Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JAN N. BREMMER
1 Ch. Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien, Ber-
lin 1987.
2 For this degree, the epopteia, see J. N. Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient
World, Berlin−Boston 2014, 11–16.
3 Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie (as in note 1) 69 n. 200, who, in addition to Aristophanes’
Clouds, compares Plato Men. 76e, Tht. 155ef., Euthd. 277e2 f. On the self-fashioning of
the sophists, see M. Hose, Die Erfindung des Experten. Über Sophisten und ihr Auftreten,
in: T. Fuhrer, A.-B. Renger (Hrsg.), Performanz von Wissen, Heidelberg 2012, 29–47.
4 Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie (as in note 1) 70–115; M. Bockmuehl, Revelation and
Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, Tübingen 1990, 77–81; A. M. Maz-
zanti, The “Mysteries” in Philo of Alexandria, in: F. Calabi (ed.), Italian Studies on Philo
of Alexandria, Leiden 2003, 117–129 and ead., Il lessico dei “misteri” in Filone di Alessan-
dria. Un’analisi semantica, in: ead. (ed.), Il volto del mistero. Mistero e rivelazione nella
cultura religiosa tardoantica, Castel Bolognese 2006, 21–34, all to be added to N. Cohen,
he argues instead for Judaism being the exclusive source of truth.5 Clement,
on the other hand, opposes the pagan Mysteries,6 which are usually the Eleu-
sinian Mysteries but sometimes also what he thought of as Bacchic Mysteries,
to the true Christian faith which, however, he can describe in Mystery lan-
guage. He also often uses Mystery terminology for the interpretation of the
Old and New Testaments, as he believes that their contents are not accessible
to everybody. But whereas Plato was influenced by the Sophists, Clement
was probably influenced by the rhetorical training of his day in which themes
from the Mysteries were important.7 Taking Riedweg’s insights as my point
of departure I will first look at a recent study that deals with the use of the
Mysteries in a series of second-century philosophers and men of letters (§ 1),
then continue with a closer look at Porphyry and Iamblichus, philosophers
on the eve of the Constantinian rule around AD 300 (§ 2),8 proceed with
Eunapius’ Life of the Sophists around AD 400 (§ 3), and end with some
observations on the last pagan philosophers who no longer had a personal
knowledge of the Eleusinian Mysteries as they had been closed down by
Theodosius in AD 392 (§ 4). I must stress, though, that the subject is some-
what under-researched so that the following discussion is more a first explo-
ration of a large field than an attempt at a definitive overview.
The Mystery Terminology in Philo, in: R. Deines, K. W. Niebuhr (ed.), Philo und das Neue
Testament, Tübingen 2004, 173–187; C. Auffarth, Mysterien (Mysterienkulte), in: RAC
25, Stuttgart 2013, 422–471 at 443 f.
5 P. Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-
Hellenistic Period, Cambridge 2011, 201–205.
6 I realise the problem of the terms ‘pagan’ and ‘paganism’, but do not see a convincing
alternative. For the debate about its usage and the bibliography of the terms, see most
recently H. Remus, The End of ‘Paganism’?, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 33,
2004, 191–208; A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford 2011, 14–32; P. Van
Nuffelen, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Concept of Paganism, in: L. Lavan, M. Mulryan
(ed.), The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’, Leiden 2011, 89–109; M. Bettini, Elo-
gio del politeismo. Quello che possiamo imparare oggi dalle religioni antiche, Bologna
2014, 135–136; C. P. Jones, Between Pagan and Christian, Cambridge−London 2014, 1–8.
7 Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie (as in note 1) 116–161 and id., Die Mysterien von Eleusis
in rhetorisch geprägten Texten des 2./3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus, Illinois Classical Stu-
dies 13, 1988, 127–133; R. Kirchner, Die Mysterien der Rhetorik. Zur Mysterienmetapher
in rhetoriktheoretischen Texten, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 148, 2005, 165–180;
T. Lechner, Rhetorik und Ritual. Platonische Mysterienanalogien im Protreptikos des Cle-
mens von Alexandrien, in: F. R. Prostmeier (Hrsg.), Frühchristentum und Kultur, Freiburg
2007, 183–222; M. Herrero de Jáuregui, Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity, Ber-
lin−New York 2010, 265–272.
8 Unlike what one would perhaps have expected, Mysteries play only a minor role in the
Hermetica, cf. G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes, Princeton 21986, 148 f.
A new direction in the analysis of the relation between philosophy and the
Mysteries was taken by Peter Van Nuffelen in 2011. In a dense study he
argues that for a number of philosophers the Mystery cults are the best place
to look for ancient wisdom, which thus “underpinned a hermeneutics of
religion in the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods”. Presumably,
the secret nature and limited access of the Mysteries protected them against
superstition and the perceived corruption of traditional religion.9 Van Nuffel-
en persuasively derives this idea from Varro, whose interest in the Mysteries
is well attested. He had visited Samothrace in 67 BC,10 and, given his pro-
found interest in and the importance he attached to the Samothracian Mys-
teries,11 we may safely assume that he was also initiated during his visit,
although we do not know whether in the first degree or the Samothracian
epopteia, but probably in the latter, if not in both.12 It seems also safe to
presume that he had been initiated in the Eleusinian Mysteries,13 about which
he has interesting information,14 the more so as he also wrote about the
Roman Mysteries of Ceres, which our compatriot Hendrik Wagenvoort
(1886–1976) repeatedly discussed.15 We know that there was no revelation
view, tried to keep up the appearance of a Mystery cult, just like the Orphic
poems. Yet this interpretation is hardly persuasive, as Plutarch contrasts the
Orphic poems as well as the Phrygian and Egyptian tales with the Mysteries
and symbolic performances.20 It is therefore less probable that the poems
and tales mentioned by Plutarch also refer to the Mysteries. In fact, such an
interpretation becomes fully unlikely when we see that Plutarch refers to the
same sources in combination with the Zoroastrian Magi in his treatise on
the obsolescence of miracles: “those men seem to me to have resolved more
and greater perplexities who have placed the race of daimones in between
gods and men … whether this is a tale of Zoroaster and his Magi, or whether
it is Thracian from Orpheus, or Egyptian or Phrygian”.21
Naturally, “the ancient natural science” can be especially found in those
tales to whom great antiquity can be attributed. And that is exactly what we
find here. The “Phrygian tales” were well known in antiquity, but for us
their most important aspect is that in Plutarch’s time the Phrygians were
considered to be the oldest people of humanity,22 who were credited with
allegorising interpretations of myth and religion.23 The Egyptians were equal-
ly believed to possess an impressive antiquity and extraordinary wisdom.24
Last but not least, Orpheus was considered to be the inventor of music,
poetry, writing and literature, in particular of the theogonic kind, as well
as of the Mysteries.25 In short, he was somebody standing at the cradle of
civilisation.26 In other words, in the first part of our passage Plutarch refers
to three sources of the most ancient wisdom, but not to Mystery cults. In the
20 On Plutarch and Orphism, see A. Bernabé, Plutarco e l’orfismo, in: I. Gallo (a cura), Plutar-
co e la religione, Napoli 1996, 63–104; R. M.a Aguilar, Reflejos del orfismo en Plutarco
(OF 524, 358 II, 31 V; Epimen. Fr. 43), in: M. Herrero de Jáuregui et al. (ed.), Tracing
Orpheus. Studies of Orphic Fragments. FS Alberto Bernabé, Berlin−Boston 2011, 237–240.
21 Plut. De def. or. 10, 415 A: ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκοῦσι πλείονας λῦσαι καὶ μείζονας ἀπορίας οἱ τὸ τῶν
δαιμόνων γένος ἐν μέσῳ θέντες θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων … εἴτε μάγων τῶν περὶ Ζωροάστρην ὁ λόγος
οὗτός ἐστιν εἴτε Θρᾴκιος ἀπ’ Ὀρφέως εἴτ’ Αἰγύπτιος ἢ Φρύγιος; note the similar combination
of Magi, Egyptians and Phrygians also in Cornutus, Theol. Graec. 17. The first to place
clearly the daimones between gods and men was probably Plato (Symp. 202e, see also Resp.
III 392a, cf. IV 427b).
22 Paus. 1,14,2; Apul. Met. 11,5; Arr. FGrH 156 F 82; Hipp. Ref. 5,7; Orig. Cels. 4,36; Claud.
In Eutrop. 2,238–273.
23 J. B. Rives, Phrygian Tales, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 45, 2005, 223–244.
24 See the references in A. Hilhorst, And Moses was instructed in all the Wisdom of the
Egyptians (Acts 7,22), in: id. and G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The Wisdom of Egypt, Leiden
2005, 153–176, to be added to I. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Inven-
tion of a Ritual Tradition, Göttingen 2013, 81–82 (additional bibliography).
25 For the Mysteries, see Ch. Riedweg, Orphisches bei Empedokles, Antike und Abendland
41, 1995, 34–59 at 37 n. 27.
26 See Orphicorum fragmenta (henceforth: OF) T 1024–31 Bernabé.
last sentence, though, he clearly does refer to ancient knowledge from Mys-
teries. It is most likely that in this case he thought especially of the Eleusinian
ones, as most of the comparisons and Mystery metaphors in his work are
taken from the Eleusinian Mysteries or Plato’s usage of them.27
Now what about Van Nuffelen’s second key passage? Here he adduces
Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris, a treatise probably to be dated to the 110s
AD. Plutarch tells us that:
ὡς τοὔνομά γε φράζειν ἔοικε παντὸς μᾶλλον αὐτῇ τὸ εἰδέναι καὶ τὴν
ἐπιστήμην προσήκουσαν. Ἑλληνικὸν γὰρ ἡ Ἶσίς ἐστι καὶ ὁ Τυφὼν πολέμιος
ὢν τῇ θεῷ καὶ δι’ ἄγνοιαν καὶ ἀπάτην τετυφωμένος καὶ διασπῶν καὶ ἀφανίζων
τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον, ὃν ἡ θεὸς συνάγει καὶ συντίθησι καὶ παραδίδωσι τοῖς τελ-
ουμένοις διὰ θειώσεως σώφρονι μὲν ἐνδελεχῶς διαίτῃ καὶ βρωμάτων πολλῶν
καὶ ἀφροδισίων ἀποχαῖς κολουούσης τὸ ἀκόλαστον | καὶ φιλήδονον,
ἀθρύπτους δὲ καὶ στερρὰς ἐν ἱεροῖς λατρείας ἐθιζούσης ὑπομένειν, ὧν τέλος
ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ κυρίου καὶ νοητοῦ γνῶσις, ὃν ἡ θεὸς παρακαλεῖ
ζητεῖν παρ’ αὐτῇ καὶ μετ’ αὐτῆς ὄντα καὶ συνόντα.
(Isis’) name certainly seems to express that knowing and understanding
belong more to her than to anyone else. For Isis is a Greek word, as is
Typhon. He is the enemy of the goddess and deluded because of his
ignorance and deception. He tears to pieces the hieros logos and makes
it disappear. The goddess collects it, puts it together and hands it over
(παραδίδωσι) 28 to the initiates. The process of consecration (i. e. initia-
tion), by a long and strict diet and by abstinence from many kinds of
food and sex, keeps under control licentiousness and lust, and accustoms
one to patient submission to the stem and rigorous holy rites, of which
the aim is the knowledge of Him who is the First, the Lord of All, the
Intelligible One, whom the goddess asks to find as being close, near and
united to her (Plut. Is. et Os. 351 E–352 A).29
In an interesting way, Plutarch equates here Typhon with the hieros logos of
the Mysteries. But which Mysteries does he have in mind? It is now clear
27 As is clear from G. Roskam, And a Great Silence Filled the Temple … Plutarch on the
Connections between Mystery Cults and Philosophy, in: A. Pérez Jiménez, F. Casadesús
Bordoy (ed.), Estudios sobre Plutarco: misticismo y religiones mistéricas en la obra de Plut-
arco, Madrid 2001, 221–232 (I am grateful to the author for making a copy of his article
available to me).
28 The expression has to be added to the material collected by Riedweg, Mysterienterminolo-
gie (as in note 1) 6–12; W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, Cambridge MA−London 1987,
69 with n. 14 and, especially, E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, Leipzig 1913, 288 f.; note also
Iambl. Protr. 10; below, note 61.
29 For the passage, see Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note 5) 56 f.; add H.-D. Betz,
Hellenismus und Urchristentum, Tübingen 1990, 112–119.
that there were no Mysteries of Isis and Osiris in Egypt, as the Egyptians did
not know of Mysteries like those of ancient Greece, even though the Greeks
drew parallels between the fate of Osiris and that of Dionysos at an early
stage.30 Plutarch uses Mystery language as, originally, the hieros logos was
the myth told in the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries,31 but his construction of
Egyptian Mysteries is a bricolage of known Egyptian rituals and myths, not
an ethnographic account of existing Mysteries. It is even uncertain that Plu-
tarch had witnessed Mysteries of Isis in his lifetime, which rather seem to
date from the later second century AD.32 Yet the prestige of the Mysteries
was clearly such that Plutarch could locate truth in them, although even he
did not see them as having preserved a pure source of knowledge.33
Next, Van Nuffelen analyses Numenius of Apamea, in whom we can
observe the changing landscape of the Greek Mysteries, as Numenius had
studied the Mysteries of Mithras which were probably still not familiar to
Plutarch, given their late appearance on mainland Greece. Even though the
cult of Mithras had penetrated the East much less than the West, more recent
discoveries show that it was certainly not unknown there.34 It is not surpris-
ing, then, that Numenius had written a commentary on them (fr. 31, 33 des
Places), just as he had done on the Eleusinian Mysteries (fr. 55). He even
seems to have referred to the cult of Sarapis as Mysteries (fr. 53), but this
Egyptian god never had Mysteries.35 The reference may be a mistake of Ori-
gen (Cels. 5,38), our source for the fragment, but it may equally be the case
that Numenius was a bit generous with using the term Mysteries, as in the
course of the second century the term became more loosely used than before
and was also employed for more limited rituals.36 In any case, we can see
the building”.41 But this translation misses the reference to the Eleusinian
Mysteries. Here at the moment suprême of the epopteia, which is of course
what interested the servants, not just any detail, the hierophant stepped for-
ward from the anaktoron amid great fire and shouted “The reverend goddess
has given birth to a sacred boy, Brimo to Brimos”.42 As could be expected,
Dio was well acquainted with the most prestigious Mysteries of the ancient
world. The great poets Homer and Hesiod thus have part of the truth but,
like the eavesdropping servants of the Mysteries, they do not have the real
possession of the truth. That is reserved for the Magi, even though their truth
appears to be Stoic in content and Platonic in its literary form. In the end, it
is hard not to suspect Dio of playing with the Mysteries in ways typical for
the debates of the Second Sophistic.43
Van Nuffelen concludes his panoramic survey of the Mysteries and phi-
losophers with Apuleius, who uses Mysteries both in his Apologia and Meta-
morphoses. Van Nuffelen notes that in the Apologia Apuleius describes his
Platonism in terms of a Mystery cult and adduces the beginning of the speech
in which Apuleius opposes the knowledge of almost all the elect (piorum,
i. e. initiated) of the alta illa et divina Platonica to the ignorance of omnibus
profanis (12), clearly a reference to the famous opening formula of the Or-
phic-Bacchic Mysteries.44 But although Apuleius repeatedly has recourse to
or mentions mystical silence, one must say that in this work we have Myster-
ies ‘lite’ rather than an elaborated system of allusions to the Mysteries.
Things are of course different in the Metamorphoses, with the famous
initiation of Lucius into the Mysteries of Isis. Van Nuffelen breaks new
ground by pointing to the presence of Mystery language in the description
of Lucius’ magical transformation into an ass. Once again we have a refer-
ence to the Orphic-Bacchic opening formula,45 but here it has a proper Mys-
tery function as Photis now reveals the secret of her mistress. But whereas
41 Nesselrath (as in note 37) 49 correctly translates: ‘sei es den Ausruf eines mystischen Worts
oder das Hochflackern von Feuern’, but his corresponding note is less informative.
42 Cf. Bremmer, Initiation (as in note 2) 34.
43 Cf. Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note 5) 88–90.
44 For the formula, see J. Bremmer, The Place of Performance of Orphic Poetry (OF 1), in:
Herrero de Jáuregui, Tracing Orpheus (as in note 20) 1–6 and, with the most recent biblio-
graphy, Bremmer, Initiation (as in note 2) 63 f., 77, 162 and 182. For Apuleius’ passage,
see also R. Fletcher, Apuleius’ Platonism, Cambridge 2014, 203–206.
45 Apul. Met. 3,15,1, although I would not say with Van Nuffelen, ibid., 94, that: ‘the com-
mandment to close the doors to the profane is common in mystery cults, and is encountered
also, for example, in the Orphic poems which were styled as mystery cults’. In fact, the
command is only mentioned for the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries (previous note: although
Plut. fr. 202 Sandbach also connects the opening with the Pythagoreans, Conv. 2,3, 636 D
shows that he knows better [τὸν Ὀρφικὸν καὶ ἱερὸν λόγον]). Moreover, the Orphic poems
were not styled as Mystery cults but, presumably, sometimes performed during an initiation.
Note that Van Nuffelen’s discussion of Met. 11 has been overlooked by W. Keulen et al.,
Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses Book XI, Leiden 2015.
46 Cf. H.-D. Betz, Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri, in: C. Faraone, D. Obbink
(ed.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, New York 1991, 244–259 = id.,
Hellenismus und Urchristentum (as in note 29) 209–229; F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient
World, Cambridge MA−London 1997, 96–117.
47 Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note 5) 96 f.
48 Bremmer, Initiation (as in note 2) 113 f.
49 Orig. Cels. 1,14, cf. Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note 5) 224 and 226 for
Celsus’ belief in Mysteries as loci of truth. For the Samothracian and Eleusinian Mysteries,
see notes 12 and 13 above.
With Porphyry and Iamblichus we have arrived at the last decades of the
third century. What did they think of the Mysteries at that time? Unfortu-
nately, only a small part of the work of both philosophers has survived, but
what we have seems enough to get some idea about their appreciation of the
Mysteries.
It might at first seem surprising that Porphyry’s relation to the Mysteries
has never been properly investigated.50 But maybe it is not that surprising,
as there is less engagement with the Mysteries by him than perhaps could be
expected. Let us start with the question of which Mysteries Porphyry really
knew. He mentions those of Mithras, with which he was clearly well ac-
quainted through the Mithraic studies of Pallas and Eubulus.51 He is equally
familiar with the Eleusinian Mysteries, of which he relates several interesting
details and into which he may well have been initiated himself.52 He tells us
that Origen learned his figurative interpretation, “as employed in the Greek
Mysteries”,53 from Chaeremon and Cornutus.54 Unfortunately, we hardly
have any information about this kind of interpretation in the Mysteries, but
Porphyry himself supplies an example when he tells us about the Eleusinian
Mysteries: “In the Mysteries at Eleusis the hierophant is dressed up to repre-
sent the demiurge, and the dadouch the sun, the (priest) at the altar the
moon, and the hierokeryx Hermes”.55 This is clearly a late, imperial-period
development, as earlier authors never mention this interpretation. Porphyry
also knows Orphic poetry well;56 in fact, the beginnings of both his On Imag-
es and, albeit it less explicitly, his Philosophy from Oracles allude to the
famous opening sentence of the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries, which must have
50 There is no article on the subject in G. Girgenti, Porfirio negli ultimi cinquant’anni, Milano
1994, nor has any appeared in recent years, to the best of my knowledge.
51 Porph. Abst. 2,56 and 4,16 (Pallas), 4,16 (Eubulus), Antr. 6 (Eubulus), cf. A. P. Johnson,
Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre, Cambridge 2013, 264–266.
52 Porph. Abst. 4,5 (the παῖς ἀφ’ ἑστίας), 4,16 (abstinence from certain foods by the initiates);
In Tim. fr. 22 Sodano (mystagogues, genealogy of Musaeus); Epistula ad Anebon. fr. 65p
and fr. 72 Saffrey, Segonds (taboo for epopts); below, note 55 (figurative interpretation).
53 Note also the anecdote about Porphyry and Plotinus below, which attests to the fact that
in the imperial period the Mysteries were seen as hiding important truth through veiled
language.
54 Porph. Adv. Chr. F 39 Harnack = 6F. Becker (= Eus. HE 6,19,8).
55 Porph. De statuis F 360 Smith (= Eus. PE 3,12): Ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατ’ Ἐλευσῖνα μυστηρίοις ὁ μὲν
ἱεροφάντης εἰς εἰκόνα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐνσκευάζεται, δᾳδοῦχος δὲ εἰς τὴν ἡλίου, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ
βωμῷ εἰς τὴν σελήνης, ὁ δὲ ἱεροκῆρυξ Ἑρμοῦ.
56 Porph. Antr. 16 = OF 187, 220, 222, F 354 Smith = OF 243, F 359 = OF 830a.
been intended to make his text more solemn.57 He is familiar with the use of
the bull-roarer in the Dionysiac Mysteries and, naturally, also well acquaint-
ed with the prohibition to reveal what happened in the Mysteries,58 but,
somewhat surprisingly, he also mentions the, surely invented, Mysteries of
Morgos, one of the Cretan Dactyls.59
In principle, Porphyry seems to have considered the Mysteries as a sig-
nificant part of Greek religion since for the importance attached to prayer
he compares the traditional sages, such as the Brahmans and Magoi, with
“the most theologically equipped of the Greeks, that is, those who instituted
the rites and Mysteries”.60 He also mentions that some people explain the
less suitable stories about the gods from custom as they “have been agreed
upon by the cities and lawmakers not only to sing in poetry but also to
transmit in the Mysteries”.61 Indeed, for him Mysteries seem to belong to the
normal kind of worship of the gods.62
There is one last reference to the Mysteries. In an interesting anecdote
of his Life of Plotinus (15 = Porph. F 419 Smith), Porphyry tells us:
Ἐμοῦ δὲ ἐν Πλατωνείοις ποίημα ἀναγνόντος «Τὸν ἱερὸν γάμον», καί τινος διὰ
τὸ μυστικῶς πολλὰ μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ ἐπικεκρυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι εἰπόντος
μαίνεσθαι τὸν Πορφύριον, ἐκεῖνος εἰς ἐπήκοον ἔφη πάντων· «ἔδειξας ὁμοῦ
καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον καὶ τὸν ἱεροφάντην.»
Once, during a celebration in honour of Plato, I read a poem, The Sacred
Marriage. As much of it was recited in the language of mysteries, enig-
matically, in rapturous style, someone said: “Porphyry has gone mad”.
Plotinus said to me so that all might hear: “You have shown yourself
simultaneously a poet, a philosopher and a hierophant!”.
Mark Edwards translates the last words with: “a poet, a philosopher and a
teacher of sacred truth”.63 His rendering obscures the reference to the most
important function of the Eleusinian Mysteries, but it brings out well that
Plotinus has cleverly ordered his words according to the Gesetz der wach-
senden Glieder,64 according to which the third element in an enumeration by
being longest receives a certain emphasis. In other words, at least according
to Plotinus, Porphyry showed himself to be like the hierophant. Given that
he himself related the anecdote, this must have been taken by him as a com-
pliment, even though, as is well known, Plotinus hardly mentions rituals at
all in his work, and was only interested in their philosophical meaning, not
their ritual efficacy.65 Perhaps, we should not over-accentuate the contrast
between philosophy and the Mysteries in the case of Porphyry. In any case,
a careful survey of the views of Porphyry regarding ritual concludes that
they wavered or, perhaps, evolved from more positive to more negative.66
Porphyry’s interpretation of the Mithraic Mysteries as revealing anthropolog-
ical, cosmological and soteriological truths, and his allegorical interpretation
of the officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, might help to explain Plotinus’
remark as not unfitting even for a period of his life in which he was, perhaps,
more negative regarding rituals.
What about Iamblichus and the Mysteries? Anyone unfamiliar with his
work might infer that he has a lot to say about the Mysteries, given that he
is the author of a work traditionally entitled De mysteriis. However, the title
is a misnomer of Ficino, which has only been properly replaced in the recent,
surely now authoritative, new Budé edition.67 In his Response to Porphyry,
as the work should now be called, Iamblichus has hardly anything to say
63 M. Edwards, Neoplatonic Saints: The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by Their Students,
Liverpool 2000, 26. The corresponding note is not helpful either.
64 O. Behaghel, Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern, Indogerma-
nische Forschungen 25, 1909, 110–142; E. Lindholm, Stilistische Studien zur Erweiterung
der Satzglieder im Lateinischen, Gleerupska 1931; M. L. West, An Indo-European Stylistic
Feature in Homer, in: A. Bierl et al. (Hrsg.), Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung, München−
Leipzig 2004, 33–49 and his Indo-European Poetry and Myth, Oxford 2007, 117–119,
328; J. Kwapisz, Behaghel’s Club, Classical Quarterly 64, 2014, 615–622.
65 Plotinus was acquainted with the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries (Enn. 1 6 [1] 6, 5 1 [10] 7)
and unnamed Mysteries (Enn. 6 9 [8] 11); R. M. van den Berg, Plotinus’ Attitude to Tradi-
tional Cult: a Note on Porphyry VP 10, Ancient Philosophy 19, 1999, 345–360.
66 I. Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Nur der Weise ist Priester”: Rituale und Ritualkritik bei Porphyrios,
in: U. Berner and ead. (Hrsg.), Religion und Kritik in der Antike, Berlin 2009, 109–155; E.
DePalma Digeser, The Power of Religious Rituals: A Philosophical Quarrel on the Eve of
the Great Persecution, in: N. Lenski, A. Cain (ed.), The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity,
Farnham 2009, 81–92.
67 In the references I stick to the old title for convenience’s sake, but for the text I use H. D.
Saffrey and A.-Ph. Segonds, Jamblique, Réponse à Porphyre (de Mysteriis), Paris 2013.
about the Mysteries; in fact, the word mysteria occurs only once in the con-
text of Egyptian Mysteries (Myst. 6,7), but these, as I have noted already
(§ 1), did not exist as such. Admittedly, Iamblichus surely also refers to the
traditional Greek Mysteries when he comes to speak about the suffering of
the gods in the sacred rites (1,11), but that is all that he seems to say about
our subject in this treatise. His reaction to Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo focuses
on matters such as theurgy,68 divination and apparitions but is not concerned
with the Mysteries.
Although he does not give us that much information, Iamblichus seems
to have been more interested in the Mysteries than Porphyry, as he mentions
quite a few of them in his biography of Pythagoras.69 To start with, he lets
Pythagoras travel to Phoenicia where he “was initiated into all sacred rites
of the Mysteries”, especially those in Byblos and Tyre but also in many parts
of Syria (Vit. Pyth. 14). These Mysteries may well be imaginary ones, invent-
ed by Iamblichus himself in order to make his own homeland look more
important, although our lack of information may deceive us here; in any
case, the ‘barbarian Mysteries’ into which Pythagoras was initiated in Baby-
lon are almost certainly ‘virtual’. Naturally, Iamblichus also knows the Eleu-
sinian Mysteries, in relation to which he several times mentions the prohibi-
tion to reveal the Mysteries’ contents to the non-initiated.70 Moreover, he
regularly compares them with Pythagoras and his followers.71 He is also well
informed about the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries, which according to him Py-
thagoras considered as very important.72 He knows Orphic eschatology and
the well-known Orphic dictum “many are narthêkophoroi, but the bakchoi
are few”.73 He mentions that Pythagoras was initiated by Aglaophamus in
Thracian Libethra, the Heimat of Orpheus (Vit. Pyth. 146), and that Pythag-
oras called one of his treatises Hieros Logos, a title deriving from the Orphic
Mysteries;74 whether truely or not, we also hear of a Hieros Logos by Cer-
68 For Iamblichus and theurgy, see most recently J. Finamore, Iamblichus, Theurgy, and the
Soul’s Ascent, in: V. Adluri, (ed.), Philosophy and Salvation in Greek Religion, Berlin−
Boston 2013, 343–355 and especially, with detailed bibliography, Tanaseanu-Döbler,
Theurgy (as in note 24) 95–135.
69 For a good comparison of his and Porphyry’s biography of Pythagoras, see I. Tanaseanu-
Döbler, Neoplatonic Lives of Pythagoras – Media of Religious Paideia?, Zeitschrift für
Religionsgeschichte 20, 2012, 70–93.
70 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 75 (as in note the Doricism βεβάλοις), 151.
71 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 72, 75, 104, 138, 226; Protr. p. 106 Pistelli = 21 des Places.
72 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 151, Protr. p. 67 Pistelli = 13 des Places.
73 Iambl. Protr. p. 67 Pistelli = 13 des Places. For the precise form of the dictum and its
history, see W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi proverbia V, Göttingen 1999, 371 f., to be added to
the commentary of Bernabé on OF 576.
74 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 146 = OF 507, cf. Ch. Riedweg, Pythagoras, München 22007, 22; J.
Bremmer, From Holy Books to Holy Bible (as in note 31) 331–333.
cops the Pythagorean in Epigenes’ book about Orphic poetry.75 Finally, and
interestingly, Pythagoras also is acquainted with the Mysteries at the edge of
the Greek mainland: Samothrace, Lemnos and Imbros, of which the last one
is mentioned only here in Greek literature.76
Iamblichus had a positive idea of the Mysteries. At least, this seems to
follow from his comments on Pythagoras’ initiation into the Phoenician and
Syrian Mysteries: “(Pythagoras) did not experience these as a result of super-
stition, as someone might foolishly suppose, but much more with a desire
and yearning for theoretical knowledge, and a reverent concern that nothing
worthy of learning kept in the Mysteries or mystic rites of the gods escape
his notice”.77 Although focussed on the Pythagoreans, the same sentiment
occurs later in the biography where Iamblichus writes: “many of their prohi-
bitions were taken from the Mysteries because they (i.e. the traditional Py-
thagoreans) take such things seriously, and do not believe that they are hum-
bug, but that they have their origin from a god”.78 One would have loved to
know who actually considered these prohibitions “humbug” (Epicureans?
Christians?), but we simply do not know.
With these opinions of Iamblichus we have come to the end of what he
and Porphyry thought of the Mysteries. Van Nuffelen stresses that in Neo-
Platonism “philosophy is now thought to contain truth to a higher and fuller
degree than religion”.79 To prove his point he persuasively quotes a passage
from Porphyry, which suggests that that author did not attach the same im-
portance to the Mysteries as was done by the second-century philosophers.
In this illuminating passage from On Abstinence, which dates from the early
AD 270s, Porphyry states that the philosopher as the priest of the god who
rules everything (ὁ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν θεοῦ ἱερεύς) is a higher kind of priest than
the priests of the particular gods (ὅ τινος τῶν κατὰ μέρος )θεῶν* ἱερεύς), al-
though he mentions the latters’ experience in the Mysteries.80 Even though
Mysteries may be loci of truth, it is the philosopher now who possesses the
fullest source of truth. Iamblichus would probably have agreed, but, as we
75 Clem. Strom. 1,131,5 = OF 406, cf. W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagorea-
nism, Cambridge MA 1972, 114, 130 n. 60, who considers Cercops, but not his book, ‘a
figment of ancient philology’.
76 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 151, cf. J. Bremmer, Initiation (as in note 2) 21–41 (Samothrace, Lemnos,
Imbros).
77 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 14, tr. Dillon, Hersbell.
78 Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 138, tr. Dillon, Hersbell.
79 Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note 5) 240.
80 Porph. Abst. 2,49, note also Marc. 16, cf. Van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods (as in note
5) 240 f.; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 107. Date of Abst.: J. Bouffartigue,
M. Patillon, Porphyre, De l’abstinence, vol. I, Paris 1977, xviii–xix.
have seen, he seems to have had a more positive view of the Mysteries.81 In
any case, in neither work do they play an important role any longer. A cen-
tury later, the Eleusinian Mysteries had already been closed down and the
last celebrations of ancient Mysteries must have been a sporadic affair, soon
to vanish altogether. So what was pagan opinion of the Mysteries around
AD 400? Let us now turn to Eunapius for an answer.
Eunapius was born in Sardis towards the end of the AD 340s and wrote a
biography of the sophists ca. AD 400.82 His work seems a good illustration
of the last years of pagan religion. Only a few of the traditional gods are still
mentioned in his work, the temples are destroyed or have become unimpor-
tant, and religious practice has turned into a private affair.83 What was the
status of the Mysteries in this final period of paganism? Before trying to
answer this question, we will start again with the question: which Mysteries
were known to Eunapius?
Interestingly, he knows the Mithraic Mysteries, as he mentions that the
hierophant who initiated him into the Eleusinian Mysteries predicted that
after him there would come another hierophant, a non-Athenian, during
whose time in office the worship of the Two Goddesses would come to an
end. This hierophant was also a Pater in the Mithraic Mysteries, which was
the top grade of those Mysteries.84 As we could have expected, the last hiero-
phant was clearly an important person, even though we do not know his
81 For their different views on ritual, see, most recently, A. Busine, Porphyry and the Debate
over Traditional Religious Practices, in: P. Vassilopoulou, S. Clark (ed.), Late Antique Epi-
stemology. Other Ways of Truth, London−New York 2009, 21–29; H. Marx-Wolf, Pytha-
goras the Theurgist: Porphyry and Iamblichus on the Role of Ritual in the Philosophical
Life, in: J. D. Rosenblum et al. (ed.), Religious Competition in the Third Century CE: Jews,
Christians, and the Greco-Roman World, Göttingen 2014, 32–38.
82 For Eunapius’ biography and the date of his work, see M. Becker, Eunapios aus Sardes,
Stuttgart 2013, 25–28, 30–32 and R. Goulet, Eunape de Sardes, Vie de philosophes et de
sophistes, 2 vol., Paris 2014, 1,24–34, 1,96–98, respectively. For the text I follow the new
edition of Goulet, whereas the commentary by Becker is now indispensable.
83 See the analysis of religion in his work by Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 83) 1,335–
376.
84 F. Mitthof, Der Vorstand der Kultgemeinden des Mithras: Eine Sammlung und Untersu-
chung der inschriftlichen Zeugnisse, Klio 74, 1992, 275–290, to be read with R. Gordon,
Ritual and Hierarchy in the Mysteries of Mithras, in: J. A. North, S. Price (ed.), The Religi-
ous History of the Roman Empire, Oxford 2011, 325–365 at 329; Bremmer, Initiation (as
in note 2) 137.
name. As appears from this notice, Eunapius knew the Eleusinian Mysteries
very well. In fact, as he himself relates, he was initiated into those Mysteries
by that prophesying hierophant, whose name at the time could not be re-
vealed by him as being too holy,85 in the years that he stayed in Athens, that
is, ca. 364–368.86 As Eunapius says:
Ὡς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα εἶχε καλῶς, ἀκούσας τι πλέον εἶναι κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα παρὰ
τῷ ταῖν Θεαῖν ἱεροφάντῃ, καὶ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ὀξὺς ἔδραμεν. τοῦ δὲ ἱεροφάντου,
κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ὅστις ἦν, τοὔνομα οὔ μοι θέμις λέγειν· ἐτέλει γὰρ
τὸν ταῦτα γράφοντα, καὶ εἰς Εὐμολπίδας ἦγε· καὶ οὗτός γε ἦν ὁ καὶ τὴν
τῶν ἱερῶν καταστροφὴν καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀπώλειαν ἁπάσης προγνούς, τοῦ
συγγραφέως παρόντος, καὶ φανερῶς διαμαρτυρόμενος ὡς μεθ’ αὑτὸν ἱερο-
φάντης γενήσοιτο, ᾧ μὴ θέμις ἱεροφαντικῶν ἅψασθαι θρόνων.
when (Julian) heard that there was a higher wisdom in Greece with the
hierophant of the Two Goddesses, he speedily hastened to him.87 It is
not lawful for me to tell the name of the hierophant at that time, for he
initiated the present author and introduced me among the Eumolpids.
He it was who predicted the destruction of the temples and the ruin of
the whole of Greece, when the author of this work was present, and
he openly declared that after him a hierophant would come who had
no right to the hierophantic throne (Eun. Vit. soph. 7,28–29 Goulet
[= p. 475 Boissonnade = p. 45 Giangrande]).
Eunapius clearly knew this hierophant and, evidently, was so interested in
the Mysteries that he had himself incorporated among the Eumolpids, which
was an unusual honour in earlier centuries, but may have been a sign of the
diminishing status of the Mysteries in Eunapius’ time.88 He clearly also ad-
mired the discretion of the hierophant regarding what took place during the
Mysteries, as he says of Aedesius that the very best of his pupils “inclined to
preserve a silence appropriate to the Mysteries and a discretion worthy of a
hierophant”.89 Another example of discretion was his cooperation with Ju-
85 But Zosimos 4,18 (with Paschoud ad loc.) calls him Nestorius; see also Becker (as in note
82) 374, 376 and Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 82) 1,524–529, for the most recent
discussions of the names of these hierophants.
86 For Eunapius’ stay in Athens, see Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 82) 2,215.
87 Probably in the year AD 355, cf. Becker (as in note 82) 374.
88 Eun. Vit. soph. 7,28 Goulet (= p. 475 Boissonnade = p. 45 Giangrande): καὶ εἰς Εὐμολπίδας
ἦγε. For the translation, see Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 82) 2,216 f.
89 Eun. Vit. soph. 6,5 Goulet (= p. 461 Boissonnade = p. 18 Giangrande): τὰ δὲ ἴσως καὶ τῶν
ὁμιλητῶν ἄριστον πρὸς μυστηριώδη τινὰ σιωπὴν καὶ ἱεροφαντικὴν ἐχεμυθίαν ἐπιρρεπὲς ἦν καὶ
συνεκέκλιτο. For the silence of the Mysteries, also note Vit. soph. 9,23 Goulet (= p. 484
Boissonnade = p. 62 Giangrande) and Hist. fr. 18 Blockley = fr. 10 Muller-Dindorf: When
lian, who had summoned the hierophant from Greece to Gaul and with
whom he had performed certain rites “known to them alone” and whose
wisdom he “greedily absorbed”.90 In fact, Eunapius went quite far with his
discretion. In his biography of Porphyry, he says: “As for philosophy, neither
his genius for discourse nor his moral philosophy can be described in words.
As for natural philosophy and theurgy, let us leave that to sacred rites and
Mysteries”. In other words, whereas one can hardly grasp with words or put
into words what Porphyry did regarding philosophy, what he did for theurgy
cannot and should not be talked about but must be left secret.91
Interestingly, the prophetic qualities of the hierophant who initiated Eun-
apius must have been well known, as also Proheresius, who was suspected
of being a Christian, asked him, albeit in an indirect manner, how long Julian
would be emperor.92 Finally, one may suspect that people presumed a certain
amount of solidarity among initiates, as it was suggested that Fravitta had
allowed the rebel Arian Goth Gainas, who was “his fellow barbarian and
fellow initiate”, to escape.93
This leaves us one more case in which the Mysteries play a role. One of
the most intriguing biographies by Eunapius is that of Sosipatra (ca.
AD 300–after 362).94 This pagan “holy woman” has recently been the sub-
ject of excellent studies,95 but here I will mainly concentrate on her relation
to the Mysteries. It is clear that Eunapius’ account has been strongly influ-
Julian has restored the son of the king of the Chamavi to his father, there fell a “silence,
more profound than all the Mysteries”.
90 Eun. Vit. soph. 7,33–34 Goulet (= p. 476 Boissonnade = p. 46 Giangrande). For Julian’s
great adoration of the hierophant, note also that he sent him back to Greece “as though
he was a god who had revealed himself”: Vit. soph. 7,36 Goulet (= p. 476 Boissonnade =
p. 47 Giangrande).
91 Eun. Vit. soph. 4,15 Goulet (= p. 457 Boissonnade = p. 9 Giangrande): τὰ δὲ εἰς φιλοσοφίαν,
οὐδὲ τὰ περὶ λόγους καταληπτόν, οὔτε τὸ ἠθικὸν ἐφικτὸν λόγῳ· τὸ δὲ φυσικὸν καὶ θεουργὸν
τελεταῖς ἀφείσθω καὶ μυστηρίοις. But note that the passage has been considered corrupt or
emended by various scholars, cf. Becker (as in note 29) 203, whose own interpretation is
hardly persuasive.
92 Eun. Vit. soph. 10,85 f. Goulet (= p. 493 Boissonnade = p. 79 Giangrande).
93 Eun. Hist. fr. 69 Blockley = fr. 82 Müller-Dindorf. For friendship resulting from common
initiations, cf. Plat. Epist. 7, 333e.
94 Eun. Vit. soph. 6,53–93 Goulet (= p. 467–71 Boissonnade = p. 28–35 Giangrande).
95 Becker (as in note 82) 287–305; Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 82) 1,570 f. (with
older bibliography); S. I. Johnston, Sosipatra and the Theurgic Life, in: J. Ruepke (ed.),
Reflections on Religious Individuality, Berlin 2012, 99–117; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy
(as in note 24) 157–159 and ead., Sosipatra – Role Models for Pagan “Divine” Women in
Late Antiquity, in: M. Dzielska, K. Twardowska (ed.), Divine Men and Women in the
History and Society of Late Hellenism, Cracow 2014, 123–147; N. D. Lewis, Living Images
of the Divine: Female Theurgists in Late Antiquity, in: K. B. Stratton, D. S. Kalleres (ed.),
Daughters of Hecate, Oxford 2014, 274–297.
96 Cf. Goulet, Eunape de Sardes (as in note 82) 1,514–520 (discussion of the chronology of
Eustathius).
97 Becker (as in note 82) 289 suggests that Ephesus is mentioned to associate Sosipatra with
magic; add to his bibliography: L. Bettarini, Testo e lingua nei documenti con Ἐφέσια
γράμματα, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 183, 2012, 111–128; A. Bernabé,
The Ephesia Grammata: Genesis of a Magical formula, in: C. Faraone, D. Obbink (ed.),
The Getty Hexameters, Oxford 2013, 71–96; J. Fischer, Zauberei im antiken Ephesos?, in:
R. Breitwieser et al. (Hrsg.), Calamus. Festschrift für Herbert Graßl zum 65. Geburtstag,
Wiesbaden 2013, 193–201.
98 Becker (as in note 82) 291 well connects the appearance of the two old men with Odysseus’
metamorphosis by Athena into a beggar.
99 For the importance of the number 5 in the episode, see Becker (as in note 82) 293.
100 Eun. Vit. soph. 6,53–62 Goulet (= p. 466 f. Boissonnade = 28 f. Giangrande).
101 Cf. R. Pack, A Romantic Narrative in Eunapius, Transactions of the American Philological
Association 83, 1952, 198–204, corrected by C. P. Jones, A Geographical Setting for the
Baucis and Philemon Legend (Ovid Metamorphoses 8.611–724), Harvard Studies in Classi-
cal Philology 96, 1994, 203–223+I–IV.
102 For this motif, see the references in J. Bremmer, The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife, London−
New York 2001, 125 f., 184 (notes); Becker (as in note 82) 294.
103 L. Bieler, Theios Anêr, 2 vol., Vienna 1935–36, 1,38–40, 51–52; Becker (as in note 82)
289 f.
104 Becker (as in note 82) 291, 293.
105 W. J. Verdenius, Κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος, Mnemosyne IV 2, 1949, 294–298; Becker (as in note
82) 408.
106 See note 28.
107 Eun. Vit. soph. 6,63–74 Goulet (= p. 467 f. Boissonnade = p. 30–32 Giangrande).
108 S. Lanzi, Sosipatra, la teurga: una “holy woman” iniziata ai misteri caldaici, Studi e mate-
riali di storia delle religioni 28, 2004, 275–294 at 283 f. tries to find parallels from theurgy
for these items, but the fact that she cannot produce a parallel for the books suggests that
we should not try too hard to pin these items down to one particular initiation. That would
be to misjudge the nature of Eunapius’ literary composition.
109 Bremmer, Initiation (as in note 2) 124 f. (robe), 109 (tokens; note also Apul. De magia 55–
56), 68 (books).
110 Cf. J. Bremmer, From Books with Magic to Magical Books in Ancient Greece and Rome,
in: D. Boschung and id. (ed.), The Materiality of Magic, München 2015, 241–269 at 266–
269.
111 See the detailed investigation by Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 21–39. For the
Oracles, see H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism
in the Later Roman Empire, ed. M. Tardieu, with a supplement ‘Les oracles chaldaïques
1891–2011’, Paris 32011. Note that Porphyry, as quoted by Augustine, also gives very few
ritual theurgical details (“pratiquement rien”), as observed by R. Goulet, Augustin et le De
regressu animae de Porphyre, in: I. Bochet (éd.), Augustin philosophe et prédicateur. Hom-
mage à Goulven Madec, Paris 2012, 67–184 at 77 (quotation).
112 See also Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 158.
113 For Julian and the Mysteries, see also Him. Or. 41,8; R. Smith, Julian’s Gods: Religion and
Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate, London−New York 1995,
114–138; J. Stenger, Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike, Berlin−New York 2009, 156 f.,
345; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 139–141.
114 Cf. Stenger (as in note 113) 216 f.; Becker (as in note 82) 51–57. For the ‘hagiographical
discourse’, see, most recently, M. Van Uytfanghe, L’hagiographie antique tardive: une litté-
rature populaire?, Antiquité Tardive 9, 2001, 201–218; id., La biographie classique et l’ha-
giographie chrétienne antique tardive, Hagiographica 12, 2005, 223–248; id., La Vie
d’Apollonius de Tyane et le discours hagiographique, in: K. Demoen, D. Praet (ed.), Theios
Sophistes. Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, Leiden 2009, 335–374; id., L’origi-
ne et les ingrédients du discours hagiographique, Sacris Erudiri 50, 2011, 35–70.
With the disappearance of the ancient Mysteries, their place in Greek phi-
losophy also changed and no longer occupied the prominent position they
had in the time of Julian or even still that of Eunapius. It would exceed the
space of my contribution and my competence to study now in detail the place
of the Mysteries in the later neo-Platonists. To do so is perhaps not really
necessary anyway, as the picture seems fairly clear. From among the last
heads of the Platonic Academy in Athens, Syrianus (d. ca. AD 436) may still
have known Mysteries from his own experience, but his few surviving works
do not suggest any particular attention to them. What we can notice, though,
is a shift in interest. Instead of the Eleusinian Mysteries as a focus of pagan
attention,118 we can now observe a growing interest in Orphic literature,
although in the Theogonies rather than the Mysteries:119 Orpheus is for the
Neo-Platonic philosophers first and foremost the author of divine poems and
not so much the representative of the Orphic-Bacchic Mysteries.
115 Them. Or. 20 234d–236b; 23 294d; Stenger (as in note 113) 216 n. 121.
116 Mithras: Him. Or. 41,1. Eleusis: Him. Or. 39,13, 63,1; Stenger (as in note 113) 82–84.
117 Him. Or. 35, cf. Stenger (as in note 113) 228.
118 But note Syr. In Hermog. p. 119 Rabe, which shows that he knew the secrecy of the Myste-
ries, surely the Eleusinian ones.
119 See, also on Iamblichus, L. Brisson, El lugar, la función y la significación del orfismo en el
neo-platonismo, in: A. Bernabé, F. Casadesús (ed.), Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un reencuen-
tro, 2 vol., Madrid 2008, 2,1491–1516.
120 For Proclus and Syrianus, see A. Longo, L’elogio di Siriano e i proemi dottrinali procliani,
Ktema 35, 2010, 385–392; G. Staab, Der hymnische Nachruf des Proklos auf seinen Lehrer
Syrianos (IG II/III2 13451) im Lichte des Athener Neuplatonismus, Zeitschrift für Papyrolo-
gie und Epigraphik 190, 2014, 81–96; I. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Anleitung zur Glückseligkeit –
Der spätantike Philosoph Proklos als Lehrer, in: T. Georges et al. (Hrsg.), Bedeutende Leh-
rerfiguren. Von Platon bis Hasan al-Banna, Tübingen 2015, 179–213 at 201–205.
121 Orpheus: Marin. Procl. 26; A. Bernabé, Poetae epici Graeci II.3, Berlin−New York 2007,
370; L. Brisson, Syrianus et l’Orphisme, in: A. Longo (éd.), Syrianus et la métaphysique de
l’antiquité tardive, Naples 2009, 463–497; M. E. Kotwick, Reconstructing Ancient Con-
structions of the Orphic Theogony: Aristotle, Syrianus and Michael of Ephesus on Orpheus’
Succession of the First Gods, Classical Quarterly 64, 2014, 75–90 at 80–83.
122 Bernabé, Poetae epici Graeci II.3 (as in note 121) 359–363; L. Brisson, Proclus et l’Orphisme,
in: J. Pépin, H. D. Saffrey (éd.), Proclus. Lecteur et interprète des Anciens, Paris 1987, 43–
104, repr. in: Brisson, Orphée et l’Orphisme dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Aldershot 1995,
ch. V.
123 Especially, Procl. In Alc. 5 Westerink, Segonds; Prov. 18 Boese, Isaac; In Resp. p. 2,185,
312 Kroll; Theol. Plat. 3,18 p. 64, 6,11 p. 50 with Saffrey, Westerink ad loc.; In Tim. 3,176
Diehl; R. M. van den Berg, Becoming like God according to Proclus’ Interpretations of the
Timaeus, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the Chaldaean Oracles, in: R. W. Sharples, A. Shep-
pard (ed.), Ancien Approaches to Platos’s “Timaeus”, London 2003, 189–202. A more
detailed investigation of Proclus’ knowledge of the Eleusinian Mysteries than can be given
here, is clearly a desideratum.
124 For these interests, see A.-J. Festugière, Proclus et la religion traditionelle, in: R. Chevallier
(éd.), Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à A. Piganiol, 3 vol., Paris 1966, 3,1581–
1590, repr. in: id., Études de philosophie grecque, Paris 1971, 575–584; J. Dillon, The
Religion of the Last Hellenes, in: J. Scheid (éd.), Rites et croyances dans les religions du
monde romain, Genève 2007, 117–147 at 131 f., repr. in: K. Corrigan et al. (ed.), Religion
and Philosophy in the Platonic and Neoplatonic Traditions: From Antiquity to the Early
Medieval Period, Sankt Augustin 2012, 35–52; N. Belayche, Religions de Rome et du mon-
de romain, Annuaire de l’École pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE), Section des sciences
religieuses 120, 2013, 91–98; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 250.
125 Procl. In Resp. 2,345 Kroll.
126 The interest of Proclus in the Mysteries in general has not received much attention, but see
A. Sheppard, Studies on the 5th and 6th Essays of Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic,
Göttingen 1982, 145–161; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 222–229; 254, who
carefully notes the different accents set by Proclus in his commentaries on Plato’s dialogues.
Καί, ὃ πάντων ἐστὶ θαυμαστότατον, ὅτι τῶν θεουργῶν θάπτειν τὸ σῶμα κελ-
ευόντων πλὴν τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐν τῇ μυστικωτάτῃ τῶν τελετῶν, ὁ Πλάτων καὶ
τοῦτο προείληφεν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν κινούμενος τῶν θεῶν. Καθαροὶ γὰρ
ὄντες, φησί, καὶ ἀσήμαντοι τούτου ὃ νῦν σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν,
τῆς μακαριωτάτης ταύτης μυήσεως καὶ ἐποπτείας ἐτυγχάνομεν, πλήρεις ὄντες
τοῦ νοητοῦ φωτός· ἡ γὰρ αὐγὴ ἡ καθαρὰ συμβολικῶς ἡμῖν ἐκφαίνει τὸ νοητὸν
φῶς. Τοῦ μὲν οὖν σώματος παντελῶς ἀφειμένην εἴχομεν τὴν ἐν τῷ νοητῷ
ζωήν· τῇ δὲ τοῦ ἡνιόχου κεφαλῇ πρὸς τὸν ἔξω τόπον ὑπεραίροντες τῶν ἐκεῖ
μυστηρίων καὶ τῆς νοητῆς ἐπληρούμεθα σιγῆς.
And what is the most amazing of all is that, although the theurgists order
us to bury the body except for the head in the most secret of the Myster-
ies, Plato anticipated this as well, moved by the gods themselves. “For
being pure”, he says, “and not being entombed in this thing that we now
carry around with us and call a body”, we obtained this most blessed
myêsis and epopteia, being full of intelligible light. For the pure ray sym-
bolically shines the intelligible light on us. Thus, we possess the life in
the Intelligible, which is completely separated from the body. Raising the
head of the charioteer to the place outside, we are filled with the Myster-
ies there and the intelligible silence (Procl. Theol. Plat. 4,9, p. 30 Saffrey,
Westerink).127
Proclus insists on the structural parallelism between the Mysteries and phi-
losophy. Both can lead to the desired goal, the purification and ascent of the
soul to the One.128 In this passage, he refers to the well-known stages of
the Eleusinian Mysteries, but elsewhere he refers to Chaldaean initiation.129
Unfortunately, he gives no details, and in the end we are left completely in
the dark about what these Chaldaean initiations entailed.
Interestingly, this interest in Mystery language is virtually absent from
the last scholarch of the Platonic Academy, Damascius (ca. 462–after 538),
although he shared Proclus’ interest in Orphica.130 Yet in his own writings
we no longer find the term mystêria and only rarely teletê. However, he does
127 Cf. J. F. Finamore, Proclus on Ritual Practice in Neoplatonic Religious Philosophy, in: A.
Kijewska (ed.), Being or Good? Metamorphoses of Neoplatonism, Lublin 2004, 121–137,
whose translation I have slightly adapted; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 211 f.
As Christoph Riedweg observes (per email 6. 12. 2015): “the Proclus quote sounds very
much Phaedrus-driven (cf. inter alios 249c)”.
128 Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 222.
129 Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy (as in note 24) 222 f.
130 Bernabé, Poetae epici Graeci II.3 (as in note 121) 336 f., cf. L. Brisson, Damascius et l’Or-
phisme, in: Ph. Borgeaud (éd.), Orphisme et Orphée en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt, Genève
1991, 157–209, repr. with addenda in: Brisson, Orphée et l’Orphisme (as in note 122)
ch. VI.
Mysteries also meant that philosophers looked to them for ancient wisdom.
When traditional religion became increasingly pressurized by advancing
Christianity, philosophers even concentrated on the Mysteries as the most
valuable core of ancient religion. The secrecy of their rituals and the lack of
much discursive content made the Mysteries extremely useful to think with.
After the closure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, however, the Late Antique/
Neoplatonic philosophers more and more replaced traditional religious prac-
tice with their own theurgic rituals (and their theories about them). Yet the
attraction of the Mysteries for the general public in our own times shows
that the ancient philosophers were not the only people to have fallen under
the spell of those interesting but mysterious ancient Mysteries.136
APuLEIuS
Metamorphoses
Zimmerman, M. (ed.), Apulei Metamorphoseon Libri XI (Oxford Classical
Texts), Oxford 2012.
DAMASKIOS
Vita Isidori
Athanassiadi, P. (ed.), Damascius, The philosophical history, Athens 1999.
Zintzen, C. (Hrsg.), Damascii Vitae Isidori reliquiae (Bibliotheca graeca et
latina suppletoria), Hildesheim 1967.
DION CHRYSOSTOMOS
Orationes
von Arnim, H. (Hrsg.), Dionis Prusaensis, quem vocant Chrysostomum, quae
exstant omnia, 2 vol., Berlin 1893–1896.
EuNAPIOS
Vitae sophistarum
Goulet, R. (éd.), Eunape de Sardes, Vie de philosophes et de sophistes, 2 vol.
(Collection des universités de France. Série grecque), Paris 2014.
136 For comments and corrections I am most grateful to Mirjam Engert Kotwick and Christoph
Riedweg. Richard Buxton kindly and skilfully corrected my English.
HIMERIOS
Orationes
Colonna, A. (a cura), Himerii Declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum
fragmentis (Scriptores Graeci et Latini), Roma 1951.
IAMBLICHOS
De mysteriis
Saffrey, H. D., Segonds, A. (éd.), Jamblique, Réponse à Porphyre (De
Mysteriis) (Collection des universités de France. Série grecque), Paris
2013.
JuLIAN
Contra Galilaeos
Masaracchia, E. (a cura), Giuliano Imperatore. Contra Galilaeos.
Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione (Testi e commenti 9), Roma
1990.
NuMENIOS
des Places, E. (éd.), Numenius (Collection des universités de France. Série
grecque), Paris 1973.
PLuTARCH
De Iside et Osiride
Griffiths, J. G. (ed.), Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff 1970.
Fragmenta
Sandbach, F. H. (ed.), Plutarch’s Moralia XV (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge MA−London, 1969.
PORPHYRIOS
Contra Christianos
Becker, M. (Hrsg.), Porphyrios, ›Contra Christianos‹. Neue Sammlung der
Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und
Anmerkungen (Texte und Kommentare 52), Berlin−Boston 2016.
von Harnack, A. (Hrsg.), Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, 15 Bücher.
Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate (Abhandlungen der Königlich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrg. 1916. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse. Nr. 1), Berlin 1916.
Fragmenta
Smith, A. (Hrsg.), Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta (Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Stuttgart 1993.
Vita Plotini
Brisson, L., et al. (éd.), Porphyre, La vie de Plotin, 2 vol., Paris 1982–1992.
PROKLOS
Theologia Platonica
Saffrey, H. D., Westerink, L. G. (éd.), Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne,
5 vol. (Collection des universités de France. Série grecque), Paris 1968–
1974.
VARRO
Antiquitates rerum divinarum
Cardauns, B. (Hrsg.), M. Terentius Varro, Antiquitates rerum divinarum,
(Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der
Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse), Mainz 1976.