Lactantius Placidus on the Demiurge and Magic

Lactantius Placidus was a scholiast (commentator) on Statius’ epic poem, the Thebaid. In one passage  of his commentary, he used the Greek word “demiurge”, creator, which through errors of copying became Demogorgon. In the Renaissance, this was thought to be an obscure but important Greek god, and he still figures in Percy Shelley’s 1820 play, Prometheus Unchained. Although it is noteworthy for its influence on much, much later perceptions of Greek mythology, the passage is an unusually good source for late ancient understandings of the notion of a “greatest god” (and especially of so-called syncrasis). The style, I will admit, is atrocious in English and little better in Latin, but this is due to the economy of a commentary, which is not meant to distract from the primary text for too long. Indeed, this scholium is already very uncharacteristically long for Lactantius (which makes him a better reading aid but a poorer historical source than Servius). Due to the obscurity of the text, I have added my own subcommentary.

“And the highest one of the threefold world, whom it is forbidden to know, but I am silent about him” [IV.516 – 517] 

He means the demiurgic (δημιουργός) god, whose name it is not permitted to know. Uncountable philosophers and magi also confirm, to speak the truth, that besides these known gods who are worshipped in the temples, there is another first (principem) and greatest lord, the orderer of the other gods (numinum), of whose kind (genere) are only the Sun and the Moon, while the others, who are named from (?) being moved by the sphere, are illuminated by his spirit. With the greatest authorities on this being Pythagoras and Plato and [the Etruscan sage] Tages himself. 

But they have an awful sense who judge him (=Statius) to have attended to forbidden arts and magical acts. Now, the poet says this “him” in the (quoted) line, as if he knew the name and could produce it, but this he said more for the sake of horror. Now, if it is forbidden to know, it cannot be learned from the poet. 

It is (in fact) allowable for magi that they have “seals” (sphragidas) which they believe to contain the names of the god, but it is impossible for any human to know the name (vocabulum) of the god. But learn what is the truth: is it possible for the name of this god to be known, who by his nod rules everything and contains all things, to whose will they are subject, whose world can neither be measured nor its ends encompassed? But when the magi think that they understand his powers (virtutes), they improperly use individual appellations, as it were through the powers (potestates) of (different) natures, and attempt to name the god as it were by the dignity of a great number of gods (numinum), as it were by the sympathy (affectu) of each god through the disposition of the names (vocabulis), like Orpheus made, and Moyses the high-priest (antistes) of the highest god, and Esaias and people like these. 

The Etrucans confirm that a Nymph who was not yet a bride proclaimed that it was not allowable for a human to hear the name of the greatest god on account of the fragility and pollution of our nature, which she affirmed with proofs, that she named the name of the god in view of others into the ear of a bull, who, as if seized by madness and compelled to roll, died on the spot. 

There are some who say – in secret – that they know it, but they know a wrong (name), since it is not possible for an ineffable thing to be understood.

Magi: It is clear from what follows that this is not a reference to Persian (Zoroastrian) teachings, but to the authors (and practitioners) of certain kinds of private rituals within the Roman empire.

of whose kind (genere) are only the Sun and the Moon: the meaning seems to be that sun and moon are the only celestial bodies who have a similarly exalted role as the demiurge.

spirit: spiritus, for Greek pneuma, is a somewhat unexpected word here. The word has few of the (Christian) connotations that it does today – e.g., is not incorporeal, and has nothing to do with “spirituality”. It seems this is a transposition of the idea that the moon takes its light from the sun. The meaning is quite vague, but the point is that the celestial bodies are not independent beings.

Pythagoras: insofar as pseudo- and neo-Pythagorean texts often ascribed Platonic ideas, including that of the demiurge, to Pythagoras.

Tages: the reference cannot be to a pre-Hellenistic Etruscan text, but there could well have been texts attributed to Tages which took up the idea of the demiurge.

forbidden arts and magical acts: what kind of things were forbidden (nefas), magical, or even punishable by death, was always a matter of controversy. Apuleius’ speech Apologia de magia, in which he defends himself against the charge of having used a love charm, gives probably the best overview of the ways in which magia was conceptualized and contextualized in the Roman empire.

It is (in fact) allowable: Lactantius defends Statius from the charge of having had illicit knowledge by simply defining the problem out of existence—in his opinion, the kind of ineffable secrets that humans are not allowed to know are also literally impossible for them to know.

they have “seals”: I’m uncertain whether there are extant ritual texts that call themselves “seals”, but they often had titles like “stele of X”, “letter of X to Y” to present themselves as something more prestigious than lines of ink on papyrus. One can easily imagine that there were also charms entitled something like “seal of Hermes” or “seal of Pythagoras”.

by his nod rules everything: this is drawn, not from Plato, but from the Homeric depiction of Zeus. (But perhaps via philosophical sources.)

contains all things: again, this is not a Platonic idea. That the greatest god is the world itself is a Stoic doctrine, but apparently the distinction was not so keenly felt outside of strictly philosophical discourse.

his powers (virtutes): the use of virtutes and potestates for gods, especially in the context of explaining their mutual dependence or identification (outside of a genealogical discourse that was felt to be “mythological” rather than “scientific”), is relatively consistent across late ancient Latin authors who delve into such minutiae.

they improperly use individual appellations: the distinction is not between individual gods and universal god, but between the individual names of subordinate gods and the one greatest god. Although Lactantius takes it that the former substantially depend on the latter, he still things that there is a clear distinction between them.

through the powers (potestates) of (different) natures: although this is said this with disapproval, the idea that a god could be worshipped through (per) another was not unheard of. Of course to say that god A was worshipped through god B could imply that they were the same god. Lactantius thinks that the powers of the demiurge, insofar as he even accepts this terminology, are not the same as him, and therefore their names do not apply to him.

by the dignity of a great number of gods (numinum): this is an apt description of the way that many magical texts seem to heap up the dignities (nobilitates), be it names, titles, or stories, of many gods in order to construct a magnificent object of worship.

by the sympathy (affectu) of each god through the disposition of the names (vocabulis): my speculative interpretation is that affectus stands for Greek sumpatheia, which might be better translated as “resonance”. The idea at any rate seems to be that the enumeration of many names creates a kind of powerful harmony.

like Orpheus made: the point is probably that specific lists of names and invocations were attributed to individuals like Orpheus. The choice of authority to which a given text was ascribed was often arbitrary.

Moyses: i.e. Moses, who was a prominent figure in the magic of the Roman period because of the great influence the traditions of Egyptian Jews had on it.

highest god: not necessarily the demiurge; theos hypsistos was a standard Greek appellation for the Jewish god.

Esaias: i.e. Isaiah.

a Nymph who was not yet a bride: “bride” is the literal meaning of Nymph. But a little more detail on this story would have been helpful. One thinks of the courtship of the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, with a nymph who was said to have revealed divine lore to him.