This document discusses the importance of theurgy for Neoplatonist philosophers like Porphyry and Iamblichus. It explores how Iamblichus developed theurgy more than other Neoplatonists by directly applying Platonic teachings to ritual practices. While earlier critics viewed theurgy as reducing philosophy to religion, the document argues Iamblichus created a sophisticated theology by further linking theurgy and philosophy. Adopting theurgy also connected Neoplatonism to older religious traditions and helped it respond to the rise of Christianity in late antiquity.

1. Hayek
Mark Hayek
201000569
HIST258AN Essay: Theurgy in Neoplatonism
The Understanding and Importance of Theurgy for Porphyry and Iamblichus
1

2. Hayek
INTRODUCTION
In order to be able to trace the importance of theurgy for Neoplatonism in late
antiquity, we must first identify theurgy as theory and practice. To do so, we must conduct a
study of the major Neoplatonist philosophies concerning theurgy, namely those of Porphyry,
Iamblichus, and Proclus1
. In light of this study, we will be able to draw conclusions on how
important theurgy is for post-Plotinus Neoplatonism, and we will be able to understand the
extent to which theurgy – ultimately a theological practice – is linked to philosophy in
Neoplatonism. In other words, to what extent is theurgy central for philosophy in
Neoplatonism?
E.R. Dodds gives an holistic account of the origins of theurgy in Neoplatonist
thought, attributing most of its manifestations in Neoplatonist theory to Iamblichus: “Theurgy
was defined by the Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus (5th
century AD) as ‘a power higher than
all human wisdom and knowledge, embracing the blessings of divination, the purifying
effects of the ritual art, and in a word all the operations of divine possessions’”2
. Dodds goes
on to explain that theurgy in practice is split into two main avenues: that of iconography, or
the invocation of the divine through statues, or other inanimate objects, which retain divine
power through their symbolic connection with the divinities. The other is that of the coming
forth of the divine within human subjects, chosen by the theurgist. Iamblichus gives the
example of an ample subject for this second form of theurgy, namely “young and rather
simple persons”(Dodds, 2605). This would seem like a reasonable characteristic of one to be
1
These three philosophers undoubtedly outline the major philosophical thought of Neoplatonism in late
antiquity, but we cannot but mention that all three draw their philosophies (insofar as they remain within the
sphere of philosophy) from their third-century predecessor, and the founder of Neoplatonism, Plotinus. The
reason he is not mentioned here is because there is no record of him being concerned with theurgy. See:
Cameron, Averil. "Late Antique Culture and Private Life." The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. 2nd
ed.
NY: Routledge, 2012. . Print. p. 135.
2
This definition is from Dodds, E.R. Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion
and the Unknown. Vol. 19. Ed. Cavendish, Richard and Brian Innes. P. 2603(Under “Theurgy”). What follows
is a reiteration of the basic practices of theurgy and their origins, as provided by this volume. Pp. 2603-6.
2

3. Hayek
“possessed”, where it would make it easier for the deity or divinity to manifest itself within
feeble minds, rather than the strong mind of a learned man, for example. Dodds also
highlights the fact that almost all aspects of theurgy in Neoplatonist thought are a marriage
between Platonic teachings – as theory – and the second century Chaldaean Oracles3
, a
“poem in Greek hexameters”(Dodds, 2603) – as practice. Sarah Iles Johnston gives an
interesting definition of the Chaldaean Oracles: “The Chaldaean Oracles look back to Plato
for their cosmological and metaphysical tenets and to traditional magic and religion for the
practical ideas, but they follow the archaizing trend of the times by looking back to Homer
for the means to express them”(Johnston, III, 316). This seems like a pejorative claim, aimed
at reducing theurgy to an anachronistic practice. This might be a tactic used by Johnston to
delegitimize theurgy as a truly transcendent ritual. What we can draw though from Dodds’s
and Johnston’s articles is the basic framework for the functioning of theurgy. This includes
the presence of a theurgist, the performer of this ritual, a belief in the existence of a hierarchy
of beings not constricted to the world of physical nature, and the necessity for
symbolism/iconography.
But theurgy establishes itself, and finds groundwork as a theological practice within
Neoplatonism as a possible consequence of the prevalent ideological standpoints at the time,
and the historical context surrounding the unfolding of Neoplatonism after Plotinus. Karsten
Johansen, in A History of Ancient Philosophy, sheds light on this need for a religious aspect
of Neoplatonism:
“In philosophy Plato was the acknowledged authority with ‘Pythagoras’
as an obscure background figure. A religious need arose for sacred
scriptures, and they were found in the […] Chaldean Oracles and in a
3
The exact date and author of the Chaldean Oracles is not quite clear, but Dodds speculates it comes from
second century Julianus. Little is known of Julianus himself, and most of his work survives because of the
Neoplatonists. See: Dodds, E.R. Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion and
the Unknown. Vol. 19. Ed. Cavendish, Richard and Brian Innes. P. 2603-4.
3

4. Hayek
series of – spurious – Orphic poems [...] [T]he marriage of philosophy
with religion led to a philosophy with religious varnish or to a
peculiarly anaemic, de-mythologized religiosity” (Johansen, 557).4
Does this mean that the religious dimension of Neoplatonism is simply a reactionist method,
trying to stay alive in a world becoming exceedingly more Christian? This seems too simple
to be the case.
Another good reason for Neoplatonists to adopt theurgy as a practice is perhaps the
close relationship between theurgic rituals before Neoplatonism5
and Platonic ideals6
. This
relationship based on mutual perspectives of the physical and the spiritual is best highlighted
by Johnston, in her “Riders in the Sky”: “The theurgist, for example, understood the universe
to be divided into the same material and noetic realms that are familiar from the writings of
many Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists”7
. It is easy to begin blurring the lines between
theurgy and pure philosophy, seeing as theurgy in itself contains some views that could be
mistaken for philosophical views. This is a fault that Porphyry falls into, and Iamblichus
4
This excerpt is the conclusion from Johansen’s larger paragraph on the conditions that led to religion being
such a central part of what he calls “Late Neoplatonism”, in A History of Ancient Philosophy: “The motive for
this linking together is partly the belief that both philosophy and religion lead to mystical insight, partly the
conviction that the highest should engage the whole man, both intellect and feeling; insight into the highest is
not an abstract act of cognition but a deeply personal matter. […] To this should be added the historical
situation. In the course of the fourth century Christianity came to prevail. This was far from meaning that all
were now Christians, but it did mean that from the third to the sixth century Neoplatonism – from being the self-
evident position of the elite – was reduced to a hard-pressed position, forced into a confrontation with the new
religion and forced to manifest itself as a philosophical religion displaying will and ability to combat the new by
guarding the old”(557).
5
i.e. second half of the 2nd
century.
6
“In theurgy, techniques such as those we encounter in the magical papyri were wed to the cosmological and
metaphysical tenets of Platonic philosophy.” Johnston, Sarah Iles. “Riders in the Sky: Cavalier Gods and
Theurgic Salvation in the Second Century A.D.”
7
Johnston continues: “His [the theurgist] highest goal, correspondingly, was similar to that of Philo, Plotinus,
Porphyry, and some other Platonists of the time: he sought to cause his soul to ascend out of the material world
and into the noetic realm…” (303). We can see here more and more the intricate details that connect theurgy and
Neoplatonist philosophy.
4

5. Hayek
overcomes8
. It would seem as though both Johnston and Johansen both offer critical views on
the possible internal factors that affect theurgy as a practice, and external factors such as the
Neoplatonist’s motives to adopt theurgy with Iamblichus.
PORPHYRY AND IAMBLICHUS
Thus it would seem unproductive to say that Neoplatonism adopted a religious
dimension simply to keep up with the times, and that a religious dimension was necessary for
their standing as philosophers, because we would be moralizing the argument, not dealing
with it objectively9
. What seems more on point is an understanding of theurgy as an original
practice, and its relationship – both in theory and practice – to Neoplatonist thought. And
what then is interesting is drawing upon the reason why Neoplatonists adopted this specific
mode of religious practice, and the method which they used in order to further strengthen the
bonds between theurgy and Plato’s teachings.
This relationship between theurgy and Neoplatonism is most present in the teachings
of Iamblichus. Porphyry did cherish Platonic teachings – coupled with Aristotle’s – but
Iamblichus applies this directly to the practice of theurgy. Iamblichus thus finds himself with
a sophisticated theo-philosophy. This is both a more detailed understanding of the essence of
theurgy than that of Proclus, and subject to Porphyry’s questioning10
. Gregory Shaw, in
“Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus”, offers an objective – as
objective as possible when discussing spiritual matters – view on what has unfolded in the
discourse on theurgy11
. Shaw covers the time span from Porphyry to late twentieth century
8
I discuss this issue in more depth on p. 6-7.
9
Besides, as Cameron mentions in her book cited previously, Christianity had adopted many Platonic teachings,
and it would be arduous to try to filter out where they coincide and where they disagree. This is not the object of
this study. See footnote 1 for source.
10
See Shaw, Gregory. “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus”. Traditio, Vol.
41(1985), pp. 1-28. Fordham University. Web.
11
Shaw briefly introduces his “Theurgical Debate” with Porphyry, and ends up only a few pages later
5

6. Hayek
thinkers. And then, he employs a great tactic of ironing out all the edges when it comes to
what Iamblichus truly meant when he spoke of theurgy, by pinning most twentieth century
thinkers12
against the primary texts of Iamblichus primarily, but also Porphyry and Proclus.
Shaw says: “Porphyry was the first Platonist to discuss theurgy”(2). But for him,
philosophy was in much higher priority than theurgy13
(2), and this led him to an attempt at
“reify[ing] the gods in intellectual structures”(Shaw, 18). In other words, as an ardent
practitioner of logic, Porphyry approached the issue of theurgy from the standpoint of a
logician. He wished to set the framework for the theory14
using logic, and attempt at a strictly
intellectual understanding of it. Instead of drifting into the philosophical debate15
that
Porphyry presupposes for his interpretation, it would suffice to say that Porphyry placed
spirits and divinities in a metaphysical realm, and thus accessible through the intellect only.
He separates the physical world from the world of spirits: “the One above and matter
below”16
. Porphyry advocates a vertical hierarchy for the existence of things, with the
material being at the base. He thus equates theurgy to the Platonic forms, and Plato’s
Allegory of the Cave, and tries to find the rational within the ritualistic practice.
Through his contentions on theurgy, Iamblichus seemingly disproves Porphyry’s
argument. Johansen draws out the point of disagreement between Porphyry and Iamblichus:
mentioning contemporary distortions of both theory and practice of theurgy, in modern practices.
12
Amongst these: E.R. Dodds, Andrew Smith, and Anne Sheppard. He ends up siding with Jean Trouillard,
concerning the method of understanding theurgy as Iamblichus put it: by looking at Iamblichus himself.
13
Johansen also backs this up, See: A History of Ancient Philosophy: From the Beginnings to Augustine. Pp.
561.
14
It would seem that for Porphyry (logically) practice would be a mimesis of the theory. His own understanding
of Plato arguably influences this contention. This is why I choose to focus on his theory alone.
15
For a detailed explication on the philosophical premises for the theurgical debate between Porphyry and
Iamblichus, check Shaw and Johansen. Shaw offers multiple quotations from primary texts by both Iamblichus
and Porphyry, while Johansen discusses both of their philosophies more generally.
16
This and all further quotes from Porphyry and Iamblichus are taken from Shaw’s essay.
6

7. Hayek
“Iamblichus’ main principle for the interpretation of Plato was that each dialogue should be
understood according to its genre and from its intention or aim” (559). This implies a
division in understanding concepts of different natures. Johansen continues: “A Plato
dialogue should in other words not be interpreted doxographically but from an understanding
of the subject matter itself”(559). Johansen thus elucidates on the discrepancy between
Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ understanding of theurgy. This is where Iamblichus has clearly
overshadowed not only Porphyry, but Plotinus as well17
.
Iamblichus presents his hypothesis that theurgy, as a ritualistic practice, is just that. It
is a ritual, and its components are not determined due to a certain set of logical connections,
but due to the divine beings themselves. He says: “Intellectual understanding does not
connect theurgists with divine beings, for what would prevent those who philosophize
theoretically from having theurgic union with the gods?”18
Thus the connection between man
and divine, manifest in theurgy, is not something that the mind can grasp. In other words,
human beings do not reach the gods, it is the gods who make their way to the physical world,
and this theurgical ritual is one given by the gods primordially.
CONCLUSION
17
This argument is made by Shaw in his essay: “It is a curious fact that Neoplatonism today is identified with
Plotinus and an intellectual mysticism which denied formal religious worship, for in the history of the tradition
Plotinus nearly stands alone in this attitude. In fact, Noeplatonism was far more influenced by the Syrian
Iamblichus and his theurgical mysticism than by Plotinus” (3).
18
For a more holistic understanding of his foundation for this statement, Shaw continues: “But this is not true;
rather, it is the perfect accomplishment of ineffable acts, religiously performed and beyond all understanding,
and it is the power of ineffable symbols comprehended by the gods alone, that establishes theurgical union.
Thus we do not perform these acts intellectually; for then their efficacy would be intellectual and would depend
on us, neither of which is true”(10).
7

8. Hayek
So how does all of what Iamblichus professes tie in? He develops a form of negative
theology19
, which places theurgy outside the realm of epistemology, and also connects Plato’s
Parmenides to Iamblichus’ own work (Shaw, 18). Shaw says: “This results in a return to a
kind of positive theology, but one based on henological ineffability rather than on ontological
perfection” (18).
Thus it would seem that theurgy might have had an insignificant effect on
Neoplatonism thought until the arrival of Iamblichus. The factors that might have led,
whether internally or externally, to the appeal of theurgy for Neoplatonists like Iamblichus20
,
seem like considerable arguments. But the overwhelming evidence in Iamblichus’ texts leads
us to presume a deeper and purer connection between theurgy and Neoplatonist thought, and
invites us to speculate on the larger importance of negative theology in this school of thought.
Bibliography:
- Cameron, Averil. "Late Antique Culture and Private Life." The Mediterranean World
19
This term is used by Shaw p. 18.
20
i.e. the arguments discussed in the introduction (Johnston, Johansen)
8

9. Hayek
in Late Antiquity. 2nd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2012. . Print. pp. 134-6.
- Dodds, E.R. Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology,
Religion and the Unknown. Vol. 19. Ed. Cavendish, Richard and Brian Innes. P.
2603-4.
- Johnston, Sarah Iles. “Riders in the Sky: Cavalier Gods and Theurgic Salvation in the
Second Century A.D.” Classical Philology, Vol. 87, No.4 (Oct. 1992). Pp. 303-21.
- Johansen, Karsten Friis. A History of Ancient Philosophy: From the Beginnings to
Augustine. Trans. Henrik Rosenmeier. New York: Routledge, 1998. Print. Pp. 556-65.
- Shaw, Gregory. “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus”.
Traditio, Vol. 41(1985), pp. 1-28. Fordham University. Web.
9

10. Hayek
in Late Antiquity. 2nd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2012. . Print. pp. 134-6.
- Dodds, E.R. Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology,
Religion and the Unknown. Vol. 19. Ed. Cavendish, Richard and Brian Innes. P.
2603-4.
- Johnston, Sarah Iles. “Riders in the Sky: Cavalier Gods and Theurgic Salvation in the
Second Century A.D.” Classical Philology, Vol. 87, No.4 (Oct. 1992). Pp. 303-21.
- Johansen, Karsten Friis. A History of Ancient Philosophy: From the Beginnings to
Augustine. Trans. Henrik Rosenmeier. New York: Routledge, 1998. Print. Pp. 556-65.
- Shaw, Gregory. “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus”.
Traditio, Vol. 41(1985), pp. 1-28. Fordham University. Web.
9