homilies 7,3,1, 7,4,2, 7,8,1; Cyprian of Carthage, On the Lapsed 15. See also Didache 6.3; Tatian, Oratio 12,4. 32 Johann Karl von Otto coined the term “Apologists” (Ibid., Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secondi IX Vols. (1861)), a moniker which has become commonplace among contemporary scholars. Membership among this group has shifted according to scholarly preference, but often includes the writings of Quadratus, Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, Tatian of Syria, Athenagoras of Athens, the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Minucius Felix, and Origen of Alexandria. For the utilization of Graeco-Roman intellectual traditions among the Apologists, see Werner Jaeger, Das frühe Christentum und die griechische Bildung. (Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1963); Harry Austyn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1970).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

425

teaching them to offer sacrifices and incense and libations, which they needed after they were enslaved with lustful passions.”33 Daemons prey upon the weaknesses of those “who live irrationally,” according to Justin, so that they can “demand sacrifices and service.”34 Athenagoras of Athens similarly claims that daemons seek out “the steam and odor of sacrifices.”35 In fact, the daemons do so in order that they might consume the bloody offerings: “It is these demons who drag men to the images. They engross themselves in the blood from the sacrifices and lick all around them.”36 Athenagoras warns his readers that a human soul is vulnerable to assault by daemons, who utilize the “idols and statues” of Hellenic cults to “delude” the soul into offering sacrifice, “because [daemons] are greedy for the savour of fat and the blood of sacrifices.”37 The Latin Apologist Tertullian of Carthage similarly claims that evil daemons trick humans into offering sacrifice because it “serves to secure for themselves their peculiar diet of smell and blood.”38 In a similar manner to Athenagoras before him and Porphyry after, Tertullian asserts that participation in such sacrifice is a grave danger for humanity, as it is through sacrifice that “the breath of demons and angels achieves the corruption of the mind in foul bursts of fury and insanity . . . along with every kind of delusion.”39 Tertullian’s fellow Latin Apologist, Minucius Felix, likewise asserts that daemons trick humans into offering sacrifices so that they might be “glutted with the reek of altars or with victim beasts.”40 Minucius Felix argues that as part of this process, daemons “creep into [human] bodies covertly, as impalpable spirits,”41 a declaration that finds close parallel in the writings of Porphyry.

33

2 Apol. 5. Translation from Leslie W. Barnard, trans, Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies (New York: Paulist Press, 1997) 77. 34 1 Apol. 12. Translation from Barnard, The First and Second Apologies, 29. 35 Legatio 27,2. On the daemonology of Athenagoras’ Legatio more generally, cf. DragoşAndrei Giulea, ­­ “The Watchers’ Whispers: Athenagoras’s Legation 25, 1-3 and the Book of the Watchers,” Vigiliae Christianae 61.3 (2007) 258-281. 36 Legatio 26,1. Translation from William R. Schoedel, trans, Athenagoras: Legatio and de Resurrectione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 61. 37 Legatio 27,2. Translation from Schoedel, Athenagoras: Legatio and de Resurrectione, 67. 38 Apology 22,6. Translation from T.R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall, eds., Tertullian, Apology, De Spectaculis/Minucius Felix, Octavius(Cambridge, m.a.: Harvard University Press, 1931) 119. 39 Ibid. 40 Octavius 27,2. Translation Glover and Rendall, Tertullian, 397-399. 41 Ibid.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

426

Proctor

In a similar fashion, Clement of Alexandria proclaims that daemons greedily seek out the sacrificial offerings and “beset human life after the manner of flatterers, allured by the sacrificial smoke.”42 Clement even cites the speech of Zeus to Hera in the Book IV of the Iliad as first-hand proof of daemonic desire for sacrifice: “In one place the daemons themselves admit this gluttony of theirs, when they say, ‘Wine and odorous steam; for that we receive as our portion’ [Iliad IV.49].”43 Clement claims, in fact, that carnivorous humans are themselves ruled by the “Belly-daemon” which Clement insists is “the worst and most abandoned of demons.”44 Clement, therefore, serves witness to the concept that the consumption of meat results in and is motivated by daemonic infiltration of the human body, a concept likewise found in Porphyry’s De Abstinentia. From Paul of Tarsus through Clement of Alexandria, therefore, two assertions repeatedly appear in early Christian daemonologies: (1) animal sacrifice placates the gluttonous desires of evil daemons and (2) cultic practitioners stand in danger of daemonic pollution. Both of these assertions anticipate the claims of Porphyry as found in the De Abstinentia. What is more, the prevalence of this discourse of daemonic sacrifice within the writings of early Christian intellectuals stands in direct contrast to its dearth of support among Hellenic writers. When Porphyry claims that evil daemons solicit and consume animal sacrifices, and that cultic practitioners (such as Castricius) face the peril of daemonic pollution, he invokes a discourse of daemonic sacrifice that predominated in early Christian literature, yet faced scant support and even resounding rejection in Hellenic sources. Simply put, Porphyry’s discussion of daemonic involvement in sacrifice participates in a particularly Christian mode of discourse, an observation which will have important implications for reconstructing Porphyry’s daemonological forebears.

42

Protrepticus 2. Translation from G.W. Butterworth, trans., Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Greeks (Cambridge, m.a.: Harvard University Press, 1919) 89. On Clement’s daemonology, see Friedrich Andres, Die Engel- Und Dämonenlehre Des Klemens Von Alexandrien (Freiburg, Breisgau: Herder, 1926). 43 Ibid. 44 Paedogogus 2,1. Translation from Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Grand Rapids, m.i.: W.B. Eerdmanns, 1985) II.241.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry



427

Excursus: Porphyry Against and Among Christians

The widespread and thoroughgoing commonalities between Porphyry and his Christian counterparts are suggestive of Christian influence on Porphyry’s daemonological discourse. Past commentators have largely neglected this connection, but for good reason: Porphyry was famous among friends and foes alike for his vociferous opposition to Christianity. Augustine once referred to Porphyry, in fact, as the acerrimus inimicus of the Christians, and Eusebius noted that Porphyry “is celebrated for his false accusations against us.”45 Porphyry likely wrote several anti-Christian treatises, beginning in 268ce, though the precise contours of his anti-Christian oeuvre remain obscure.46 Porphyry became persona non grata among Christian intellectuals, a situation which led to the destruction of his work after Constantine took power,47 as well as the use of his name as a polemical barb in intra-Christian disputes.48 The question arises, therefore: how could it be that Christianity’s acerrimus inimicus utilized Christian daemonology in his philosophical literature? First, it should be noted that scholars of Late Antiquity are increasingly hesitant to assume that literary hostility is indicative of sociological disparateness. Elizabeth DePalma Digeser argues that Hellenic antipathy towards Christians stemmed from the fact that the ideologies of these groups “were becoming increasingly similar.”49 Due to such ideological confluences, as well as increasing social interaction, Hellenic philosophers like Porphyry “struck back by distinguishing themselves as very different and superior to Christians.”50 Robert 45 Augustine, De. Civ. 19,22; cf. Sermon 241. Eusebius, PraeparatioEvangelica IV,6. Translation from Edwin Hamilton Gifford, trans, Eusebius of Caesarea: Preparation for the Gospel (Grand Rapids, m.i.: Baker Book House, 1981) 156. 46 Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 266-268. For a discussion of Porphyry’s anti-Christian literature, see Mark Edwards, “Porphyry and the Christians,” in George E. Karamanolis, Anne D.R. Sheppard, eds., Studies on Porphyry (London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2007) 111-126. 47 Socrates of Constantinople, Historia Ecclesiastica 1,9,30; Codex Theodosianus 15,5,66. Cf. Arieh Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2000) 18. 48 According to Socrates of Constantinople, Constantine wished to call his Arian opponents by the moniker “Porphyrians” (Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1,9,30). On this, cf. Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism, 18 n. 67; see also Mark Edwards, “Porphyry and the Christians” in Karamanolis and Sheppard, eds., Studies on Porphyry, 119: “in his chastisement of Arius the arch-heretic, he reveals by his malicious use of the epithet ‘Porphyrian’ that Porphyry was a bugbear even to the Church triumphant.” 49 Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 14. 50 Ibid.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

428

Proctor

Markus, in similar fashion to Digeser, notes that Christian intellectuals engaged in boundary-drawing: “the image of a society neatly divided into ‘Christian’ and ‘Hellenic’ is the creation of late fourth-century Christians, and has been taken at face value by modern historians.”51 Jeremy Schott contends that Porphyry’s anti-Christian endeavors should not be read as markers of absolute dissimilarity and distance but “as a dispute between remarkably similar yet competing attempts to negotiate cultural and religious difference.”52 Based on such insights, it is better to read Porphyry’s anti-Christian literature as one effort in a larger attempt to construct communal boundaries, rather than as a reflection of socio-historical ‘reality.’ In sum, Porphyry’s hostility towards Christian counterparts may in fact alert us to the possibility of obscured commonalities, rather than complete divergence, between Christians and Hellenes. Second, Porphyry presents a particularly interesting case for possible connections between Hellenic and Christian communities, in that his personal history and literary oeuvre betrays familiarity with the valued texts of Christian communities. Porphyry is famous for his critiques of Christian literature, but this notoriety too often obscures the fact that his thorough criticisms of biblical books like Daniel, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Galatians required a wideranging engagement and familiarity with these respective texts.53 Such extensive interaction with Christian literature demonstrates the inevitability that Porphyry would have engaged with Christian ideologies and discourses, including the Christian discussion of daemonic involvement with animal sacrifice. Porphyry’s familiarity with Christian texts may have stemmed from being raised as a Christian, as is alleged by Socrates of Constantinople.54 Porphyry’s anti-Christian endeavors, extensive familiarity with Christian 51

R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 28. 52 Jeremy M. Schott, Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008) 54. 53 Porphyry, Against the Christians, Harnack Frs. 9, 10, 12, 21, and 43A. On the wider phenomenon of Graeco-Roman criticism of the Bible, see John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 54 Socrates of Constantinople, HE 3,23. In full, the statement reads: “Porphyry, having been beaten by some Christians as Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure [such treatment], from the workings of unrestrained rage renounced the Christian religion: and from hatred of those who had beaten him he took to write blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings” (Translation from Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999 (1890)), VI,93). For discussion, see Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 76.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

429

literature, and potential background as a Christian all provide a historical foundation for Porphyry’s knowledge and possible utilization of Christian daemonology. In the section to follow, I explore this connection further by surveying the extensive similarities between the daemonologies of Porphyry and Origen of Alexandria, a Christian intellectual whose philosophical network, as will be shown, overlapped with that of Porphyry.

Origen, Porphyry and the Discourse of Daemonic Sacrifice

As outlined previously, early Christian writers anticipated Porphyry’s De Abstinentia in associating animal sacrifice with the machinations of malevolent daemons. What is more, recent commentators have increasingly noted that certain elements of Porphyry’s daemonology find close parallels in the writings of a contemporary Christian Platonist, Origen of Alexandria. Gregory Smith, for example, pointed out that Porphyry’s description of daemonic physiology closely parallels that of Origen.55 Heidi Marx-Wolf has similarly argued, as part of numerous publications, that Origen prefigured and possibly influenced the daemonology of Porphyry in several respects.56 Despite Smith’s and Marx-Wolf’s insights, a thoroughgoing comparison of Porphyry’s and Origen’s respective daemonologies has evaded scholarly scrutiny. In what follows, therefore, I build upon Smith’s and Marx-Wolf’s insights by providing an extended analysisof the daemonological commonalities of these third-century Platonists. Origen and Porphyry on Evil Daemons Origen’s and Porphyry’s characterization of malevolent daemons share many similarities. Both Origen and Porphyry claim that daemons wreak havoc upon the earth. Origen states that evil daemons “bring about plagues, or famines, or stormy seas, or anything similar.”57 Origen reiterates elsewhere that daemons 55 56

57

Gregory A. Smith, “How Thin is a Demon?” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16.4 (2008) 485-6. Heidi Marx-Wolf, “Platonists and High Priests: Daemonology, Ritual and Social Order in the Third Century ce” (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) 99-108; Ibid., “Third Century Daimonologies and the Via Universalis: Origen, Porphyry and Iamblichus on Daimones and Other Angels,” Studia Patristica 46 (2010) 208; Ibid., “A Strange Consensus: Daemonological Discourse in Origen, Porphyry and Iamblichus,” ch. 10 in Robert M. Frakes, Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, & Justin Stephenes, eds., The Rhetoric of Power in Late Antiquity (London/New York: Tauris Academis Studies, 2010) 225. CC I,31. “φαύλων δαιμονίων, ἐνεργούντων λοιμοὺς ἢ ἀφορίας ἢ δυσπλοΐας ἤ τιτῶν παραπλησίων.”

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

430

Proctor

bring about “famines, barren vines and fruit-trees, and droughts, and also . . . the pollution of the air, causing damage to the fruits.”58 Origin insists, moreover, that daemons “stir up wars, violate oaths, and disturb the peace.”59 Interestingly, Porphyry likewise claims that daemons are responsible “for the sufferings that occur around the earth,” including “plagues, crop failures, earthquakes, droughts and the like.”60 In similar fashion to Origen, moreover, Porphyry contends that evil daemons lie at the root of “civil conflicts and wars and kindred events.”61 Both Origen and Porphyry, therefore, attribute plagues, famines, human conflict, and various other agricultural and cosmological disasters to the ongoing activity of evil daemons.62 In addition to earthly calamities, both Origen and Porphyry claim that illicit ritual power, otherwise known as “sorcery” or “magic,” stems from daemonic agency. Origen claims, for example, that “Magi” often operate by invoking the assistance of daemons.63 Origen explains the machinations of these malevolent beings: “Certain evil daemons . . . grant to those who offer them sacrifices the destruction of other people as their reward, if this is requested by their worshippers.”64 In a similar manner to Origen, Porphyry states that “it is

58 59 60

61

62

63 64

CC VIII,31. “δαιμόνων ἐστὶν ἔργα, φήσομεν ὅτι λιμοὶ καὶ ἀφορίαι σταφυλῆς καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ αὐχμοὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἀέρος διαφθορὰ ἐπὶ λύμῃτῶν καρπῶν.” CC VIII,73. “Ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ ταῖς εὐχαῖς πάντας δαίμονας, τοὺς ἐγείροντας τὰ πολεμικὰ καὶ ὅρκους συγχέοντας καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ταράσσοντας.” DA 2,40,1. “ἓν γὰρ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς μεγίστης βλάβης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν δαιμόνων θετέον, ὅτι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι γιγνόμενοι τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν παθημάτων, οἷον λοιμῶν, ἀφοριῶν, σεισμῶν, αὐχμῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, ἀναπείθουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὡςἄρα τούτων αἴτιοί εἰσιν οἵπερ καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων [τουτέστιν τῶν εὐφοριῶν], ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαιροῦντες τῆς αἰτίας καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πραγματευόμενοι πρῶτον, τὸ λανθάνειν ἀδικοῦντες.” DA 2,40,3. “στάσεις καὶ πόλεμοι φύονται καὶ τὰ συγγενῆ τούτων.” On natural disasters and calamities attributed to daemons, cf. Plutarch, Moralia 417D,E; Corp. Hermet. XVI,10,1-3; Augustine, Civ. Dei. X,21. On the connection with Hermetic literature, cf. Andre Timotin, La Démonologie Platonicienne: histoire de la notion de daimon de Platon aux derniers Néoplatoniciens (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012) 209: “L’idée d’associer les calamités naturelles à l’influence des daimones se retrouve dans les Hermetica, où il ne s’agit pas cependant de daimones proprement mauvais, mais plutôt de daimones justiciers, les calamités qu’ils sont censés produire ayant une fonction éminemment punitive et pédagogique.” Origen claims further that daemons “are responsible for . . . even the death of animals and plague among men” (CC VIII,32). “καὶ τῷ τῶν ζῴων θανάτῳ καὶ τῷ κατὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων λοιμῷ.” De Principiis III,3,3. CC VII,6. “πονηρούς τινας δαίμονας, χαίροντας ταῖς κνίσσαις καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις, μισθοὺς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς θύσασι τὴν ἑτέρων φθοράν, εἰ τοιοῦτο οἱ θύοντες εὔχοιντο.”

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

431

through the opposite kind of daimones that all sorcery is accomplished.”65 Porphyry likewise attributes various magical works to the assistance of daemons: “These daimones abound in impressions of all kinds, and can deceive by wonderworking. Unfortunate people, with their help, prepare philtres and love charms.”66 The fact that both Origen and Porphyry connect “magic” with daemons reiterates the close ties in their respective daemonologies and demonstrates the way in which they utilize daemons in their respective literary projects. Indeed, while the wider Hellenic philosophical tradition sometimes connected magic with the daemonic,67 Porphyry and Origen jointly diverge from this tradition by positing malevolent daemons as the ultimate sources for magical power and, thus, use daemons and magic to construct the boundaries between proper and illicit cultic practice. The daemons’ ability to bring about disasters and carry out magical deeds likely stems from their position as cosmic administrators. Origen states, for example, that daemons “have possession of different localities,”68 primarily because “they are unable to attain to the purer and more divine region far removed from the grossness of the earth and the countless evils in it.”69 In a similar fashion, Porphyry claims that individual daemons have been assigned as ‘overseers’ of particular nations and cities.70 According to Origen and Porphyry, malevolent daemons are not satisfied with their divinely-appointed role, but manipulate their privileged cosmological positions to garner benefits from humans. More specifically, Origen and Porphyry agree that malevolent daemons dupe an unwitting populace into thinking that they are gods worthy of cultic supplication. Origen claims that daemons receive illicit worship and attributes this improper cultic activity to the ignorance of the populace: “The demons on earth are thought to be gods by people who have not been educated in the matter of daemons.”71 Porphyry likewise claims that daemons “put 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

DA 2,41,5. “διὰ μέντοι τῶν ἐναντίων καὶ ἡ πᾶσα γοητεία ἐκτελεῖται.” DA 2,42,1. “Πλήρεις γὰρ πάσης φαντασίας οὗτοι καὶ ἀπατῆσαι ἱκανοὶ διὰ τῆς τερατουργίας.διὰ τούτων φίλτρα καὶ ἐρωτικὰ κατασκευάζουσιν οἱ κακοδαίμονες.” Cf. Plato, Symposium 202d-203a. CC 1,24. CC 3,35. Translation from Chadwick, 152. Cf. CC 5,26-32. Comm. Tim.Fr. 17. For discussion, cf. Aaron Johnson, Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 86-7. CC III,29. “οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ γῆς δαίμονες, παρὰ τοῖς μὴ παιδευθεῖσι περὶ δαιμόνων νομιζόμενοι εἶναι θεοί.” Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 147. Interestingly, both Porphyry and Origen stress that the status of daemons leads to confusion among the people and emphasize the need for correct instruction. Porphyry states: “the concept of daimones is confused and leads to serious misrepresentation, so it is necessary to give a rational analysis of their nature, for

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

432

Proctor

on the masks of other gods,”72 and therefore “receive from everyone honours equal to the gods and other forms of worship.”73 Thus, both Origen and Porphyry attribute the impious worship of evil daemons to the daemonic trickery of a foolish populace, reproducing a theme of daemonic mimicry and trickery that appears throughout early Christian literature.74 The motivation for this malicious trickery stems from the daemons’ jealousy toward higher deities. In response, these evil daemons aim to distract pious humans from proper cultic devotion. Origen states that daemons “lead men astray and distract them, and drag them down from God and the world beyond the heavens to earthly things.”75 He attributes such activity to the daemons’ opposition to God, claiming that daemons “engage in this sort of activity because they want to lead the human race away from the true God.”76 In similar fashion, Porphyry claims that daemons trick human beings “because they want to dislodge us from a correct concept of the gods and convert us to themselves.”77 Elsewhere, Porphyry again asserts that the daemons, along with their “ruling power,” have rather high aspirations: “They want to be gods, and the power that rules them wants to be thought the greatest god.”78 The latter assertion, that the leader of the daemons aspires to the throne of the highest deity, diverges from traditional Platonic daemonologies. Indeed, in his discussion of this passage, Andrei Timotin notes that such a concept is “tout a fait nouvelle en milieu platonicien.”79 This idea sounds strikingly similar to the Christian understanding of the reason for Satan’s (and his angelic followers’) perhaps (they say) it is necessary to show why people have gone astray about them” (DA 2,38,1). 72 DA 2,40,3. “ὑποδύντες τὰ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν πρόσωπα.” 73 DA 2,37,4. “παρ’ ἑκάστοις τυγχάνουσι τιμῶν τ’ ἰσοθέων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης θεραπείας.” 74 On this theme in early Christian literature, cf. A.Y. Reed, “The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.2 (2004) 141-171. 75 CC V,5. “πλανώντων καὶ περισπώντων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ καθελκόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ὑπερουρανίων ἐπὶ τὰ τῇδε πράγματα.” 76 CC IV,92. “περὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔργον καταγινόμενοι, βουλόμενοι ἀπάγειν τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος.” 77 DA 2,40,2-3. “ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ποιοῦσιν μεταστῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἐθέλοντες ἀπὸ τῆςὀρθῆς ἐννοίας τῶν θεῶν καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιστρέψαι . . . καὶ ὥσπερ ὑποδύντες τὰ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν πρόσωπα, τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀβουλίας ἀπολαύουσι, προσεταιριζόμενοι τὰ πλήθη διὰ τοῦ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκκαίειν ἔρωσιν καὶ πόθοις πλούτων καὶ δυναστειῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν.” For another use of dramatic imagery in reference to daemonic trickery, see Tatian, Oratio 16,1. 78 DA 2,42,2. “Βούλονται γὰρ εἶναι θεοὶ καὶ ἡ προεστῶσα αὐτῶν δύναμις δοκεῖν θεὸς εἶναι ὁ μέγιστος.” 79 Timotin, La Démonologie Platonicienne, 212.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

433

primordial fall: the arch-rebel envied God’s position, and his resulting fall from grace led to his current status as the vengeful “prince of matter.”80 Porphyry could have easily encountered such an idea in Origen’s literature or teaching. In Book I of De Principiis, Origen asserts that Satan fell from his formerly-glorified position because of his aspiration to “be like the Most High.”81 Elsewhere, Origen reiterates that Satan is the “first of all beings” who fell from heaven,82 and thereafter “deceived the female race with a promise of divine power and of attaining to greater things.”83 Thus Porphyry, in a manner surprising for a nonChristian Platonist, closely follows Origen in asserting that evil daemons answer to a wicked ruler who aspires to be the Supreme God. In sometimes surprising ways, therefore, Origen’s and Porphyry’s writings converge in their discussions of the machinations of malevolent daemons. They are in agreement that evil daemons inflict numerous calamities among humans, play a major role in assisting human “magical” activities, preside over particular regions of the cosmos, usurp the power and identity of the divine pantheon, and answer to a “leader” or “chief” who aspires to be more powerful. Origen and Porphyry’s daemonological similarities, then, are extensive. That is not to say, of course, that they agreed on all points regarding the nature of daemons. Indeed, Porphyry held to a bifurcated daemonology wherein daemons could be either benevolent or malevolent, depending upon their susceptibility to passions.84 Origen, on the other hand, held that daemons were always malevolent and used the moniker ‘angels’ for benevolent intermediaries.85 Nonetheless, the similarities surveyed here demonstrate that these thinkers, at least with respect to their malevolent daemonologies, were operating within similar discursive domains. Their shared daemonology becomes all the more apparent when their views on daemonic physiology and animal sacrifice are compared, a task to which I now turn. Origen and Porphyry on Daemonic Sacrifice Origen and Porphyry agree that animal sacrifice benefits evil daemons by providing sustenance to their “pneumatic” bodies and concur that the 80 81 82 83 84 85

Cf. Dale B. Martin, “When did Angels become Demons?” Journal of Biblical Literature 129.4 (2010) 657-677. De Principiis I,5,4-5. CC VI,44 CC VI,43. “ἐπαγγελίᾳ θεότητος καὶ μειζόνων ἀπατήσας τὸ θηλύτερον γένος.” Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 360. DA 2,38. CC V,5.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

434

Proctor

performance of animal sacrifice brings detrimental daemonic corruption upon the body of Hellenic suppliants. At the base of such a daemonology is a particular understanding of the daemonic body. Origen addresses this issue in the preface to De Principiis, where he states that “the form or outline of [a] demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours . . . . [but is] naturally fine, and thin as if formed of air.”86 Hence, as seen here, Origen asserts that daemons do indeed possess a “physical” body, though it lacks the “thickness” and “visibility” of its human counterpart. Porphyry likewise claims that daemons “are not clad in a solid body,” but “take many forms” which are “sometimes manifest and sometimes invisible.”87 Thus, as evidenced by the juxtaposition of these literary extracts, both Porphyry and Origen agree that daemons indeed have bodies, though, in Origin’s words, “tenuous as a breath of air.” Perhaps more importantly, Porphyry’s claims that, with regard to the daemonic body, “something continuously flows from them and . . . they are fed.”88 Elsewhere, Porphyry specifies that the daemonic body is “fed” by the emanations from animal sacrifice; the daemonic body “lives on vapours and exhalations . . . and it draws power from the smoke that rises from blood and flesh.”89 There Greek word here used by Porphyry, ἀναθυμιάσεσι (“exhalations”), is precisely the same term used by Origen in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, where he states that daemons “must have the nourishment of the ἀναθυμιάσεων and, consequently, are always on the lookout for the savour of burnt sacrifices,

86 87

88 89

De Principiis Pref,8. Translation adapted from Roberts et al., eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV,241. DA 2,39,1-2. “οὐ γὰρ στερεὸν σῶμα περιβέβληνται οὐδὲ μορφὴν πάντες μίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐν σχήμασι πλείοσιν ἐκτυπούμεναι δὲ καὶ χαρακτηρίζουσαι τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν μορφαὶ τοτὲ μὲν ἐπιφαίνονται, τοτὲ δὲ ἀφανεῖς εἰσίν; ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ μεταβάλλουσι τὰς μορφὰς οἵ γε χείρους. τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ᾗ μέν ἐστι σωματικόν, παθητικόν ἐστι καὶ φθαρτόν• τῷδὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν οὕτως δεδέσθαι, ὥστε τὸ εἶδος αὐτῶν διαμένειν πλείω χρόνον, οὐ μήν ἐστιν αἰώνιον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορρεῖν αὐτοῦ τι συνεχῶς εἰκός ἐστι καὶ τρέπεσθαι.” DA 2,39,1-2. DA 2,42,3.Emphasis mine. “ζῇ γὰρ τοῦτο ἀτμοῖς καὶ ἀναθυμιάσεσι . . . καὶ δυναμοῦται ταῖς ἐκ τῶν αἱμάτων καὶ σαρκῶν κνίσαις.” Both authors participate in a wider discourse concerning the nourishment of cosmological bodies by ascending exhalations. Plutarch, for example, attributed oracular responses to the prophetic inspiration which came from arising exhalations from subterranean springs (Def. Orac. 433a). Porphyry likewise claims that various cosmological entities are nourished by the exhalations which arise from the earth (Antr. 11). For discussion, cf. Smith, “How Thin is a Demon?” 498.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

435

blood, and incense.”90 Elsewhere, Origen states that daemon’s bodies are “nourished by the smoke from sacrifices and by portions taken from the blood and burnt-offerings in which they delight.”91 In both instances, therefore, Origen and Porphyry claim that the smoke which emanates from the blood of animal sacrifice provides enjoyment and physiological nourishment to evil daemons. Gregory Smith notes that Origen’s and Porphyry’s connection of bloody “exhalations” with the sustenance of the daemons’ pneumatic bodies share an understanding of pneuma as a vitalizing force that flows alongside blood in the veins.92 When animals were ritually slaughtered, this pneuma flowed forth from the body along with the blood and formed the vapors which emanated from the altars. According to Origen and Porphyry, moreover, this pneuma encumbered the pneumatic vessels of daemons with excessive materiality. Porphyry states that the daemonic body “grows fat” upon the “drink-offerings and smoking meat” in which they rejoice.93 In a similar fashion, Origen claims that the daemonic partaking of the exhalations of sacrifice leads them to inhabit the “heavy atmosphere that encircles earth.”94 The daemonic consumption of pneumatic vapor, therefore, leads to their pneumatic bodies accumulating unnecessary materiality, which in turn restricts daemons to the lower, material-ridden realms of the cosmos. Since the daemonic body is dependent upon these vapors for sustenance, both Porphyry and Origen blame Graeco-Roman cultic ceremonies for the continued activities of evil daemons. Origen claims, in fact, that without Hellenic cultic ceremonies, daemons “could not exist” since they would be “without the exhalations and nourishment considered vital to their bodies.”95 Origen asserts that the advent of Jesus and the resulting spread of Christianity brought about a decrease in sacrificial offerings which “exasperated” the daemons.96 Porphyry similarly claims that the byproducts of animal sacrifice 90

91 92 93 94 95 96

Exhortation to Martyrdom 45. “δεόμενοι τροφῆς τῆς διὰ τῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων ἐπιτηροῦσιν ὅπῃ κνίσσα ἀεὶ καὶ αἵματα καὶ λιβανωτοὶ, ἐξευτελίζουσιν ὡς ἀδιάφορον τὸ θύειν.” Translation from Origen, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, trans. John J. O’Meara (Ramsey, n.j.; New York: Newman Press, 1954) 188. CC VII,5. Smith, “How Thin is a Demon?” 497. DA 2,42,3. “οὗτοι οἱ χαίροντες ‘λοιβῇ τε κνίσῃ τε’, δι’ ὧν αὐτῶν τὸ πνευματικὸν καὶ σωματικὸν πιαίνεται.” Exhortation to Martyrdom 45. Exhortation to Martyrdom 45. O’Meara, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, 188. Comm. On Matt. XIII,23.Cf. CC III,29, where Origen argues that daemons “saw the ‘drinkofferings and burnt-offerings,’ in which they greedily delighted, being taken away by the

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

436

Proctor

perpetuate daemonic potency. In his On the Cave of the Nymphs, Porphyry claims that such evil spirits would not interact with human beings if they were not able to consume the “vapor of blood” which emanates from sacrificial ceremonies.97 Porphyry joins Origen, therefore, in positing that the smoky emanations act as a cosmological tether and enable daemons to perform their wicked deeds. According to Porphyry and Origen, daemons perpetuated the performance of animal sacrifice in order to satiate their own gluttony. Origen claims that daemons offer misanthropic rewards to those who pay them cult: “Certain evil daemons, that delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, grant to those who offer them sacrifices the destruction of other people as their reward.”98 Origen explains that “the daemons seem to perform the petitions of those who bring requests to them . . . because of the sacrifices they offer.”99 If the temptation of devious power does not succeed, daemons dupe their human suppliants “by certain magical spells” so that they might “greedily partake of the portions of the sacrifices and seek for illicit pleasure and for lawless men.”100 Porphyry similarly asserts that daemons seek out sacrifice: “They prompt us to supplications and sacrifices, as if the beneficent gods were angry.”101 In To Gaurus on How Embryos are Ensouled, Porphyry explains how such daemons “prompt” humans to sacrifice, claiming that daemons “rub off” onto other souls by displaying the “forms of [their] representations in the airy pneuma that either accompanies or is adjacent to them; and without touching the pneuma in any way, they nevertheless display—in a way that cannot be described—the images of their faculty of representation by means of the air around them as if in a mirror.”102 Porphyry contends, therefore, that daemons manipulate the souls of humans and solicit animal sacrifice out of sadistic gluttony, a position success of Jesus’ teaching. But God, who sent Jesus, destroyed the whole conspiracy of daemons” (Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 147). 97 Andrew Smith and David Wasserstein, eds, Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta (Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1993), Fr. 377F. For discussion, cf. Marx-Wolf, “Platonists and high priests,” 115. 98 CC VII,6. “πονηρούς τινας δαίμονας, χαίροντας ταῖς κνίσσαις καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις, μισθοὺς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς θύσασι τὴν ἑτέρων φθοράν, εἰ τοιοῦτο οἱ θύοντες εὔχοιντο.” 99 CC VII,6. 100 CC VII,64. “ἐν οἷς τῆς τῶν θυομένων ἀποφορᾶς λίχνως μεταλαμβάνοντες παράνομον ἡδονὴν καὶ παρανόμους θηράσονται.” 101 DA 2,40,2. “τρέπουσίν τε μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ λιτανείας ἡμᾶς καὶ θυσίας τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν θεῶν ὡς ὠργισμένων”. 102 To Gaurus on How Embryos are Ensouled, 6,1. Translation from James Wilberding, trans., To Gaurus on how Embryos are Ensouled, and on what is in our Power (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011) 39.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

437

that is in full agreement with Origen and his Christian intellectual predecessors. The ongoing daemonic cult has dire consequences for human participants. According to both Porphyry and Origen, anyone who participates in sacrifice to daemons and/or partakes of sacrificial meat puts themselves at risk of daemonic pollution. Origen, paraphrasing 1 Cor 8-10, asserts that one should not mix sacrificial meat, “the table of daemons,” with the Eucharist, “the table of the Lord.”103 Origen notes that “dining with daemons” may invite daemonic commensality; he exhorts his audience not to partake of sacrificial offerings “in order that we may not be fed on demon’s food, perhaps because if we were to partake of things strangled some spirits of this nature might be fed together with us.”104 Origen claims, in fact, that a person “cannot feast with daemons except by eating what are popularly called sacred offerings, and by drinking the wine of the libations made to the daemons.”105 Porphyry shares Origen’s concern regarding sacrifice and daemonic corruption. He exhorts his reader Castricius: “an intelligent, temperate man will be wary of making sacrifices through which he will draw such beings to himself. He will work to purify his soul in every way, for they do not attack a pure soul, because it is unlike them.”106 Elsewhere, Porphyry advises that the philosopher should abstain from “feasts on flesh” so that they “should not be obstructed in their solitary approach to God by the presence of disruptive daimones.”107 Porphyry warns Castricius that the consumption of sacrificial meat, which attracts malevolent daemons, will inhibit his ascent toward God: “So the philosopher, the priest of the god who rules all, reasonably abstains from animate food, working to approach the god, alone to the alone, by his own effort, without disruption from an entourage [of daemons].”108 Finally, in Porphyry’s Letter to Marcella, the Neo-Platonist cautions his wife that if she does not purify her soul, presumably by avoiding animal sacrifice, it will become a “dwelling place for the wicked daemon.”109 For both authors, therefore, the corruption and 103 CC VIII,24; VIII,28-32. 104 CC 8,30. “ἵνα μὴ τραφῶμεν τροφῇ δαιμόνων, τάχα τινῶν τοιούτων πνευμάτων συντραφησομένων ἡμῖν, ἐὰν μεταλαμβάνωμεν τῶν πνικτῶν.” 105 CC 8,31. “Ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν, ὅσον ἐπὶ βρώμασι καὶ πόμασι, τοῦ συνεστιᾶσθαι δαίμοσι τρόπους ἄλλους οὐκ ἴσμεν ἢ καθ’ οὓς τὰ καλούμενα παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἱερόθυτα ἐσθίει τις καὶ πίνει τὸν τῶν παρὰ τοῖς δαιμονίοις γινομένων σπονδῶν οἶνον.” 106 DA 2,43,1. “διὸ συνετὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ σώφρων εὐλαβηθήσεται τοιαύταις χρῆσθαι θυσίαις, δι’ ὧν ἐπισπάσεται πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τοὺς τοιούτους.” 107 DA 2,47,3. 108 DA 2,48,1. 109 Letter to Marcella 19.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

438

Proctor

disruption of wicked daemons remains a potent peril in conducting and consuming animal sacrifices, practices which should be avoided by the pious. As indicated by his warning to Marcella, Porphyry held that daemonic corruption can bring psychological harm upon the infected, a position likewise found in the writings of Origen. Both philosophers subscribed to a Platonic psychology which envisioned the soul as a semi-divine entity that should reascend to its former celestial realms as part of a reunification with the divine.110 In light of this psychological tenet, the inherent danger of daemonic pollution becomes evident. Within Platonic psychology, the soul remained “in tension,” and thus buoyant and prone to ascension, only if it maintained the proper balance between the rational, spiritual, and appetitive parts of the soul.111 Porphyry explains, by contrast, that malevolent daemons are “out of balance; they allot more to their passible element.”112 This lack of balance carries dreadful consequences for the person who might become infected with daemonic corruption, as the daemon’s imbalance and irrationality will inevitably skew the psychological tension of its human host. What is more, Porphyry claims that daemonic bodies are characterized by their “relatedness” (οἰκειότητα) to the flesh of the physical body: “All the perceptible body carries effluences from the daimones of matter, and together with the impurity that comes from flesh and blood there is present the power which is its friend and companion because of their likeness and relatedness.”113 Gillian Clark notes that in Porphyry’s understanding, the body of the evil daemon is “related” to the human physical body because it is “liable to generation and corruption, and because [daemonic bodies] are attracted to matter.”114 The materiality of the daemons is exacerbated due to their consumption of sacrificial exhalations, as their pneumatic body becomes fattened from the smoke and blood of the sacrifices.115 This understanding of the daemonic body is 110 For this concept in Porphyry, cf. DA 1,30,4, 6-7; for Origen’s discussion, cf. CC VII,32; Exhortation to Martyrdom 47. 111 Plato, Republic 435d-441c2; Timaeus 69a-70b. 112 DA 2,39,3. “ἐν συμμετρίᾳ μὲν οὖν τὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὡς καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν φαινομένων, τῶνδὲ κακοποιῶν ἀσύμμετρα, οἳ πλέον τῷ παθητικῷ νέμοντες τὸν περίγειον τόπον οὐδὲν ὅτι τῶν κακῶν οὐκ ἐπιχειροῦσι δρᾶν.” 113 DA 2,46,2. 114 Clark, On Abstinence, 158 n. 333. 115 Gregory Smith notes that Porphyry thought that the exhalations had a thickening and darkening effect on the pneumatic vessels of the souls of the dead, a process which could even make them visible to human onlookers (Porph. Antr.11; Smith, “How Thin is a Demon?” 498). Porphyry presumably has a similar fattening process in mind for the pneumatic vessels of malevolent daemons.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

439

dependent upon a cosmological hierarchy which correlates materiality to inferiority. Put simply, each realm of the cosmos has a varying level of materiality, with the human world possessing the highest proportion. The daemons, by partaking of animal sacrifice, weigh their bodies down to the extent that they are unable to ascend to higher realms. When humans become infected with daemons, therefore, they put their soul in danger of becoming corrupted by the materiality of their daemonic cohabitants. What is more, Porphyry and Origen claim that the evil daemons themselves strive to hinder the upward movement of the soul. Porphyry claims that ancient theologians “reasonably guarded against feasts on flesh, so that they should not be disturbed by alien souls, violent and impure, drawn towards their kin, and should not be obstructed in their solitary approach to God by the presence of disruptive daimones.”116 Origen similarly highlights the “disruptiveness” of these evil beings: “[Daemons] lead men astray and distract them, and drag them down from God and the world beyond the heavens to earthly things.”117 Because of this unwanted peril, Porphyry reminds Castricius that the philosopher’s goal is “to become unlike wicked people and daimones and anything else that delights in things mortal and material.”118 Porphyry asserts that such purification can only be achieved through contemplation of the divine and abstention of all things mundane: “there is no other way to achieve our end than by being riveted (so to speak) to the god, and unfastening the rivet of the body and pleasurable emotions of the souls which come from the body.”119 Origen likewise exhorts his reader to become “riveted” to God: It is clear that as each of our members maintain a relationship towards its proper object, the eyes for things visible, the hearts for things audible, in the same way the intelligence maintains a relationship towards things intelligible, and towards God who is above things intelligible.120 In similar fashion to Porphyry, Origen explains to his readers that one who avoids interaction with daemons “rises above” daemonic bondage and thus 116 DA 2,47,3. 117 CC V,5. “πλανώντων καὶ περισπώντων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ καθελκόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ὑπερουρανίων ἐπὶ τὰ τῇδε πράγματα.” 118 DA 2,43,3. “πονηροῖς δὲ ἀνθρώποις καὶ δαίμοσιν καὶ ὅλως παντὶ τῷ χαίροντι τῷ θνητῷ τε καὶ ὑλικῷ ἀνομοιοῦσθαι.” 119 DA 1,57,1; Clark, On Abstinence, 54. 120 Exhortation to Martyrdom 47. Translation from O’Meara, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, 191.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

440

Proctor

“ascends” to the heavenly realms.121 The danger of daemonic corruption, then, does not necessarily lie in earthly afflictions, but in the restriction from psychological ascent, the ultimate goal in the Platonic systems of both Porphyry and Origen. To summarize, Origen and Porphyry claim that daemonic bodies are sustained by the inhalation of the “vapors” which emanate from the sacrificial victims of Graeco-Roman cultic practice. These two Platonists concur, moreover, that the consumption of the sacrificial meat puts the practitioner at risk of becoming corrupted with daemons. This is a particularly grave danger for Origen and Porphyry, as both characterize daemonic bodies as imbalanced, impassioned, and materialistic. Daemonic infection would inevitably harm the psychological balance of the host and, thus, inhibit the psychological ascent which both Porphyry and Origen held as the ultimate goal of philosophy. When we juxtapose their respective discussions of daemonic sacrifice and corruption, it becomes clear that Origen and Porphyry are operating within a common discursive space. Their daemonologies build upon the dual edifices of Christian daemonology and Platonic psychology, a fusing of two philosophical ideologies anticipated in the writings of past Christian intellectuals. This fortifies the link between Porphyry’s malevolent daemonology and that of his Christian counterparts and buttresses the proposals of Gregory Smith and Heidi Marx-Wolf. In what follows, I demonstrate that Porphyry and Origen’s dual invocation of this particular brand of daemonic discourse is not coincidental, but stems from Porphyry’s utilization of the daemonologies of Ammonian Platonism, a third-century philosophical network which included multiple Christian intellectuals, including Origen of Alexandria.

Porphyry & ‘Certain Platonists’

In the second book of his De Abstinentia, Porphyry explains to Castricius the nature and activity of daemons. Benevolent daemons, on the one hand, are those individual souls who have controlled their pneumatic vessel through superior rationality and act as kindly cosmic overseers.122 These daemons often act on behalf of the humans whom they watch over, granting good weather, overseeing education and training, transmitting invocations and

121 CC VIII,5. “Ὑπεραναβαίνει δὲ τὴν παρὰ πᾶσι δαιμονίοις δουλείαν ὁ μηδὲν ἔργον δαιμονίοις φίλον ποιῶν, καὶ ὑπεραναβαίνει τὴν μερίδα τῶν παρὰ Παύλῳ λεγομένων εἶναι θεῶν ὁ σκοπῶν.” 122 DA 2,38,2.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

441

offerings, and communicating divine messages.123 Evil daemons, on the other hand, are those souls which did not control their pneumatic vessel, but allowed themselves to be carried away with impulsive passions.124 In contrast to their benevolent counterparts, malevolent daemons attack humans with imperceptible force,125 bring about earthly calamities,126 and assist wicked people with magical activities.127 These evil daemons convince people to offer supplications and sacrifices as part of their effort to mislead the human populace.128 In doing so, these malicious beings pretend to be other gods and place blame for their wickedness on others deities while enjoying for themselves the ‘drinkofferings and smoking meat’ which provides sustenance for their depraved bodies.129 Porphyry explains to Firmius Castricius that this daemonological system does not rest on his own authority but that of unnamed Platonic witnesses. Porphyry introduces his discussion with the following disclaimer: ἐμοὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα εὔστομα κείσθω, ἃ δ’ οὖν τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινὲς ἐδημοσίευσαν, ταῦτα ἀνεμέσητον παρατιθέντα τοῖς εὐξυνέτοις μηνύειν τὰ προκείμενα· λέγουσι δὲ ὧδε. For the rest, ‘let it remain unsaid’ by me; but it is not blameworthy to set before those of good understanding, to illuminate the discussion, thoughts which certain Platonists have made public. This is what they say (2.36.6).130 With this preamble, Porphyry indicates that he is reporting esoteric Platonic teachings which are now part of the public discourse. The enduring mystery, however, is who Porphyry invokes when he cites ‘certain Platonists.’ Attempts to identify these elusive Platonists have generated widespread disagreement among scholarly commentators. Gillian Clark has proposed Xenocrates and Numenius as potential influences, based primarily on their ascription to the existence of malevolent daemons.131 Aaron Johnson hints 123 DA 2,38,2-3. 124 DA 2,38,4. 125 DA 2,39,3. 126 DA 2,40,1. 127 DA 2,42,1. 128 DA 2,40,2. 129 DA 2,40,3-4; 2,42,3. 130 Translation adapted from Clark, On Abstinence, 70. 131 Clark, On Abstinence, 154 n. 299, citing Plutarch, Mor. 416d. As noted by Yochanan Lewy, Numenius is a rather unlikely proposal, since Porphyry elsewhere refers to him as a

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

442

Proctor

that Porphyry is likely drawing upon Middle Platonic tradition, as indicated by commonalities with Plutarch.132 Clark’s and Johnson’s respective attributions to antedated sources, however, are unpersuasive. As noted by Mark J. Edwards, Porphyry typically uses allusive citations for contemporary acquaintances (or those within his own philosophical circle), rather than past authorities, which were typically quoted by name (or not at all).133 When Porphyry allusively cites ‘certain Platonists,’ therefore, he is drawing on the witness of contemporary Platonic philosophers. But who among Porphyry’s contemporaries might have served as Porphyry’s source? Hans Lewy has forwarded a compelling candidate in Origen the NeoPlatonist.134 Lewy bases this identification on Porphyry’s initial hesitancy to discuss the topic (“‘let it remain unsaid by me,’ but it is not blameworthy . . .”) and accompanying remark that certain Platonists have already “made public” these teachings. Lewy connects this hesitancy concerning now-publicized esoteric teachings with Porphyry’s statements regarding the pupils of Ammonius in the Vita Plotini. Porphyry there claims that Plotinus, Erreneus and Origen the Neo-Platonist entered into a pact to keep secret the doctrines of their teacher, the late Ammonius. Origen the Neo-Platonist, however, broke the pact by publishing a treatise entitled On Daemons.135 Lewy concludes, therefore, that Porphyry must be drawing upon Origen the Neo-Platonist’s non-extant treatise On Daemons which publicized Ammonius’ secret daemonology.136 Building upon yet diverging from Lewy’s analysis, Pier Franco Beatrice and Heidi Marx-Wolf have proposed Origen the Christian as the source for Porphyry’s daemonological digression.137 Both Beatrice and Marx-Wolf cite “Pythagorean,” rather than a “Platonist.” On this, see Yochanan Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1978) 497 n. 1. For a discussion of Numenius’ daemonology, see John M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996) 378. 132 Johnson, Religion and Identity, 86. 133 Mark J. Edwards, “Porphyry’s Egyptian ‘De Abstinentia’ II.47,” Hermes 123.1 (1995) 127. 134 See above, note 10. On the possible influence of Origen the Neo-Platonist’s daemonology on Porphyry, see Karl-Otto Weber, Origenes Der Neuplatoniker (München: C.H. Beck, 1962) 117-122. 135 Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles, 505. Cf. Vit. Plot. 3,24-25. 136 Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles, 505-508. Lewy supplements this hypothesis by noting that our only remaining testimony concerning the daemonology of Origen the Neo-Platonist attests to his belief in classes of both good and evil daemons, a bifurcated daemonology that is comparable to the doctrines contained in the De Abstinentia extract. 137 Beatrice, “Porphyry’s Judgment,” 362; Marx-Wolf, “A Strange Consensus,” 225.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

443

Lewy’s argument that Porphyry here draws upon a treatise On Daemons by a certain Origen. Beatrice and Marx-Wolf reject Lewy’s ascription to the “two Origen hypothesis,” however. They instead assert that Origen the Neo-Platonist and Origen the Christian is one and the same person.138 The treatise On Daemons from which Porphyry purportedly draws, therefore, should be attributed to Origen the Christian. Ultimately, then, Origen the Christian emerges as the primary influence upon Porphyry’s daemonological discussion in De Abstinentia. The hypotheses of Lewy, Beatrice and Marx-Wolf all falter on their mistaken insistence on a singular source for Porphyry’s discussion. It is essential to note that Porphyry claims that he is reporting the ἀνεμέσητον . . . τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινὲς.139 Hence, Porphyry claims that he is drawing on multiple Platonic witnesses, as indicated by the use of genitive plural in reference to the “Platonists,” as well as the third person plural verb λέγουσι.140 The attempt to identify a singular source for Porphyry’s daemonological diversion misconstrues Porphyry’s framing of his source material. Porphyry here draws upon the witness of multiple Platonic intellectuals, thus providing what seems to be a kind of ‘digest’ of contemporary Platonic daemonology.

Origen, Porphyry and Ammonian Platonism

Porphyry’s framing of his source material provides clues that he is not drawing upon Platonists in general, but a particular circle of contemporary intellectuals. Hans Lewy’s analysis here remains significant. As noted by Lewy, Porphyry’s apparent hesitancy to discuss the topic, as well his suggestion that he is disclosing formerly-esoteric teachings, indicate that Porphyry is drawing upon the esoteric doctrines which Ammonius’ students made public after his death. Porphyry’s allusive reference, therefore, suggest that these ‘certain Platonists’ are in fact students of the Platonic philosopher Ammonius. The identification of the ‘certain Platonists’ with students of Ammonius is significant, in that it places Origen the Christian squarely within the intellectual milieu from which Porphyry claims to have drawn his daemonology. According to the reconstruction of Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, Ammonius taught a philosophy “without conflicts” between the classical Greek thinkers, 138 Again, my hypothesis differs from Beatrice and Marx-Wolf in ascribing to the “twoOrigen” hypothesis. See above, note 10. 139 DA 2,36,6. 140 DA 2,36,6.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

444

Proctor

drawing on the writings and traditions of Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras.141 Porphyry recalls that Ammonius “made the greatest advance in philosophy of our time.”142 Ammonius tutored several aspiring philosophers in early thirdcentury Alexandria and attracted a wide range of intellectuals as pupils, including Plotinus, Longinus, Origen the Neo-Platonist, Erennius, Olympius of Alexandria, and Heraclas, the future Christian bishop of Alexandria.143 Interestingly, Porphyry claims that Ammonius himself was a Christian prior to taking up “Hellenic customs,”144 a fact that may explain his theologicallydiverse audience. Most significant for our purposes, Porphyry asserts that Origen the Christian was an “auditor of Ammonius” and even claims that Origen “owed much to his master [Ammonius].”145 Hierocles of Alexandria 141 Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 17. 142 Eusebius HE 6,19,6. Translation from J.E.L. Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge, m.a.; London: Harvard University Press, 1973) II.59. 143 Porphyry, Against the Christians fr. 39 (Harnack) apud Eus. HE 6,19,6. Cf. Porphyry, Vita Plot. 3,10; 3,24-27. 144 The text here is quite ambiguous. In full, Porphyry states: “For Ammonius was a Christian, brought up in Christian doctrine by his parents, yet, when he began to think and study philosophy, he immediately changed his way of life conformably to the laws” (Eus., HE 6,19,6; Oulton, Eusebius, II.59). Based on this fragment, it is impossible to determine what Porphyry implied by Ammonius’ “conformity to the laws.” Based on his own disdain of animal sacrifice, it is perhaps best to avoid simplistically equating Porphyry’s statement with adherence to animal sacrifice, though perhaps some other sacrificial service is implied. Elizabeth DePalma Digeser cautions against too hastily trusting Porphyry’s implication that Ammonius completely abandoned Christianity: “Porphyry’s statement indicates that Ammonius achieved “conformity” with the Graeco-Roman mores and civil code of Alexandria, which, in turn, implies, not that he sacrificed, since such an act does not seem to be have been called for, but that he probably did not protest Septimius Severus’s edict banning conversion to Christianity” (Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 42-3). Digeser points to two pieces of evidence to contend that Ammonius need not necessarily be considered a complete “apostate”: (1) Ammonius is said to have continued to subject biblical texts to exegesis and textual criticism, and (2) Christians Gnostics and other Christians like Theodotus indicate that “quasi-Christian” philosophers would not have been anomalous in the Late Antique Alexandrian context (Ibid., 46-7). 145 Porphyry, Against the Christians Fr. 39 (Harnack) apud Eusebius, HE 6,19,6. Based on biographical details provided by Porphyry, I take this passage to be a reference to the Christian Origen. While there is evidence elsewhere in Porphyry’s writings to suggest the existence of another, non-Christian Origen (see above, note 10), Eusebius’ framing and attribution to Porphyry’s Against the Christians, as well as Porphyry’s critique of this Origen’s allegorical exegesis, suggests that here Porphyry is identifying the Christian Origen as a student of Ammonius. For discussion of the problem of the “two Origens,” see above, note 10.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

445

(ca. fifth century) similarly states that Ammonius trained a certain Origen,146 and Theodoret of Cyrrhus claims that Origen the Christian was a pupil of Ammonius.147 Origen’s study under Ammonius is significant, in that it places Origen the Christian among the ‘certain Platonists’ which Porphyry cites as sources for his daemonology in De Abstinentia. What is more, Origen the Christian’s tutelage under Ammonius places Origen within the same intellectual circles as Porphyry’s primary philosophical instructors. Porphyry received his initial philosophical instruction in Athens under Longinus, one of Ammonius’ former students.148 Around 263 ce, Porphyry moved to Rome and joined the circle of Plotinus, another student of Ammonius.149 Porphyry received his philosophical training, therefore, from two of Ammonius’ pupils and, thus, stands within the same philosophical lineage as Origen. Read in this light, it is rather unsurprising that Porphyry would draw upon the work of a ‘certain Platonist’ like Origen; when he does so, he is in fact drawing upon a work which stands directly within the intellectual lineage of his primary philosophical tutors. Porphyry and Origen’s association extends beyond a shared intellectual pedigree. Porphyry claims that he personally encountered Origen when he “was still quite young,” and admits that, despite Origen’s inappropriate allegorical exegesis, the Alexandrian “had a great reputation, and still holds it, because of the writings he has left behind him” and “whose fame has been widespread among the teachers of this kind of learning.”150 Porphyry’s meeting with Origen likely occurred around 248-50 ce in Caesarea or Tyre, Porphyry’s hometown.151 Porphyry doesn’t elaborate on his and Origen’s interactions, though Athanasius Syrus, a seventh-century Syriac Patriarch, claims that Porphyry was one of Origen’s pupils.152 Origen’s instruction of Porphyry is not well documented, though not altogether implausible, since the fifth-century historian Socrates of

146 Apud Photeus Bibliotheca cod.214, 173a18-40; cod.251, 461a24-39. For discussion, see Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 27. 147 Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 6.60. 148 Vit.Plot. 4; 7,51. 149 Vit.Plot. 4,7-9; 5,1-5. On Porphyry at Plotinus’ school, see John M. Dillon, “Philosophy as a Profession in Late Antiquity,” in Simon Swain and Mark Edwards, eds, Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 401-418. 150 Eus. HE 6,19,6. Translation from Oulton, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, II.59. 151 Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 26. 152 This comes from a tenth-century manuscript, in the biographical information that accompanies Porphyry’s Isagoge. For discussion, see Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 76.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

446

Proctor

Constantinople claims, as mentioned previously, that Porphyry was a Christian prior to his “apostasy” to Hellenism.153 Even if the traditions concerning Porphyry’s Christian past and study under Origen are apocryphal, there remain strong literary connections between the two. Porphyry hints that he is familiar with Origen’s literary output, both by his mention of “the writings [Origen] has left behind him,”154 and also by providing a list of Origen’s favored philosophers.155 As Digeser has pointed out, the latter list corresponds to the Graeco-Roman authors featured most prominently in Origen’s writings and, thus, likely indicates Porphyry’s familiarity with Origen’s library and/or literature.156 Furthermore, Pier Franco Beatrice has noted that Porphyry’s catalogue of authors closely corresponds to the description of Origen’s curriculum by his student Gregory.157 In sum, Porphyry stands directly within the intellectual lineage of Origen of Alexandria, exhibits familiarity with the Christian theologian’s career and literature, and even acknowledges Origen’s notoriety as an Ammonian Platonist. When Porphyry cites the daemonology of ‘certain Platonists,’ he is in fact invoking the witness of Ammonius’ Platonic heirs. According to Porphyry’s own testimony, Origen the Christian was a renowned Platonist and pupil of Ammonius. Porphyry’s citation of Ammonian Platonists, therefore, includes an implicit citation of Origen the Christian, a fact that is not at all surprising when one considers Porphyry’s familiarity with the person and literature of Origen, a philosopher with whom he shared extensive intellectual connections. It is no wonder, then, that Porphyry’s daemonological discussion in De Abstinentia shares extensive similarities with the writings of Origen. Nor is it surprising that Porphyry elsewhere evokes daemonological discourses which often sound quite similar to his Christian counterparts. In both instances, the daemonological similarities stem from Porphyry’s utilization and interpretation of Ammonian Platonic daemonologies, including and especially that of the Christian Origen.

153 Socrates, HE 3,23,37-39, relying on a lost fragment of Eusebius’ work. Nicephorus likewise repeats this theme (HE 10,36) though likely in reliance upon Socrates. Cf. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 76, as well as Smith and Wasserstein, Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta, 14-15. 154 Eusebius, HE 6,19,6. 155 Eusebius, HE 6,19,6-7. 156 Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 27, citing Beatrice, “Porphyry’s Judgment,” 354. 157 Beatrice, “Porphyry’s Judgment,” 354-5, citing Gregory Thaumaturgus’ Address of Thanksgiving 7-14. Against the traditional ascription, Beatrice argues that an otherwiseunknown ‘Theodore-Gregory’ was the author of the panegyric, dated to ca. 240 ce.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

447

Conclusion By reexamining Porphyry’s citation of “certain Platonists,” as well the numerous daemonological tenets he shares with Origen, this study establishes Christian daemonology—and specifically Origen’s—as an intellectual predecessor for its Porphyrian counterpart and, thus, calls for a reconsideration of the place of both Porphyrian daemonology and Christian philosophy in Late Antiquity. Against past hypotheses which have denied Christian influence upon Neo-Platonic daemonology (à la Martin), this study responds by demonstrating the infiltration of Christian daemonology into the Platonist circles of third-century Alexandria. Against those studies which have characterized Porphyry’s daemonology as “non-Platonic” (Müller, Nance) or nonphilosophical (Nilsson) and, thus, questioned its intellectual pedigree, this study replies by contextualizing Porphyry’s daemonology within the ideological successors of Ammonius, and, therefore, as part of a distinctly philosophical and intellectual discourse. In sum, Porphyry’s daemonology emerges not as a peculiar oddity deserving dismissal, but as an intellectual product of thirdcentury Platonism. Porphyry’s reliance upon Origen and his Christian predecessors for the discourse of daemonic sacrifice has numerous implications, especially in realm of sacrificial cult. By corrupting the purity of sacrificial meat, Origen and Porphyry destabilize one of the most prominent rituals in the Graeco-Roman world, as well an event that undergirded socio-political connections and hierarchy. By arguing that daemons were the ultimate recipient of animal sacrifice, these two Platonists forged a dual front in undermining an ancient ritual institution. But we should not conclude that their denunciation spelled the end of “sacrifice” as a ritual practice and concept. Rather, we should instead see Origen’s and Porphyry’s anti-sacrifice critiques as two voices in a wide-ranging debate concerning proper ritual practice. Laura Nasrallah has suggested an analysis of ancient sacrifice which recognizes its use as a polemical category.158 Nasrallah states that within the literature of Late Antiquity, sacrifice acts as “an unsubtle knife by which Christians, among others, differentiate themselves from others on two fronts as they philosophically debate (and deliberately misinterpret) the sacrificial practices of their proximate others.”159 Origen and Porphyry’s agreements on the dangers of daemonic pollution inherent in animal sacrifice, 158 Laura Nasrallah, “The Embarrassment of Blood: Early Christians and Others on Sacrifice, War, and Rational Worship,” ch. 7 in Jennifer Wright Knust and Zsuzsanna Várhelyi, eds., Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 146. 159 Ibid.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

448

Proctor

then, demonstrate the way in which they share a rhetorical strategy in combatting competing ritual traditions while constructing their own. George Heyman, for example, has noted that Christians constructed a discourse of “spiritual sacrifice” as a potent weapon in their contestation of the prevailing rituals of the Roman imperial state.160 In a similar way, Porphyry repositions proper piety as a kind of human “rational” sacrifice, offering “our own uplifting as a holy sacrifice to god.”161 In constructing their own ritual norms, therefore, Origen and Porphyry utilize a similar polemical category, that of daemonic sacrifice, in order to undermine competing cultic traditions. This ideological agreement should not obscure the fact Porphyry and his Christian counterparts differed on the extent of their respective cultic critiques. For his part, Porphyry argued on behalf of the continuation of sacrifice and constructed a hierarchical sacrificial system where “pure silence and pure thoughts” are dedicated to “the god who rules over all,” “hymn-singing” is directed to the “intelligible gods,” and crops are sacrificed for the celestial gods.162 Within his sacrificial scheme, Porphyry even conceded that nonphilosophers, and especially civic governments, may need to propitiate the evil daemons for their own good.163 In such a way, Porphyry constructs his sacrificial program as a conservative modification, rather than eradication, of the Graeco-Roman cult. Porphyry outlines the conservative nature of his critique: “For myself, I am not trying to destroy the customs which prevail among people: the state is not my present subject.”164 Read in this light, Porphyry’s use of Christian Platonic daemonology stands in direct contrast to its use among Christian counterparts. The Christian discourse of daemonic sacrifice emerged 160 George Heyman, The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict (Washington, d.c.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007) xv. Cf. Jennifer Wright Knust and ZsuzsannaVárhelyi, “Introduction,” in ibid., eds, Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice, 17: “Arguably, then, it is the Christian who bequeathed to future generations the metonymic equivalence of sacrifice and violence: envisioning the deaths of Jesus and the martyrs as the only truly efficacious sacrifice, second-century Christians demoted Israelite animal sacrifice to the role of either allegorical precursor or divine concession. Hellenic sacrifice, however, was interpreted as demon-inspired violence.” For Christian examples, cf. Romans 12,1; Athenagoras, Legatio 13,2-4; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7,6,32. 161 DA 2,34; cf. Letter to Marcella 18. For discussion, cf. Nasrallah, “The Embarrassment of Blood,” 147. 162 DA 2,34,1-36,4. 2011. For a discussion of Porphyry’s sacrificial system, cf. James Rives, “The Theology of Animal Sacrifice,” Ch. 9 in Jennifer Wright Knust and ZsuzsannaVárhelyi, eds., Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 187-202. 163 DA 2,43,2. 164 DA 2,33,1.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449

Daemonic Trickery, Platonic Mimicry

449

primarily out of a polemical context in which Christian writers urged the negligence and abolition of Graeco-Roman cultic practice. Porphyry, however, circumscribed the scope of the discourse by limiting the influence of evil daemons to animal sacrifice alone, rather than all Graeco-Roman cultic activities, and carved out a space by which traditional cultic practice could endure. In doing so, he fundamentally altered the polemical force of the discourse he drew upon and diminished its original implications for ritual practice. Porphyry’s utilization of Christian discourses, however, would have consequences he is unlikely to have anticipated. His daemonological positions, and especially those of the De Abstinentia, became particularly useful fodder for later Christian intellectuals, including Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Cyril of Alexandria.165 These writers seized (selectively) upon the commonalities between Porphyry’s daemonology and their own and boasted that even the most ardent critic of Christianity agreed with them on the daemonic solicitation of animal sacrifice. Thus, while Porphyry’s discourse of daemonic sacrifice and corruption was originally utilized as part of a nuanced argument for the continuance of traditional cultic practices, Porphyry’s image would come to be used, paradoxically, as ideological support for the creation of a Christian empire that eschewed civic support of all forms of sacrifice.166 The complex reception history of Porphyry’s daemonology, then, demonstrates that discourses of daemonic sacrifice remained as tenuous as the pneumatic bodies of the daemons, ripe for ideological construction, resistant to firm constraint. 165 This is particularly true of the De Abstinentia. To provide but a few examples, Eusebius cites DA 2,41,5-2,42,3 in Praeparatio Evangelica 4,22,10-12; as well as DA 2,43,1-3 in Praep. Evang. 4,18-4,19,1; Cyril of Alexandria cites DA 2,41,5-2,43,1 in his Contra Julianum 4,692a-c; Theodoret of Cyrrhus cites DA 2,41,5-2,43,3 in his Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 3,60. For the appropriation of Porphyry in later Christian writings, cf. Markus Mertaniemi, “Acerrimus inimicus: Porphyry in Christian Apologetics”, in Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and MaijastinaKahlos, eds, Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2009) 97-112. 166 On this point, cf. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety, 164-191.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 416-449