Montag, 11. März 2019

Early Christian Heresiography: An Overview #1

Heresiography is a modern category that can include a wide range of texts, e.g. the Muslim aš-Šahrastānī's 12th-century Book of Sects and Creeds, Confucian complaints about "demon-worshipping vegetarians", or Anglican screeds against the range of Dissenters. But what I will call "early heresiography" here is the prototype on which later European heresiography was modelled, and from which the generalized category was derived. The texts in question are a closely related set of works from the 2nd to the early 5th century of the Christian era, mostly in Greek and Latin. For the moment I will leave aside the Armenian Eznik of Kolb and the varied production of anti-heretical writing in Syriac - solely due to a lack of knowledge on my part, since it would really make more sense to include them in the same discussion than to treat them separately. In a future post, I will also discuss Byzantine and medieval heresiography, which is largely derivative of the earlier works treated here.

The Early Heresiographies

As most ancient Christian genres, heresiography begins in Greek, the first known author of a Refutation of All Heresies being the 2nd-century church father Justin (called Justin Martyr). He also wrote a separate refutation of one specific "heresy", the treatise Against Marcion. Both of these works are now lost, but they are early representatives of two important genres, the catalogue of heresies or heresiography/heresiology, and the anti-heretical monograph. In this case, we are concerned only with the former, which had a model in Greek doxography (another modern term). Doxographies also listed haireseis, but in the earlier sense of philosophical schools. In Christianity, the word quickly acquired the sense of 'deviant Christian group', or in some cases, 'group that deviates from Christianity'. Apart from the difference in content, the central formal difference was that philosophical doxographies sought to describe a multiplicity of opinions, whereas Christian heresiographies catalogued a multiplicity of errors.

The Greek-language heresiographies after Justin are, with (very) rough dates of publication:
180 CE : On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowedge (gnôsis) Falsely So Called by Irenaeus of Lyon
200 CE : The lost Syntagma Against Thirty-Two Heresies by bishop (and at one point antipope) Hippolytus of Rome
200 CE : The Philosophumena or Refutation of All Heresies, still extant, also attributed to Hippolytus of Rome
375 CE : The Panarion ('Medicine-Chest') by Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyprus
As I understand, it is generally thought that Justine is the basis of all these works, with Epiphanius apparently indirectly depending on it through Hippolytus' Syntagma.

The early Latin-language heresiographies are:
3rd cent. CE : Against All Heresies by Pseudo-Tertullian (Victorinus of Pessau?), attached to Tertullian's De praescriptione haereticorum, which is a general treatment of heresies, not a catalogue
384 CE : Filaster/Philastrius' Book of the Various Heresies
428 CE : Augustine's On Heresies
Of these, Ps.-Tertullian gives hardly more than a list, and Augustine only provides fuller accounts for certain groups, like the Manichaeans. Both Ps.-Tertullian and Filaster seem to have used the lost Syntagma by Hippolytus, and Augustine quotes Filaster and Epiphanius by name.

An Overview of the Basic Set of Heresies

Because of the close genetic connections between the different heresiographies, it is possible to speak of a shared heresiographical schema, with some variations and additions. I will start with the 32 sects listed by Pseudo-Tertullian, which seems to be a summary of Hippolytus' lost Syntagma.
Sects 1-4 are Samaritan and Jewish groups: the Dositheans (Samaritan), the Sadducees, Pharisees and Herodians (Jewish; the last seem to be a Christian invention?)
Sects 5-9 connect all Christian heresy to the Jewish figures through the mysterious figure of Simon Magus. This character - who first briefly figures in the Acts of the Apostles - is said to be the teacher of Menander. Saturninus, Basilides and Nicolaus are related to this "lineage" as well, but in rather vague terms. All of these are said to have had their communities of followers, i.e. Simonians, Menandrians, etc.
Sects 10-12 are perhaps the most contrarian of them all, the Ophites, Cainites and (somewhat less so) the Sethites.
Sects 13 is that of Carpocrates - somewhat disconnected from the rest, while sects 14-15, the followers of Cerinthus and Ebion respectively, had some kind of shared history.
Sects 16-19 are all fundamentally dependent on Valentinus; communities of different degrees of independence looked to Ptolemy (17a), Secundus (17b), Heracleon, Marcus (19a) and Colarbasus (19b) as authorities.
Sects 20-23 are those of the shadowy Cerdo, the highly influential Marcion, and of Marcion's erstwhile followers, Lucian and Apelles.
Sects 24-26 are far closer to to the dogmatic positions of the catholic heresiographers. They are the followers of Tatian, the Cataphrygians (with subdivisions including the Cataeschinetans and Cataproclans), the Quartodecimans (followers of Blastus) 
Sects 27-29 differ from the catholics mainly by holding very different beliefs about the nature of Christ, but are not so different as sects 1-23: they are two separate Theodoti (one them called Theodotus the Byzantine), and Noetus. The last is replaced by Praxeas in Ps.-Tertullian.
The exact connections and chronological sequence of these various groups is often left unclear, but heresiographers always imagine the origin of heresy to lie in the founder's prideful corruption of Christianity and/or influence from previous heretics (or other sources), rather than seeking to accounting for any diversity within Christianity. Of course, there really were rivalling communities. But it is notoriously difficult to line up ideas, texts, nominal communal identities and social networks in a satisfactory way. In many cases, supposed extra-Christian "influences" might be better conceptualized as tools used to work out problematic aspects of Christianity. This means that such intellectual tools may be available in a community before they are put to prominent use, which would allow us to concentrate on the concrete uses of ideas in known contexts rather than speculating about a singular moment of origin.

Brief Discussion of Some of the Basic Heresies
5-6. Simon Magus, Menander: Justin claims that in his time there were still followers of Menander - who was a Samaritan and, as I understand it, did not claim to be Christian. Whether the evidence about Simon Magus allows us to confidently connect him to Menander or to posit a real Simonian community seems doubtful to me - but this is a problem to return to in the future.
7-8. Saturninus, Basilides: These certainly were Christians; Clement of Alexandria cites Basilides with some regularity. Although some of his teachings seem in retrospect to place him far outside "normal" Christianity, seeing him as exclusively an enemy of catholic theology neglects the formative influence he must have had as one of the first Christian intellectuals.
9. Nicolaus: The Nicolaites are first mentioned in the Book of Revelation, but it seems that all later claims made about them are based on this passage alone.
16. Valentinus: The Valentinians were clearly very important, and they may have been responsible in some part for the adoption of Platonic terminology in Christianity. Nevertheless, their cosmology was so elaborate that the larger part of it remained limited to people who were conscious of a Valentinian group membership. In many cases - especially in the case of non-catholic groups - it is impossible to say what is due to Valentinian influence and what is owed to common sources.
21. Marcion: Unlike Basilides and Valentinus, who were monists, Marcion taught that there were two independently existing gods: a good one, and a merely just one. This just god, the demiurge or creator, is identified with the God of the Hebrew Bible. (The same is true of the demiurge in Valentinianism, but there he is not an independent being.) In the Islamicate world, Marcionite Christians existed until the tenth century.
24. Tatian: he was orthodox enough that his apologetic Oration to the Greeks survived, but dubious enough that his Diatesseron, a synthesis of the four gospels, was eventually dropped by all surviving churches.
25. Cataphrygians: also known as the Montanists, they were quite influential for some time, and the Latin church father Tertullian at some point became a Montanist.
26. Quartodecimans: their deviation was to have the "wrong" date for Easter - I am uncertain how much of a distinct identity they ever developed in other respects.
Part #2 will discuss the variations and additions to this basic schema in the other heresiographers.

Sonntag, 10. März 2019

"Hermetic" Heresies? Philastrius X and CIII

Philastrius (also known as Filaster) of Brescia - in Latin, Brixia - was one of a number of ancient heresiographers (as we now call them). A heresiography is a catalogue of mostly Christian groups that in some way deviate from what is considered the true church and the correct belief. He is in some ways the most idiosyncratic and probably the most neglected of the Greek and Latin heresiographers. In this first look at his work, I will translate (from the text of Banterle 1991) and comment on heresies 10 and 103 (from a total of 156), both of which mention Hermes Trismegistus, and are an under-utilized source for the (un)history of Hermeticism.
Chapter 10.1. Another (group of heretics) are the Heliognosti, who are also called Deinvictaci. They worship (adorantes) the Sun, and say that the Sunknows all things which are of God, and also that only the Sun illuminates humanity, and that the Son offers them all their food. They do not realize that the Sun makes its course because it is in a position of servitude, (and that this course[?]) is established daily by God through Christ the Lord in the Holy Spirit, about whom it is written: "He who says to the sun that it should rise, and it rises, and that it should not rise, and it does not rise." (Job 9.7)
2. That vain pagan, Hermes Trismegistus, teaches that, after the all-powerful God, humans must worship none other than the Sun. It may be discerned that when he had travelled to the province of the Celts, he taught them, and that he persuaded them of this error so that they succumbed to it.
3. The Jews when they were in captivity (also) used to worship (adorabant) the Sun, as the prophet Hiezechiel condemns the Jews by way of accusation, and declares them guilty of an offence against His majesty, and proves it by witnessing, as is recorded in Scripture.
Heliognosti: roughly, 'Sun-Knowledge-ists'. They are only known from this account.
Deinvictiaci: This seems like a Latin formation from invictus, 'invincible', but I can't say what it might mean. (Is the first element from deus, 'God'? Even if there should be some connection to Sol Invictus, note that there was no "solar religion" devoted to such a god in late antiquity; this was an epithet of the Sun just as many gods titles like "Victor" and "Savior".)
They do not realize: It seems that the actual information about the Heliognosti's beliefs ends here, and that the rest is Filaster's opinions. This sentence's general meaning is clear, but I am somewhat uncertain about how exactly it hangs together syntactically.
Hermes Trismegistus teaches: Since Filaster says that Hermes' role "may be discerned", it seems that he is not reproducing the Heliognosti's own account of their origins, but inventing one. Specifically, he is discrediting them by connecting them to a pagan sage well known as a teacher of astrology, which would undercut their credibility as Christians. (Filaster does not say that they claimed to be Christian, but their inclusion in the catalogue makes little sense otherwise.) We do learn from this, however, that the sect was apparently located in the "province of the Celts", which may be Gaul.
Hiezechiel: Filaster's spelling of Ezekiel.
Chapter 103.1. There is another heresy which, following the vanity of the pagans, professes diverse names of the stars, like that Hermes Trismegistus ("Thrice-greatest") -who is rather to be judged vain than great - and certain poets like him, who deliriously name Comets and Pogonias and Hyades and Goats and others of this kind, while the Scriptura has given us (only) a few names of stars through the words of Job, the blessed prophet, before the pagans transferred the names of the stars from the holy scriptures.
2. And Hiob himself says: "He who made the Pleiades and the Bear and the Evening star and the treasure of the south and Orion and the Morning star." Therefore we take these names alone as announced from the holy scriptures; Scripture did not give the names of all stars, but reserved it to the power of God, declaring it through the prophet by saying thus: "He who enumerates the multitude of stars, and calls the names of all of them."
3. Picking up these few names from the holy scriptures, the poets and false philosophers thereafter dared, seizing (them?) with their lies, to also add many more and proclaim (these names that would be) the seeds of impiety to the world, so that (people) would believe they could hope to be able to comprehend the names of all stars or of most of them from these (= the philosophers? the names?), whereas only God Christ, through whom the Father made all things, will fix and know the names of all stars, and will call the names of each, as is recorded in Scripture.
There is another heresy: Many unnamed "heresies" in Filaster are rather opinions he disagrees with, some of them perhaps his own inventions. In this case, he is complaining about the fact that Christians used the pagan names for stars that are not mentioned in the Bible. Clearly, he was not familiar with Hebrew, since the Latin names of stars used in the Bible are very obviously not "transferred" from the Bible.
Hermes Trismegistus: Named as a prominent author of astrological treatises (now lost except for fragments).
Certain poets: He might mean mythological poetry about the translation of heroes, nymphs, etc. into constellations.
Pogonias: a "bearded" comet.
Goats: "Haedi, a small double star in the hand of the Waggoner (Auriga)" (Lewis & Short).

Freitag, 8. März 2019

Porphyry of Tyre #2: Practical Theosophy

'These things I beg you to conceal as the most unutterable of secrets, for even the gods did not make a revelation concerning them openly, but by enigmas.' (Philosophy from Oracles, 305F Smith, transl. E. H. Gifford)
Introduction

While it seems that Porpyhry's On Images was a short book - I personally think that what is extant probably represents at least half of the original -, his On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles was both considerably longer (multiple volumes = papyrus scrolls) and of broader scope. The former work gave brief interpretations of the meanings of the sculptural representations of the gods. These amount to barely more than a definition of the deity in question. On the Philosophy has a fundamentally analogous structure, being a kind of catalogue of items followed by their respective interpretations, but these items are complete verse oracles, some of them quite long, and their explanations can also run to some length.

The church father Eusebius, our main source for the text, but manifestly a hostile witness, introduces it as follows:
[Porphyry], in the book which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, made a collection of the oracles of Apollo and the other gods and good daemons, which he especially chose out of them as thinking that they would suffice both for proof of the excellence of the [theologoumena]*, and for the encouragement of what he is pleased to call 'Theosophy.' 
*'Theological assertions' - on the meaning of theologia, see Porphyry of Tyre #1.
Now, what is theosophy? If you've heard of modern Theosophy, try to forget all the associations. Consider: what could a pagan philosopher of the third century mean by it, having no tradition of that name to look back to - he may actually have coined the word himself -, and not meaning to found a new tradition either? Pier Franco Beatrice, Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction (2001), p. xxix, puts it as follows:
As Eusebius points out, Porphyry had set himself the [...] aim [...] of exhorting his followers to attain that intellectual wisdom which he, with a word particularly dear to him, liked to call 'theosophy' [...]. John Philoponus confirms Eusebius' information when he says that Porphyry called theurgy 'practical philosophy' (τὴν τε πρακτικὴν θεοσοφίαν, οὕτω τὴν μαγείαν καλῶν).
But this is of little help; intellectual wisdom, well and good, but of what kind? The reference to theurgy is actually a complete red herring, and the Greek that is cited here disproves the English gloss: Philoponus, in a tone of disparagement, says that Porphyry uses "practical theosophy" for what is really (from Philoponus' Christian perspective) mageia, magic. This is drawn from a polemical discussion of pagan forms of divination, and as for Porphyry himself, there is no evidence that he even knew the word theurgy at the time he wrote On the Philosophy, much less that the work was about theurgy. (I will come back to this issue in a moment.)

Well, let me give my own attempt at an explanation. I would say that theosophy is coined on the model of the word 'philosophy', and means something like '(philosophical) knowledge of the gods'; "practical knowledge of the gods" is the technical competence to perform rituals relating to the gods. The usefulness of these words is readily apparent, I think, in a context where there is no term or category like "religion", and where theologia, as I discussed in the previous post on Porphyry, had a confusingly imprecise meaning. Not a few of Porphyry's pagan contemporaries may also have felt, like the Christian Philoponus later did, that some of the practices in question were illicit, or magical; this could have been another motivation to look for a more positive term. One might compare Apuleius' discussion of the term magia in his defense against a charge of magic, the Apologia de magia. He argues that magia in an original sense of knowledge of pious worship is actually a good thing and something he does concern himself with, but that he would never perform illicit magical acts.

Now, what kind of practices were these, and why did Porphyry deem it necessary to write about them, when pagans had managed without his book for centuries? Moreover, what were these oracles, and where did they come from? We find something of an answer to all these questions in the emperor Julian's anti-Christian polemic, Against the Galilaeans, written about a century after On the Philosophy:
For the spirit that comes to men from the gods is present but seldom and in few, and it is not easy for every man to share in it or at every time. Thus it is that the prophetic spirit has ceased among the Hebrews also, nor is it maintained among the Egyptians, either, down to the present. And we see that the indigenous oracles of Greece have also fallen silent and yielded to the course of time. Then lo, our gracious lord and father Zeus took thought of this, and that we might not be wholly deprived of communion with the gods has granted us through the sacred arts (hierôn tekhnôn) a means of enquiry by which we may obtain the aid that suffices for our needs. (transl. Wilmer Cave Wright)
In modern terms, the phenomenon Julian is describing is that of miniaturization: late antique paganism was increasingly a matter, not of large temples and public festivals, but of private practice and the consultation of independent religious experts. This involved the reinvention of temple rituals on a smaller scale - hence miniaturization -, and was influenced by no other group to as great an extent as Egyptian priests*, whether in Egypt itself** or outside it***. Porphyry himself, in his later Epistle to Anebo, critiques many of the practices he had once advocated by associating them with a (probably fictitious) Egyptian priest.

*To the extent that Servius, prologue to the commentary on Aeneid 6, seems to use 'Aegyptus' for '(Egyptian) priest', somewhat in the same way that 'Chaldaeus' meant 'astrologer'.
**As in the (fictional) framing narrative of Pseudo-Thessalus; see Ian Moyer, "Thessalos of Tralles and Cultural Exchange".
***As with the wise priest Kalasiris visiting Delphi in Heliodorus' novel The Ethopian Tale, and - more tangibly - with the Egyptian priest who summoned Plotinus' guardian spirit to appear to the philosopher according to Porphyry's Life of Plotinus.

These miniaturized practices stood in continuity with temple ritual, not just in Egypt, but also elsewhere; Porphyry's text gives me the impression that temple priests in the rest of the Greek-speaking world were substantially involved in this late antique (re-)formulation of ritual practice. Oracles were an important tool in this process, as they created a path of innovation within the existing tradition: an old ritual could be used to receive new revelations, including instructions for methods of divination better suited to novel circumstances, which could be used to receive new revelations, etc.

Theurgy?
Theurgy [...] describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature, performed with the intention of invoking the action or evoking the presence of one or more deities, especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Wikipedia s.v. Theurgy as of 08.03.2019)
I said in the previous post that I don't believe Porphyry knew Plotinus' philosophy when he wrote On Images or On the Philosophy, and I moreover said a moment ago that Porphyry is unlikely to have heard of theurgy at this point. My reasoning for this is slightly circular, but less circular than the opposing argument, which holds that there are some commonalities between the oracles he discusses here and the Chaldaean Oracles* (from which the term "theurgy" originates), and therefore they must all be "theurgic", and Porphyry must be predominantly influenced by the latter. My argument rather runs the opposite way: since the commonalities between the other Porphyrian oracles and the Chaldaean Oracles can in fact be explained in other ways (as I will explain), and Porphyry is known to have made great use of the Chaldaean corpus later on**, it is unreasonable to assume that he would have made no clear references to it (or to theurgy) in a work that has such closely related subjects.

(*Little or no relation to the Chaldaeans = Babylonians; more details below.
**"Later" under the assumption that my chronology is correct.)

In fact, if Porphyry had already been aware of the word theurgy, and had seen it as a peculiar kind of ritual practice, there would have been no need for him to make up another obscure term, "practical theosophy", and he might have been content with the pair "theology and theurgy", which he would use in the Epistle to Anebo (on which in a future post).

That scholars have wanted to call On the Philosophy Neoplatonic and theurgic, rather than, as I think it is, Middle Platonic and simply pagan, is due to some old prejudices against Neoplatonism and, frankly, a lack of good scholarship on pagan thought in late antiquity. There is a mass of writing, admittedly, on pagan philosophical thought, but very little of substance on what the philosophers' contemporaries believed. Traditionally, everything "superstitious" and "oriental" has been attributed to the effete, irrational Neoplatonists, and even as the overtly pejorative language has ebbed away, there is still very little effort to understand the continuity of their ideas with the earlier thought of the Roman period. As a result, all kinds of things that seem superficially mystical or theurgic are just assumed to radiate out from Neoplatonism, even though there is a plethora of relevant sources that either predate Porphyry or, even though they come later, share many important traits with Neoplatonic texts without showing any influence from Neoplatonism itself.

Consider the following passage, from Eunapius' Lives of the Philosophers 474f, widely taken as typical of the role of Chaldaean theurgy in 4th-century Neoplatonism, several decades after Porphyry's death:
At the close of his exposition (the philosopher) Eusebius would add that (dialectical discussions) are the only true realities, whereas the impostures of witchcraft (magganeiai, 'trickery') and magic (goêteuousai, 'sorcery') that cheat the senses are the works of conjurors (thaumatopoiôn, 'miracle-workers') who are insane men led astray into the exercise of earthly and material powers. The sainted (theiotatos, 'most divine') Julian (the later emperor) frequently heard the closing words [...] Julian boldly asked him what was the meaning of the epilogue that he perpetually recited. Thereupon Eusebius spread the sails of the eloquence that was his by nature, and giving free rein to his powers of speech said: 
“Maximus is one of the older and more learned students, who, because of his lofty genius and superabundant eloquence scorned all logical proof in these subjects and impetuously resorted to the acts of a madman. Not long since, he invited us to the temple of Hecate and produced many witnesses of his folly. When we had arrived there and had saluted the goddess: ‘Be seated,’ said he, ‘my well-beloved friends, and observe what shall come to pass, and how greatly I surpass the common herd.’ When he had said this, and we had all sat down, he burned a grain of incense and recited to himself the whole of some hymn or other, and was so highly successful in his demonstration that the image of the goddess first began to smile, then even seemed to laugh aloud. We were all much disturbed by this sight, but he said: ‘Let none of you be terrified by these things, for presently even the torches which the goddess holds in her hands shall kindle into flame.’ And before he could finish speaking the torches burst into a blaze of light. Now for the moment we came away amazed by that theatrical miracle-worker. But you must not marvel at any of these things, even as I marvel not, but rather believe that the thing of the highest importance is that purification of the soul which is attained by reason.” 
However, when the sainted Julian heard this, he said: “Nay, farewell and devote yourself to your books. You have shown me the man I was in search of.” After saying this he kissed the head of Chrysanthius and started for Ephesus.
On the usual view, Eusebius would be one of the last representatives of rational philosophy, soon to be eclipsed by theurgists like Maximus who follow the teaching of the Chaldaean Oracles. But although the word theurgy is connected with Maximus elsewhere in Eunapius, that word does not appear here; Eusebius sees his practices as thaumatopoiia, 'miracle-working', we might almost say 'stage magic'. This does not necessarily tell us anything about how Eusebius used the word theurgy, especially about whether he used it in a positive or negative sense (if he used it much at all, which may not be the case). Eusebius' concern is rather that Maximus, rather than striving for philosophical insight, is chasing after showmanlike effect, and the disdain for 'miracle-workers' was very old.

The best evidence that this is not the same as a dispute between rational and theurgic philosophy comes from Pollux' Onomasticon, the first extant text to use the Chaldaean word theourgos, 'theurgist'. (The Chaldaean Oracles themselves, the work of a 2nd-century CE father and son team, Julian the Chaldaean and Julian the theurgist, come to us only in scattered fragments.)

Pollux includes theurgists in a list of names for "the servants of the gods" (1.14):
priests (hiereis), temple-custodians (neôkoroi), temple-attendants (zakoroi), interpreters (pro-phêtai), expounders (hypo-phêtai), sacrificers (thytai), initiators (telestai), sacrificer-priest (hierourgoi), purifiers (kathartai), diviners (manteis), god-diviners (theomanteis), oracle-singers (khrêsmôidoi), oracle-sayer (khrêsmologoi), oracle-giver (khrêsmodotai), all-hallowed ones (panageis), fire-carriers (pyrphoroi), assistants (hupêretai), theurgists (theourgoi); the word thuêpoloi being rather poetical. But the female (servants of the gods are called) priestesses, prophetesses, and prophantessess of mystical acts; and the rest (of the appellations) are (of) common (form) with the male ones. The prophetess in Delphi specifically is (called) Pythia.
These are all respectable positions, and Pollux is mostly thinking of people employed at a temple; the theourgoi are even etymologically parallel to the theo-manteis and the hier-ourgoi. While we could not guess from this passage what exactly a theurgist does, the entry is at any rate not repeated in a later passage (7.188f), where independent, itinerant and (partly) disreputable ritual experts are listed:
Begging-priests (agyrtai), begging-priests (mên-agyrtai), begging-priests of the goddess Meter (mêtr-agyrtai), begging-priestcraft, collection of money for the gods, to collect by begging.
Portent (teras), diviners from portents (teraskopoi), interpretation of portents (teraskopikê, teraskolia, teraskopia, teratologia), of portentous (teratologôi) nature - but you would also say portent-interpreting (teratologôi) man -, monstrous/portentous birth (teratogonia), interpreters of portents (terôn hypokritai), from whom (derives) also the (verb) "to interpret portents" (terateuesthai). diviners (manteis)*, diviners from barley-meal (alphitomanteis), star-diviners (astromanteis), night-diviners (nyktomanteis), diviners by ventriloquism (sternomanteis), spindle-diviners (sphondylomanteis), diviners from flour (aleuromanteis); Philippides mentions diviners by a sieve (koskisomanteis). Magnes, in The Lydians, (says) "for dream-interpreting deliverers" (oneirokritaisin analytais), dream-interpreting purifieresses (kathartriai oneiropoloi), interpreters of dreams (oneiratôn hypokritai). Diviners from birds (orneoskopoi, oiônistai, ornithoskopoi, oiônopoloi). 
Sacrificers (thytai), Sacrifice-lovers (philothytai), magi, sorcerers (goêtes), exegetes**, purifiers (kathartai), initiators (telestai), "cleaner" (apomaktai)***, "cleaneress", and the verb "to clean". 
Miracle-worker (thaumatopoios), miracle-working, craftsman of miracles.
*Repeats from Onomasticon 1.14 are underlined.
**Of ritual regulations.
***Only here in such a sense, so somewhat unclear.

We cannot say whether Eusebius would have located the theurgists where Pollux did, but we know that he located Maximus among the magi, the sorcerers, and the miracle-mongers - exactly the sort of folk against whom the Christian church father Hippolytus of Rome had written in the early third century, before Porphyry and certainly without any reference to the Julians and their Chaldaean lore:
And that a fiery Hecate seems to career through air, (the magos) contrives in the mode following. Concealing a certain accomplice in a place which he wishes, and taking aside his dupes, he persuades them to believe him[], alleging that he will exhibit a flaming demon riding through the air. Now he exhorts them immediately to keep their eyes fixed until they see the flame in the air, and that then, veiling themselves, they should fall on their face until he himself should call them; and after having given them these instructions, he, on a moonless night, in verses speaks thus:
"Infernal, and earthy, and supernal Bombo, come!
[Einodiê, Trioditi], and brilliant one, that strays by night;
Foe of radiance, but friend and mate of gloom;
In howl of dogs rejoicing, and in crimson gore,
Wading 'mid corpses through tombs of lifeless dust,
Panting for blood; with fear convulsing men.
Gorgo, and Mormo, and [Mênê, 'moon'], and of many shapes,
Come, propitious, to our sacrificial rites!"
And while speaking these words, fire is seen borne through the air; but the spectators)being horrified at the strange apparition, and covering their eyes, fling themselves speechless to earth. But the success of the artifice is enhanced by the following contrivance. The accomplice whom I have spoken of as being concealed, when he hears the incantation ceasing, holding a kite or hawk enveloped with tow, sets fire to it and releases it. The bird, however, frightened by the flame, is borne aloft, and makes a proportionably quicker flight, which these deluded persons beholding, conceal themselves, as if they had seen something divine. The winged creature, however, being whirled round by the fire, is borne whithersoever chance may have it, and burns now the houses, and now the courtyards. Such is the divination of the sorcerers (magôn, 'magi').
(Refutation 4.35.4f-36.2, transl. John Henry MacMahon)
The equivalence is not exact, but we can see that Maximus was participating in a tradition of flashy practices relating to (among other gods) Hecate that were seen by some as trickery, by others as perfectly respectable and in fact unusually holy. That Maximus' exploit took place in a temple of Hecate suggests that he would have rather called what he did priestly art (hieratikê) or, in Julian's term, sacred art (hiera tekhnê). For the moment, then, let us say that theurgy is simply another synonym for this category, and leave discussions of the niceties for future posts. I will try to pay attention to how the practices in On the Philosophy line up with Pollux' categories, and we can use that later to compare them to rituals that are called "theurgic".

Porphyry's Introduction to On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

The fragments of Porphyry's work are too numerous to deal with in one post, especially when I have spent so many words on simply contextualizing it. But I at least want to give his introduction here, to get something of a sense of how the Tyrian himself wanted his work to be seen:
Sure, then, and steadfast is he who draws his hopes of salvation (sôthênai, 'being saved') from this (unclear reference) as from the only sure source, and to such thou wilt impart information without any reserve. For I myself call the gods to witness, that I have neither added anything, nor taken away from the meaning of the responses, except where I have corrected an erroneous phrase, or made a change for greater clearness, or completed the metre when defective, or struck out anything that did not conduce to the purpose; so that I preserved the sense of what was spoken untouched, guarding against the impiety (asebeian) of such changes, rather than against the avenging justice that follows from the sacrilege (hierosylias). 
And our present collection will contain a record of many doctrines of philosophy, according as the gods declared the truth to be; but to a small extent we shall also touch upon the practice of divination, such as will be useful both for contemplation, and for the general purification of life. And the utility which this collection possesses will be best known to as many as have ever been in travail with the truth, and prayed that by receiving the manifestation of it from the gods they might gain relief from their perplexity by virtue of the trustworthy teaching of the speakers. (303F)
As with On Images, so the preface to On the Philosophy also declared the work to be appropriate only for worthy readers:
And do thou endeavour to avoid publishing these above all things, and casting them even before the profane for the sake of reputation, or gain, or any unholy flattery. For so there would be danger not only to thee for transgressing these injunctions, but also to me for lightly trusting thee who couldst not keep the benefits secret to thyself. We must give them then to those who have arranged their plan of life with a view to the salvation (sôtêrian) of the soul. (304F)
(Note that, although Porphyry was very familiar with Christianity and influenced by it at least in minor ways, "salvation of the soul" is not as Christian a collocation as it sounds - the phrase already occurs in Plato's Laws 909a: there he suggests that those of evil opinions, like would-be tyrants and "those who plot by means of peculiar initiation rites", are to be held in sôphronistêria, 'houses of correction', for the sake of their soul's "salvation" or "saving".)
These things I beg you to conceal as the most unutterable of secrets, for even the gods did not make a revelation concerning them openly, but by enigmas. (305F Smith)
This admonition to secrecy is not just a common feature of certain strands of philosophical writing, especially when the gods are concerned, but also of ritual texts (such as the so-called Greek Magical Papyri) and divination manuals (e.g. Firmicus Maternus' Mathesis, on astrology). Since On the Philosophy belongs in all three genres, this is a fitting generic marker indeed.

Montag, 4. März 2019

Olympiodorus #1: A Pagan Master under Christian Rule

The intellectual history of late antiquity is often discussed under headings like “the decline of polytheism” which suggest a slow but steady descent into obscurity. But a decline in numbers should not be confused with a decline in importance: both for their contemporaries and (much more, even) for posterity, the pagan philosophers of the 5th and 6th centuries were some of the most influential intellectuals. Among their number, Olympiodorus of Alexandria (ca. 500 until after 565 CE) may not rank as one of the greatest, at least by any modern standard. But it is remarkable that, less than a century before Alexandria was conquered by the early Muslims (around year 640 of the Christian Era/year 18 after the Hijra), Christian families still were still sending their children to learn from a pagan master, and that he neither had to dissemble nor to stay silent about his beliefs.

In fact, Olympiodorus is arguably representative of an increasing influence of pagan learning on Christian thought. This is indisputable when it comes to the role of Aristotelian logic, which later generations of Byzantine and Armenian intellectuals learned from the commentaries of Olympiodorus and his successors Elias, David, and Pseudo-Elias/Pseudo-David (Ps-ED for short), who did not deviate much from him, as much as they learned it from from Aristotle’s own works.

Extant works

From Olympiodorus himself, we have not only lectures on Aristotle’s Categories, the first piece in the Aristotelian curriculum, which is preceded by a remarkably clear Introduction to philosophy as a whole (the so-called Prolegomena), but also a commentary on Plato’s Alcibiades, the first work of the Platonic curriculum, which begins with a short Life of Plato. Similar basic introductions to (Neoplatonic) philosophy from earlier Neoplatonism do not really exist, and in my opinion would provide a very useful resource in modern teaching about ancient philosophy, but one that has so far been inaccessible because of a lack of translations. (Of course, now that we have a translation, it is unfortunately so expensive that it is only slightly less inaccessible.)

Beside these two elementary commentaries, records of his lectures on Aristotle’s Meteorology, as well as on Plato’s Phaedo and Gorgias are also extant. Of two more Aristotelian commentaries (on De interpretatione and on De anima), only slight remains exist.

Finally, an astrological work, lectures on the Isagogica by Paul of Alexandria, has been convincingly ascribed to Olympiodorus “or one of his co-workers” (Westerink, Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564, p. 6) in recent decades (the manuscripts name the author as Heliodorus).

His works are the first to employ a format that was popular among commentators on philosophical and medical works for the next century or so, and which also used by the alchemist (pseudo-)Stephanus and the Syrian theologian Theodore of Raithu. Each lecture – as these commentaries all directly or indirectly reflect oral exegesis of source texts – is given the heading Praxis 1, 2, etc., and each praxis is divided into theoria (the lecturer’s own remarks about the subject of the lesson) and the lexis (a close commentary on the primary text, often involving points of grammar, vocabulary, etc.).

Spurious works

Apart from the influence on logic, commentary format, and astrology (the latter rather minor, I think), the commentary on the Meteorology also shows the philosopher's own knowledge of alchemy – a subject that seems to have been entirely dominated by Christians in earlier centuries and was never mentioned by Early and Middle Neoplatonists –, and there are two alchemical works spuriously ascribed to Olympiodorus. This seems to represent a broadening of subjects pagan philosophers interested themselves in, as well as a new peak of their prestige, which led an anonymous Christian writer in a predominantly Christian genre to borrow the name of a pagan master to gain authority.

Another pseudo-Olympiodorus is the author of a work which the great Syrian philosopher-translator Ḥunayn bin Isḥāq (808–873 CE) translated into Arabic and his son Isḥāq bin Ḥunayn (ca. 830–910) revised. It is a reworking of Olympiodorus’ commentary on the Meteorology. It was edited by Α. Badawī (ed.), Commentaires sur Aristote perdus en grec et autres èpîtres, Beyrouth 1971, and discussed in P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab World, 1999. As far as I know, there are no translations, but I do not expect that it contains anything of relevance for this post anyway. Beside pseudo-Olympiodorus, a direct translation of Olympiodorus’ commentary into Arabic also existed, but is now lost.

What these posts are about

Rather than make a reply to previous discussions of Olympiodorus’ religious ideas, which would honestly just be too frustrating because of how many bad takes exist in the secondary literature, I will present here all the passages of relevance to the topic that I have found in his works, with minimal commentary. I may well have overlooked a couple of minor things, but hopefully nothing of real importance. This post will contain only the first few excerpts, the mass of the other works will be contained in further posts; and the alchemical pseudo-Olympiodoran works I will translate at some point in the future, diis volentibus.

Excerpts from the Prolegomena to On Categories (transl. Gertz 2018)

The Division of (Aristotelian) Philosophy. From Lecture 2:
We employ a division of philosophy <into> both theoretical and practical sciences and maintain that natural science, theology*, and mathematics belong to the theoretical sciences. The lecture courses called Physics, On Generation and Corruption, On the Heavens, Meteorology, and On the Soul treat natural science. The Mechanical and Optical Problems are examples of mathematical writings. The Metaphysics is an example of theological writings. Ethics, household management, and politics belong to the practical sciences. The ethical works include e.g. the so-called Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics; the ones concerning household management, e.g. Aristotle’s Household Manager (he himself gave it that title); the political, e.g. his Statesman, which is a different work from the 250 constitutions we mentioned before – for these are not universal. In this way one can make a division between theoretical and practical sciences. Some logical treatises teach the method itself, while others contribute to the method, and others again purify it. This method is the so-called ‘method of proof’, the so-called Posterior Analytics, but the Categories, On Interpretation, and Prior Analytics contribute to it. The Sophistical Refutations, Topics, and the arts of Rhetoric and the book called On Poetry purify the method.
*Theologia is simply metaphysics in this context.

On Pseudepigraphy. From Lecture 2:
Sometimes books are falsely attributed because of the loyalty of students towards their teacher, as with all the writings that are ascribed to Pythagoras. For Pythagoras did not leave behind any writings of his own: he would say that one should not leave behind soulless writings, since they cannot stand up for themselves, but ensouled writings instead (i.e. students), which are able to fight for themselves and their teachers. So his students composed writings and ascribed them to the name of Pythagoras out of loyalty. And for this reason all the writings that circulate under the name of Pythagoras are misattributions.
The Kinds of Real Beings. From Lecture 4:
[T]here are as many opinions [about what the Categories is about] as there are real beings. But these are three in kind, either things (pragmata) or thoughts (noêmata) or words (phônai): things are created by god*, thoughts by intellect, and words by the soul.
*Literally, ‘the god’. Olympiodorus means gods collectively, as when we say, archaically, “the inventions of man” for the inventions of humankind. Almost everywhere that the translators put “god” or “God”, this has to be understood.

From On Categories (my translations, as no published translation exists)

Here it may be mentioned that Olympiodorus regularly uses the expression σύν θεῷ sun theôi, ‘with god’, like his Christian contemporaries teaching in Alexandria. It is particularly used at the start and close of sections, in the sense of “I will explain this topic today, if the god helps me”, and “I have brought the lecture to an end, thanks to the god.” The missing article (one would expect sun tôi theôi usually) may be explained as being originally from Jewish/Christian usage (the article of theos is often omitted in the New Testament, for example, after a preposition), but it was hardly perceived as such by Olympiodorus.

What Aristotle, Rituals and Mythical Poetry Have in Common. From Lecture 10:
"Of things themselves some are predicable of a subject" (1a20) [...] he stirred up a puzzle for the exegetes, why in the world he used unclear words, when he was able to name these things (clearly) as substance, accident, universal, particular. And of this certain people say that one reason is this: that he spoke unclearly on account of this, to not make his own philosophy accessible to all, and as in the sacred rites, there are curtains*, and in poems, the myths, so also was the unclearness contrived by him here.
But a second reason, [...]
*Parapetasmata; this is conceptually as well as terminologically close (and I expect related) to the Latin use of integumentum, 'cover', for the external form of a myth as opposed to its underlying real meaning, which allowed medieval theologians to make use of overtly pagan sources with great freedom and creativity (but little fidelity). The idea that Aristotle wrote in an obscure fashion deliberately and with good reason was commonly accepted among the Neoplatonists.

Nature the Craftsperson. From Lecture 18:
... nature fabricated (dêmiourgêsan) the eye...
Thales the Astronomer. From Lecture 25:
...the astronomy of Thales*...
*Along with an anecdote told in the commentary on Gorgias, this seems to show that for Olympiodorus, Thales was primarily an astronomer/astrologer. There was a pseudonymous treatise on the subject current in antiquity, but even so, the mention of him as the prototypical astronomer (alongside Hippocrates as the prototypical physician, in this case) is quite unusual.

Finally, it is interesting (and probably a conscious choice in light of his Christian audience) that Olympiodorus never uses the definition of gods as immortal rational animals, which was a staple of introductory logical texts. (Unless I just missed it?)

Samstag, 2. März 2019

Res Divinae #2 - Postscript

Not all anxiety in Tibullus is transferred to the realm of abnormal ritual; but where it is represented in the neutral register, it is less than serious:
Have I wronged the godhead of Venus by aught that I have said, and does my tongue now pay the penalty of sin? Can they say of me that I have wickedly invaded an abode of gods and plucked the garland from the sacred altar? Am I guilty, then I will not shrink to fall prone before her temple and to press kisses on its hallowed threshold, nor to crawl on suppliant knees along the earth and strike my head against the sacred door-posts. (1.2.79-86)
This self-effacement comes in a poet addressed to the (fictional?) lover Delia, who is spurning Tibullus. We see once more how, typical of the tone of elegy, perfectly acceptable ideas - that profaning holy things provokes divine punishment, which can be averted by submissively begging for forgiveness - are employed with an irreverent air (Tibullus is not really in doubt about whether he has robbed a temple!) but without subverting the ideas themselves.

Res Divinae #2: An Overview Courtesy of Tibullus

Disclaimer: this post was written more hurriedly than usual, and I have not had the stomach to go over it again. Constructive criticism is very, very welcome.

Introduction
In the series Res Divinae, I will attempt to sketch out my approach for conceptualizing “Roman religion”. But since Religious Studies research of the last few decades has clearly shown that the term “religion” is anachronistic and distorting when applied to antiquity1, I will try to start not from modern categories but from ancient ones. The most general term I can think of that refers to largely the same things that we mean by “Roman religion” is res divinae, ‘divine things’, and so I have chosen to define this as the subject of study.
1 see especially Brent Nongbri, Before Religion. A History of a Modern Concept (2013), and Carlin A. Barton & Daniel Boyarin, Imagine No Religion. How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities (2016).
I originally intended the second post in this series to be more of a systematic, terminological overview of Roman res divinae - but that, on consideration, turned out to require a lot more work than I could do in a brief timespan, and I did not want this series to be abandoned right after post one. So instead, I will give a different kind of overview, namely of all the content that might be called "religious" in one of the canonical Latin poets. The poet in question is Tibullus (ca. 55-19 BCE), a man of equestrian rank (above the commoners, below the senatorial order), who died in the same year as the great Vergil. One of my goals here is to substantiate something I said previously, namely "that superstition was" - and is - "often associated with foreigners, women, and the uneducated" and that "to reassert these kinds of delineations between norm and deviation without critical reflection [is] irresponsible."

The idyl of normative ritual

Now, Tibullus himself does not actually distinguish Roman religion from (non-Roman or sub-religious) superstition; that is a modern framework (although it takes up terminology from Cicero). But he certainly does make evaluative distinctions between different kinds of ritual and devotional practices. The category I will call "normative" has a few distinctive properties:
  • entirely positive evaluation
  • nostalgic overtones
  • association with well-ordered* society and family
(*according to a patriarchal Roman view)

All this is encapsulated by elegy 1.10.15-32:
Yet save me, Lares [household gods] of my fathers! Ye too did rear me when I ran, a little child, before your feet. And feel it not a shame that ye are made of but an ancient tree-stock. Such were ye when ye dwelt in the home of my grandsire long ago. Then faith was better kept, when a wooden god stood poorly garbled in a narrow shrine. His favour was won when a man had offered a bunch of grapes as first fruits, or laid the spiky garland on the holy hair. And one who had gained his prayer would with his own hands bring the honey-cake, his little daughter following with the pure honeycomb in hers. 
O Lares, turn the bronze javelins away from me [and as thankoffering for my safe return shall fail (…)] and a hog from the full sty, a farmer’s victim. With it will I follow in clean apparel, and bear the basket bound with myrtle, even as the myrtle binds my hair. Thus may I find favour in your eyes. Let another be stout in war and, Mars to aid him, lay the hostile chieftains low, that, while I drank, he may tell me of his feats in fighting and draw the camp in wine upon the table.
(Throughout this post, I will be citing Cornish et al.'s 1913 Loeb Classical Library translation)

As we can see, for Tibullus, good order means peace, and so we might say that the ideal norm of piety Tibullus builds up is idyllic - comparable to Vergil's bucolic Eclogues rather than the martial Aeneid. Tibullus 1.1.7-40 contextualizes the worship of the Lares in a rural setting:
When the time is ripe, let me plant the tender vines and the stout orchard trees with my own deft hands, a countryman indeed. Nor let hope disappoint me, but ever vouchsafe the heaped-up corn and rich new wine to fill my vat. For I bend in worship wherever flowery garlands lie on deserted tree-stock in the fields or old stone at a crossway, and of all my fruit that the fresh season ripens I set the first before the country’s guardian god. Ceres of the yellow hair, from my farm comes a spiky wreath to hang before thy temple doors. And to the fruit-laden gardens is given red Priapus as watch, to scare the birds with cruel billhook.
Ye too, my Lares, who watch over an estate, now poor though thriving once, receive your gifts. Then a slain heifer was peace-offering for uncounted beeves; a lamb is now the humble victim for my narrow plot of ground. A lamb shall fall for you, and round it the country youth shall shout: “Huzza! Send us good crops and wine!”
But ye, ye thieves and wolves, have mercy on my scanty flocks; from great herds must ye take your spoil. Here is all I have to make the yearly expiation for my herdsman, and to sprinkle over Pales the milk that makes her kind. Be with me, Gods: nor scorn gifts from a humble board and on clean earthenware. Earthen were the drinking-cups which the ancient yokel first made himself, modelling them from pliant clay.
Priapus, whose name is Greek, and Pales, who has no Greek equivalent, appear alongside as part of this ideal scenario of simple, peaceful existence. It is not quite right, then, to say that this is an evocation of Rome before Greek influence - the poet Tibullus is not really able to evoke rusticity without the use of Greek models. This is even clearer in 2.1, a description of the Ambarvalia, a Roman festival for the purification of the fields, which I want to cite in its entirety:
All present hush. We purify the crops and lands in the fashion handed down from our ancestors of old. Come to us, Bacchus, with the sweet grape cluster hanging from thy horns, and, Ceres, wreathe thy temples with the corn-ears. 
Upon this holy day let earth, let ploughman rest. Hang up the share and let the heavy labour cease. Loose from the yokes their straps; now by the well-filled manger must the oxen stand with garlands round their heads. Let all things be at the service of the god; let no spinner choose to set her hand to the task of wool. Ye too I bid stand far away—let none be nigh the altar to whom Love’s goddess gave her pleasures yesternight. The powers above ask purity. Clean be the raiment that ye come in, and clean the hands to take the waters from the spring. Mark how to the shining altar goes the holy lamb, and behind the white procession; the olive binds their hair. 
Gods of our sires, we cleanse the farms, we cleanse the farming folk. Do ye outside our boundaries drive all evil things. Let not our sown fields mock the reaping with defaulting blade. Let not our slow lambs fear the swifter wolves. Then the sleek rustic, full of trust in his teeming fields, will heap huge logs upon his blazing hearth; and a young troop of home-born slaves, fair signs that show a lusty yeoman, will play about and build them huts of sticks before the fire. My prayers are heard. See in the favouring entrails how the liver-markings bear a message that the gods are gracious*.
(*animal sacrifice often entailed divination from the victim's entrails.) 
Now from the old bin bring me out the smoked Falernians* and loose the bands of the Chian jar*. Let drinking be the order of the day. Now we keep holiday, and to be tipsy is no shame, nor to carry ill our unsteady feet. But let each one, as he drinks, cry, “Health to Messalla!” and in every utterance be the name of the absent heard.
(*types of wine.)
Messalla, now the talk of all for thy triumph over the race of Aquitaine, whose victories cover thy unshorn ancestors with glory, hither come and breathe upon me while with my song I pay thanksgiving to the powers that tend the fields. 
I sing the country and the country’s gods. They were the guides when man first ceased to chase his hunger with the acorns from the oak. They taught him first to put the planks together and cover his humble dwelling with green leaves. They too, ’tis told, first trained bulls to be his slaves, and placed the wheel beneath the wain. Then savage habits passed away; then was the fruit-tree planted, and the thriving garden drank the water from the rills. Then the golden grapes gave up their juices to the trampling feet, and sober water was mixed with cheering wine. 
From the country comes our harvest, when in heaven’s glowing heat the earth is yearly shorn of her shock of yellow hair. Through the country flits the bee in spring-time, heaping the hive with flowers in her zeal to fill the combs with the honey sweet.
Then first the countryman, sated with ploughing without cease, sang rustic words in time and tune; and, full of meat, first composed a song on the dry oatpipes to chaunt before the gods that his hands had dressed. And, Bacchus, it was a countryman that first dyed his skin with red vermilion and wound through the dance with unpractised art. It was he too that, offering from all his fold a gift to tell about, the he-goat, leader of the flock, gained increase for his scanty wealth. 
In the country the lad first made a circlet from the flowers of spring and placed it on the ancient Lares’ head. Of the country too is the sheep that will ere long make trouble for gentle girls with the soft fleece it wears upon its glistening back. Thence comes the toil of women’s hands, the weighed wool and the distaff, and the spindle that twists its work ’twixt thumb and finger; and the weaving woman in unremitting service to Minerva sings while the loom clatters as the clay weights swing. 
Desire too himself, they say, was born amid the flocks and the fields and the unbridled mares. There first he practised with prentice bow. Ah, me! what expert hands has he now! Nor are beasts his mark as heretofore. His joy is to pierce maids’ hearts and make the bold man bite the dust. He strips the young of their wealth; the old he forces to shameful speech at the threshold of an angry fair. He guides the girl who stealthily steps by prostrate watchers and comes alone to her lover in the night, high strung with fear, her feet feeling her path before her while her hand is advanced to find passage through the dark. 
Ah, wretched they upon whom our god bears hardly; and happy is he on whom Love in his graciousness breathes gently. Come to our festal cheer, holy lord. But, prithee, lay aside thy arrows, and far from us put away thy burning torch.  
Do ye chaunt the god whom all adore, and loudly call him for your herd. Let each one call him for the herd aloud, but in a whisper for himself. Or aloud too for himself: for the merriment of the throng and the bent pipe’s Phrygian note will drown the prayer. So take your sport. Now Night is yoking her team; and on their mother’s car follow the golden Stars, a capering troupe, while behind comes Sleep the silent, enwrapped in dusky wings, and black Visions of the night with wavering steps.
This poem provides both the fullest picture of Tibullus' idyllic norm and connections to two other domains - one, that of the warlike Roman state (in the person of Messalla), the other, that of Love. While the former does not play a prominent role in elegy, the latter does, and its power over Tibullus explains why he concerns himself with any rituals outside of the ideals we have seen so far.

The anxiety of abnormal rituals

In elegy 1.5.9-36, we see how for the literary persona of the poet, bound by his love to Delia, the calm of rural life becomes nothing more than an idle fantasy, while he remains in the anxiety of an unstable urban setting:
It was I, they say, whose vows snatched thee from peril when thou layest exhausted in sickness’ gloomy hold. It was I that scattered all about thee the cleansing sulphur, the beldame first chaunting her magic spell. I appeased the cruel Dreams that had thrice to be propitiated with offering of holy meal, that they might work no harm. In woollen headdress and ungirdled tunic I made nine vows to Trivia in the stilly night. All have I paid; but another hath now my love. He is the fortunate one, and reaps the fruit of all my prayers. Yet I used to dream in my folly that, if thou wert spared, there would be a happy life for me. But a god said No. 
“In the country,” I said, “I will live. My Delia shall be there, to keep watch upon the grain, while the threshing-floor winnows the harvest in the blazing sun; or she shall watch the grapes in the brimming troughs when the quick feet tread the gleaming must. She shall learn to count the flock; she shall teach the prattling serf-child to play on a loving mistress’ lap. To the god that tends the country she will know what gifts to offer—for vines a cluster, spiked ears for cornfield, drink offering for flock. All folk shall she direct, and all things be her care. I shall love to be but a cipher in the house. Hither shall come my own Messalla. From chosen trees shall Delia pull him down sweet fruit. In homage to his greatness she shall give him zealous tendance, and prepare and carry him the repast, herself his waiting-maid.” 
Such were my dreams and prayers, now tost by East Wind and by South over all Armenia’s scented land.
The rituals performed by or for Tibullus here do not differ from normative rituals by their origin or even necessarily in terms of who performed them, but by their associations within Roman culture. They are abnormal or irregular, in other words, not because they fall outside normalcy but because they are not part of what Tibullus imagines as the norm. In contrast, they are:
  • evaluated as ambivalent or negative
  • strange, scary or uncomfortable rather than nostalgic
  • associated with women's independence and social instability
Perfectly traditional, elite-associated rituals can also become loci of anxiety if they fall into these criteria, as with the worship of Bona Dea, the 'Good Goddess', which excluded male participants. In elegy 1.6.15-23, Tibullus is playing with the trope that women use the pretence of personal devotions to meet with lovers:
And thou, the unwary mate of a faithless wife, watching me with the rest that she may never sin, take care that she talk not much or oft with young men, or recline with loose robe and bosom bare; nor use nods to deceive thee, and see she take not wine on her fingers and trace signs on the table’s round. Have thy fears when she goes out often, or if she say that she would witness the rites of the Good Goddess which no male must go nigh. But trust her to my keeping; and I, I only, will attend her to that altar.
And on the other hand the male speaker's address to a less traditional deity, the Egyptian Isis, is masked as an irregularity, occasioned only by his lover's commitment to the goddess (Tibullus):
What help is there now for me in thy Isis, Delia? what help in the bronze that was clashed so often in thy hands? Or what avails it that in thy dutiful observance of her rites, as I remember well, thou didst bathe in clean water and sleep apart in a clean bed? 
Now aid me, goddess, now—that thou canst heal saith a crowd of painted panels in thy temples—that my Delia may pay the nightly vigils of her vow, sitting all swathed in linen before thy holy door, and twice in the day be bound to chaunt thy praise with loosened tresses for all to mark amid the Pharian throng. And be it mine many times to stand before the shrine of my sires’ Penates* and offer incense, as the months come round, to the old Lar of my home.
(*a different kind of household gods.)

Once the moment of crisis is over, in other words, Tibullus will go back to "normal" gods - which we may believe if we can imagine a life without problems. Equally contrived, on the other hand, is the idea that his lover (Nemesis, not Delia, in this case) will make him give up his house and the synonymous household gods, and make him drink venena (poisons/harmful spells; elegy 2.4.53-60):
Yea, if she bid me sell the home of my forefathers, then, gods of the household, ye must stoop to be labelled at her world. All Circe’s, all Medea’s potions, all the herbs that the land of Thessaly bears, even the hippomanes which drips from the yearning mare when Venus breathes passion into unbridled herds, yea, a thousand herbs beside may my Nemesis mingle in the draught, and, so she look kindly on me, I will drink.
The nature of venena, at least as a poet like Tibullus imagined it, is summed up quite well in the following passage, 1.8.17-22:
Has some hag (anus, 'old woman') bewitched (devovit) thee with her spells (carminibus, 'songs'), or with blanching herbs, in the silent night hours? Incantation draws the crops from the neighbour’s field; incantation checks the course of the angry snake; incantation seeks to draw the moon down from her car, and would do it but for the blows on the echoing bronze.
Elegy 1.2.41-64 gives a fuller profile of the saga ("witch"):
And yet none [who tell him about our affair] will thy spouse believe, as the honest witch has promised me from her magic rites. I have seen her drawing stars from the sky. Her spells turn the course of the hurrying stream. Her chaunting cleaves the ground, lures the spirit from its tomb, and down from the warm pyre summons the bony frame. Now with magic shrillings she keeps the troops of the grave before her; now she sprinkles them with milk and commands them to retreat. At will she chases the clouds from the frowning heavens; at will she musters the snow in the summer skies. Only she, men say, holds the secret of Medea’s deadly herbs, only she has tamed the wild hounds of Hecate. 
She framed me a charm to enable thee to deceive: chaunt it thrice and spit thrice when the spell is done. Then will he never trust any one in aught that is said about us, nay, not even his own eyes if he see us on the pillowed bed. Yet from others thou must keep away; since all else will he perceive; only to me will he be blind. 
What? Am I to trust her? Surely it was she, none other, said that by spells or herbs she could unbind my love. She cleansed me with the torch rite, and in the clear night a dusky victim fell to the gods of sorcery. But my prayer was not that my love might pass entirely, but that it might be shared.
To go over some of the other anxiety-laden practices more quickly, in one instance Delia demands that Tibullus consult "every god" before going on a journey, including a (private?) ritual where thrice from a "boy's hands did she lift a sacred lot (sortes), and from the three did the boy make answer to her that all was sure" (1.3.9-12); on the same occasion, Tibullus uses birds and (overheard?) words of evil omen as well as the "sacred day of Saturn" (i.e. the Sabbath) as pretexts for delay. When he has an affair with another woman and cannot get an erection, she takes it that Delia knows unholy arts (nefanda) and he has been bewitched (devotum) by her. Finally, in 1.5.51-56, things associated with the figure of the saga are listed in the form of a wish for her punishment:
May ghosts (animae, 'souls') flit round her always, bemoaning their fate, and the fierce vampire bird (strix) shrill from her roof; and she herself, frantic from hunger’s goad, hunt for weeds upon the graves and for bones which the wild wolves have left, and with middle bare run and shriek through the town, and a savage troop of dogs from the crossways chase her from behind.
Clearly, much of this is a projection of literary tropes onto the reality of female ritual experts, but it is hard to say where the fantastic ends (it is not as if the Italian sagae had never heard of Medea!).

The pomp of public rituals

I said above that Tibullus' idyllic norm contrasts with two other spheres - one of Love (the darker side of which we have dealt with), the other of the state. The later figures rarely, but there is one elegy (2.5) that rises to this register, and which is worth once more quoting in full. This time, the focus is not Messalla, but his son, Messalinus, who is being installed as a priest (a kind of government official!):
Be gracious, Phoebus (Apollo); a new priest sets foot within thy temple. Hither I bid thee come with lyre and song. Now I prithee, let thy fingers sweep the singing strings; now tune my song to strains of praise. And while they heap the altar, come to thy rites thyself, thy brows encircled with triumphal bay. Come bright and beautiful; now don thy treasured raiment; now duly comb thy flowing locks. Be as men tell thou wast when, Saturn driven from his throne, thou sangest a paean* for victorious Jove.
(*originally, a hymn to Apollo, but later simply a synonym for 'hymn'.)
Thou seest from afar the things to come. The augur* whose soul is given up to thee knows well what means the note of the bird that foresees what is to be. ’Tis thou dost guide the lots; through thee divines the reader of the inward parts, whensoever a god has set his marks on the glistening entrails.
(*a diviner from birds, but generally from the movement, not the songs of birds.)
With thee her guide, the Sibyl who sings Fate’s hidden will in six-foot measure hath never played the Romans false. Phoebus, grant leave to Messalinus to touch the seeress’ holy scroll*, and teach him thyself the meaning of her strains.
(*I.e. to become one of the quindecimviri, a group of men of extremely high status who would consult the prophecies of the Cumaean Sibyl when the Senate deemed this necessary.)
’Twas she that gave responses to Aeneas after the hour when, as story tells, he bore away in his arms his sire and household gods, never dreaming that a Rome would be, when from the deep he turned his eyes in sorrow on Ilion* and its gods ablaze.
(*The city of Troy; Aeneas, a Trojan, came to Italy and, in part due to the Sibyl's guidance, became the progenitor of the Roman people. This story is the subject of the Aeneid of Tibullus' contemporary Vergil.)
(Not yet had Romulus traced the walls of the Eternal City wherein was no abiding for his brother Remus. But still* on a grassy Palatine browsed the kine, and lowly cabins stood upon the heights of Jove. There, drenched with milk, was Pan beneath the holmoak’s shade, and Pales shaped from wood by rustic knife; and on the tree, in quittance of the roving shepherd’s vow, the prattling pipe hung sacred to the woodland god (silvestri deo)—the pipe with its ever-dwindling rows of reeds, whose wax joins stalks each lesser than the last. But where now spreads the quarter of Velabrum, a small skiff stirred the waters as it plied across the shallows. There oft a lass who would please some rich keeper of a herd was ferried on holidays to her swain, and with her came back the gifts of a thriving farm, cheese and the white lamb of a snowy ewe.)
(*Here Tibullus' ideal past seems to be identified with the Latins who were thought to have later mixed with the incoming Trojans; in other words, it is quite independent of the history of the state.)
“Aeneas never-resting, brother of Cupid* ever on the wing, whose exiled barks carry the holy things of Troy**, now doth Jove allot to thee the fields of Laurentum, now doth a hospitable land invite thy wandering gods. There shall divinity be thine when Numicius’ ever-worshipped waters pass thee to heaven, a god of the native-born***.
(*Because both were sons of Venus.
**In particular, the Penates, the household or, in this case, the city gods.
***Aeneas was deified as Jupiter Indiges, 'indigenous Jove', after being cleansed of his mortal parts by the river Numicius. The story is not told in the Aeneid, but was later adapted in Ovid's Metamorphoses.)

See, o’er the weary ships is Victory hovering. At last the haughty goddess comes to the men of Troy. Lo, I see the fire blaze from the Rutule camp. Now, savage Turnus*, I foretell thy fall. Before my eyes is Laurentum’s fortress and Lavinium’s wall, and Long Alba, which Ascanius** leads his host to found.
(*Aeneas' war against the Latin Turnus is the subject of the second half of the Aeneid, after the wanderings of the first half have come to an end.
**Aeneas' son; Alba Longa is Rome's mother city.)
Now thee too, Ilia*, priestess whom Mars is to find fair, I see departed from the Vestal hearth. I see thy secret bridal, thy snood cast upon the ground, and, left upon the banks, the arms of the eager god. Now, while ye may, bulls, crop the grass of the Seven Hills. Ere long this will be a great city’s site. Thy nation, Rome, is fated to rule the earth wherever Ceres looks from heaven upon the fields she tends, both where the gates of dawn are opened and where in tossing waters the Ocean river bathes the Sun-god’s panting team. Then shall old Troy be a marvel to herself, and own that in this far journey ye did well for her. ’Tis truth I sing; so may I ever eat the holy bay unharmed and everlasting maidenhood be mine.”
(*Ilia, mother of Romulus and Remus by Mars, although as a Vestal, she is meant to remain a virgin.)
So sang the seeress, and called thee to her, Phoebus, and tossed before her face her streaming hair.
All that Amalthea, all that Herophile of Marpessos foretold, all the warnings of Grecian Phoeto and of all the sacred lots that the Sibyl of Tibur* carried through the stream of Anio and in dry bosom bore them home—these told that a comet should appear, the evil sign of war, and how that thick on earth should fall the stony shower. And they say that trumpets and the clash of arms were heard in heaven, and sacred groves rang with the coming rout. From the images of the gods poured the warm tears; and kine found tongue and spake of the coming doom. Yea, from the very Sun ebbed the light, and the clouded year saw him yoke dim horses to his car**.
(*All of these women are Sibyls, a kind of "genre" of oracular diviner.
**A list of typical evil omens, here in reference, it seems, to the Roman civil wars before the rule of Augustus.)
So was it once; but thou, Apollo, kind at last, whelm monstrous things beneath the savage deep. Let the bay crackle loud as it kindles in the holy flames, an omen telling that the season shall be blest and fruitful. When the bay has given propitious sign, rejoice, ye farmers: Ceres will fill with ears your straining barns. And smeared with must the countryman will stamp above the grapes till the great tanks and butts can hold no more. And drenched in wine the shepherd will chaunt the feast of Pales, the shepherd’s holiday. Ye wolves, be ye then far from the fold. Full of drink, he will fire the light straw heaps in the appointed way, and leap across the sacred flames. Then shall his dame bear offspring, and the child take hold of his father’s ears to snatch the kiss; nor shall the grandsire find it irksome to watch by his little grandson’s side, nor, for all his years, to lisp in prattle with the child. 
Then in the god’s service the folk shall recline upon the grass where fall the flickering shadows of some ancient tree, or of their garments spread out canopies and tie them up with garlands, wreaths also round the goblets where they stand. Then each for himself will pile high the feast and festal board, cut sods the table and cut sods the couch. Here the tipsy lad will heap curses on his lass, such as ere long he will hope and pray may turn to naught. Aye, he who is now so savage with his dear will weep when he is sober, and swear that his wits had gone astray. 
Phoebus, by thy good leave, let bows and arrows perish, so Love may rove unarmed upon the earth. ’Tis an honest craft; but since Cupid took to carrying arrows, how many, ah me, has that honest craft made smart! And me beyond the rest. For a year now, afflicted from his stroke and siding with my malady (for the pain itself is pleasure), I sing unceasingly of Nemesis, apart from whom no verse of mine can find its words or proper feet.
But do thou, damsel (for guardian gods watch over poets [divum servat tutela poetas]), be warned in time, and spare thy sacred bard, that I may tell of Messalinus when before his chariot he shall bear the conquered towns, the prize of war, wearing the bay wreath, while his soldiery, with wild bay round their brows, loudly chaunt the cry of triumph. Then let my dear Messalla afford the throng the sight of a father’s love, and clap his hands as his son’s car passes by. Phoebus, grant this; and so be thy locks for aye unshorn, and thy sister ever a maiden pure.
If we wanted to give a checklist of properties for this category - that of priests who are state officials and generals, of prophecies that touch on the state, on rulers, and on war - , it might look something like this:
  • entirely positive evaluation within this context, but somewhat incongruous with other values
  • triumphal, patriotic tone
  • association with powerful and victorius rulers
But it is clear enough that, for Tibullus, all this is worthwhile primarily because it serves to reinstate his ideal. (Although we might imagine that, had he lived longer, he may have shifted his tone, as did Vergil.) And it is noteworthy that he locates the origin of the ideal not, e.g., with Rome's second king, the peaceful Numa who was said to have established the regulations of worship, but in a countryside that seems to exist almost outside of time.

Neutral rituals

While I have quoted very extensively from Tibullus up to here, this will be not be necessary in this last section, because it will be, I hope, the least obscure to modern readers. By 'neutral rituals', I am refering to the kind of commonsensical poetic discourse about gods and ritual that is neither particularly Roman, nor specific to idyllic, abnormal, or stately contexts. In Tibullus, it is used especially in the context of love, and represents the more light-hearted (albeit not necessarily purely positive) side of it.

The perfect encapsulation of this register comes not from Tibullus himself, but from an anonymous poem in the Appendix to Tibullus (<Tibullus> 3.7.130-134):
Jupiter himself rode in airy chariot through the void unto thy side, and left Olympus, neighbour of the sky. He gave himself with ear attentive to thy prayers, and granted all, bowing the head that never lies; and when fire touched the altar, its glad flare rose on high above the piled-up incense.
All of the ideas here are commonsensical, ancient readers and modern readers understand them easily: the king of the gods leaves his throne to attend a sacrifice - hymns typically invoke the gods to come to the worshippers, after all - and fulfils the requests of the sacrificer. What else is the purpose of sacrifice? The simple gesture of his nod, a sign of irrevocable divine approval, was known from Homer, and generally considered a sublime representation of Zeus/Jupiter's majesty. 

And yet, all kinds of other, conflicting commonsensical ideas immediately arise: does Jupiter really deign to come to an ordinary sacrifice in person? Does he literally use a flying chariot? Does he have a head like a human,  and is it necessary for him to show his approval by a nod, even though he probably remains invisible? A philosopher or historian cannot claim something so concrete without expressing some kind of hesitation or skepticism; but in poetry, this kind of representation can be unfolded without restrictions.

There is something playful about this, yes, but the joke does not lie in falseness or counterfactuality per se. When Tibullus says: "’twas at Love’s bidding. And who may fight against a god?" (1.60.30), he is not leading the traditional idea that Love is a god ad absurdum, or merely pretending to believe it. He is bringing two ideas that are perfectly ordinary and unobjectionable - that Love is a god, and that one cannot defeat the gods - together in an incongruent argument. But this slight incongruence, this spirit of subtle irony (rather than the outright nonsense of comedy) is the lifeblood of Latin elegy. Within this context, it is exactly appropriate to say things like this, or to claim - with exuberant thanks to Jupiter - that oaths of lovers are "null and void" (1.4.21-26), or to warn that gods avenge scorned lovers (1.8.69-72). Outside of that context, these assertions would not necessarily be false; but they would risk pointlessness or meaninglessness.

Conclusion

I have left some things out of this overview - passages on the Roman goddess Bellona, the Egyptian Osiris, and the personal genius ("guardian spirit") - because I want to use Tibullus' representations of them in future posts. Nevertheless, I think that Tibullus is one fairly representative example of how a landscape of practices and ideas is parsed into ostensibly Roman and non-Roman, acceptable and dubious, not on the basis of who actually uses them, but by reference to supposed origins, perceived normalcy, or who the "typical" practitioner is.

It is my personal sense that the saga*, the "witch" as modern translators have it, comes out especially badly, not just in Tibullus but in Latin poetry generally. Being associated with moments of crises rather than regular festivals, and not being an official of the state like the temple priests, she is represented as the origin of, rather than the helper in, calamities, and all kinds of male fears and fantasies of violence are projected onto her. This also means that "magical" practices which may have been practiced by all genders or even predominantly by men are pushed away onto this other. And much of what the sagae are supposed to have done is derived directly from Greek literature, rather than Roman life. On the other hand, these women no doubt knew something of Greek mythology, too: they were not self-contained in stable authenticity any more than Tibullus' imaginary pious farmers. On balance, then, we ought neither to take Tibullus as an unbiassed reporter of facts, nor to somehow subtract his distortions to get at the "pure" reality; rather, we have to take his imagination as part of the deal, and learn how both real acts and imagination were societally bounded.

(*For slightly more detail on the saga, see my excerpts from the lexicon of Festus.)