Downloaded from Brill.Com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM Via Free Access C.-P

The International

Journal of the Platonic Tradition The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 brill.com/jpt

Possessed and Inspired: Hermias on Divine Madness*

Christina-Panagiota Manolea Hellenic Open University [email protected]

Abstract Hermias of Alexandria (5th cent. A.D.) wrote down the lectures given on the Phaedrus by his teacher Syrianus, Head of the Neoplatonic School of Athens. In the preserved text the Platonic distinction of madness is presented in a Neopla- tonic way. In the first section of the article we discuss Hermias’ treatment of possession. The philosopher examines four topics in his effort to present a Neo- platonic doctrine concerning possession. As he holds that divine possession is evident in all parts of the soul, he first argues that it is primarily applied to the one-in-the-soul. Secondly, he explains that possession is also applied to reason, opinion, imagination, thymos and desire, all the above being distinctive parts of the human soul, but not as important as the one-in-the-soul. The third issue he discusses is whether all causes of possession are identical to the divine. Then, Hermias examines the fact that possession is to be traced not only in the human soul but also in the statues. In the second section of the article Hermias’ analysis of the four kinds of Pla- tonic madness is presented. The philosopher first analyzes the interdependence between all four divine kinds of madness and then describes their function on two levels, inside and outside the soul. The function within the soul is richer and is realized in four fields: (a) the restoration of the soul after its fall, (b) the restoration of the human being as a whole, (c) the Pythagorean mathematical system and (d) the logic processes. The function outside the soul deals with the manifes- tations of the soul in human society. Under this perspective, Hermias clearly

*) Earlier versions of the two main parts of this article were presented as papers at the 2011 Classical Association Conference (Durham, UK, April 2011) and the 9th Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies (Atlanta, USA, June 2011) respectively. I would like to thank the participants of both conferences for their remarks, and especially Prof. Suzanne Stern-Gillet for her constant help and encouragement.

© 2013 Christina-Panagiota Manolea DOI: 10.1163/18725473-12341261 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 157 proposes an original classification of the kinds of madness, on the basis of which we encounter poetic madness. After that follow the madness of the seer, the telestic madness, and the madness of love. The whole analysis incorporates Platonic, Aristotelian, Pythagorean and theurgic elements that cover the fields of psychology, logic and metaphysics.

Keywords Platonism, Neoplatonism, School of Athens, Hermias, Syrianus, Plato, Phaedrus, metaphysics, theurgy, literary criticism, reception

Introduction Μadness is a theme touched by Plato in many dialogues (Ion, Philebus, Meno, Phaedrus, Res Publica, Timaeus) and is discussed in many ways, favorable or not.1 Nevertheless, the best known Platonic distinction is found at Phaedrus 265a-c: there are two types of madness, the one attributed to human disease and the one stemming from the gods (divine madness). The latter is further divided as follows: the madness of the seer caused by Apollo, telestic madness caused by Dionysus, poetic madness sent by the Muses and finally erotic madness attributed to Aphrodite and Eros.2 In this paper we will deal with divine madness, as analyzed by Hermias of Alexandria (5th century A.D.). Hermias was a student of Syrianus, Head of the Neoplatonic School of Athens. After he finished his studies, during which he is said to have been very diligent, he returned to Alexandria, along with his wife Aedesia, who was Syrianus’ niece. His death was premature, but this is not the only reason why his commentary on the Phaedrus is the only work of his that is known to us. In fact, the commentary is in

1) For instance, in books II, IV, VII and IX of the Res Publica madness is considered to be a disease, either of a milder or a more serious sort. On the contrary, in the Ion 533-534 it is faced rather favorably and is connected to the issue of inspiration. For further details on the Ion discussion see P. Murray, Plato on poetry. Ion, Republic 376e-398b, Republic 595-698b. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Cambridge 1996, comm. ad loc. 2) Plato, Phaedrus 265a ff.: Μανίας δέ γε εἴδη δύο, τὴν μὲν ὑπὸ νοσημάτων ἀνθρωπίνων, τὴν δὲ ὑπὸ θείας ἐξαλλαγῆς τῶν εἰωθότων νομίμων γιγνομένην. (. . .) Τῆς δὲ θείας τεττάρων θεῶν τέτ- ταρα μέρη διελόμενοι, μαντικὴν μὲν ἐπίπνοιαν Ἀπόλλωνος θέντες, Διονύσου δὲ τελεστικήν, Μουσῶν δ’ αὖ ποιητικήν, τετάρτην δὲ Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Ἔρωτος, ἐρωτικὴν μανίαν ἐφήσαμέν τε ἀρίστην εἶναι (. . .).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 158 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 all probability a more or less faithful reproduction of Syrianus’ teaching, although the manuscript tradition attributes it to Hermias.3 The paper will be divided in two sections. In the first we will examine Hermias’ discussion of possession while in the second we will proceed to a detailed analysis of the four Platonic types of divine madness.

Possession Hermias deals with the four Platonic types of madness that are attributed to the gods at Phaedrus 265b. As any good reader of Plato would have done, Hermias starts his analysis by wondering whether madness is good or bad. After concluding that madness is the cause and mother of everything that is good (αἰτία καὶ μήτηρ ὅλων τῶν ἀγαθῶν) the philosopher proceeds to a clearly Neoplatonic analysis of the function of the four Platonic types of madness. But before providing his students with this analysis, he gives a detailed description of divine possession (ἐνθουσιασμός). We

3) Undoubtedly the Phaedrus was included in the syllabus of the School of Athens. The thing is whether and to which extent the text that has come down to us is just a writing down of Syrianus’ lessons or has been reworked by Hermias. In our opinion, the commentary that we now have is either a text bearing no intervention by Hermias at all or a text that has been slightly reworked, in a way that it should be considered as preserv- ing a very accurate picture of Syrianus’ views and philosophical ideas. K. Praechter (“Her- meias” in Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclopädie d. class. Alterumswissenschaft 8.1, 1912, cols. 732-735) was the first to maintain in a rather convincing way that Hermias’ work should be read a source of Syrianus’ teaching and ideas. An opposite view has been expressed by P.A. Bielmeier (“Die Neuplatonische Phaedrusinterpretation”, Rhetorische Studien, 16, 1930, 4-96). C. Moreschini has also tried to give Hermias originality as a thinker in two articles: “Alcuni aspetti degli Scholia in Phaedrum di Ermia Alessandrino in M.O. Goulet-Gazé, G. Madec, D. O’ Brien (eds.) ΣΟΦΙΗΣ ΜΑΙΗΤΟΡΕΣ—“Chercheurs de sagesse”, Hommage à Jean Pépin, Paris 1992, 451-460 and “Alla scuola di Siriano: Ermia nella storia del neoplatonismo”, in A. Longo (ed.), Syrianus et la metaphysiqe de l’ antiquité tardive. Actes du Colloque International, Université de Genève 29 Septembre-1er Octobre 2006, Napoli 2009, 516-522. H. Bernard (Hermeias von Alexandrien. Kommentar zu Platons Phaidros, Philoso- phische Untersuchungen, 1, 1997, Tübingen) has also followed the same line. For a discussion of the arguments of both sides that actually reaches the conclusion that Hemias text is a reliable source of Syrianus’ teachings and ideas see C.-P Manolea, The Homeric tradition in Syrianus, Thessaloniki 2004, 47-50 and 52-58 and C.-P. Manolea, “The treatment of ancient Greek myth in Syrianus’ philosophical works”, in A. Longo (ed.) (2009), 500-501.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 159 will stick to this fact, since Hermias treats madness (μανία) as a manifesta- tion of possession. In other words, according to Hermias madness depends exclusively to the susceptibility of the human soul to be possessed by the divine. The texts we are going to discuss in this section have been dealt with by modern scholars only once—it was actually O. Ballériaux who focused on the function and the importance of telestic madness.4 Nevertheless, many of the passages he analyzed are about possession in general, although the author in the conclusion treats them as referring to telestic madness. Moreover, Ballériaux made little reference to the hierarchy the philosopher accepts as far as the four Platonic kinds of madness are concerned. We will try to show Hermias’ attitude towards possession in general and not only telestic madness. At 88.15-215 the philosopher examines four topics in his effort to present a distinctive Neoplatonic doctrine concerning possession: which part of the soul is possessed, whether all parts of the soul are possessed, whether all sorts of possession derive from the divine and if there are other entities superior to the soul that are possessed. 1) The discussion of the first issue, i.e. which part of the soul is possessed (ποῖον μόριον ἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἐνθουσιῶν) is elaborated at 88.21-89.14.6

4) O. Ballériaux, “Φιλοσόφως τὰ θεουργικὰ ἐξετάζειν: Syrianus et la téléstique”, Kernos, 2, 1989, 13-25. 5) Hermias, In Phaedr. 88.15-21: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τέσσαρας μανίας, τουτέστιν ἐνθουσιασμοὺς καὶ κατοκωχὰς ἐκ θεῶν, ἐνταῦθα παραδίδωσιν ὁ Πλάτων, μουσικήν, τελεστικήν, μαντικήν, ἐρωτικήν, πρὸ τοῦ περὶ ἑκάστης εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ πρῶτον ῥητέον, ποῖον μόριόν ἐστιν τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἐνθουσιῶν, καὶ εἰ πᾶν μόριον ἐνθουσιᾷ, καὶ εἰ πᾶς ἐνθουσιασμὸς ἐκ θεῶν, καὶ ἐν ποίῳ μορίῳ τῆς ψυχῆς οὗτος ἐγγίνεται ἢ ἄλλῳ τινὶ κρείττονι ψυχῆς. 6) Ibid., 88.21-89.14: Ποῦ οὖν μάλιστα καὶ τίς ὁ κυρίως καὶ πρώτως λεγόμενος ἐνθουσιασμός; τῆς δὴ λογικῆς ψυχῆς εἰσι μέρη δύο, τὸ μὲν διάνοια, τὸ δὲ δόξα· πάλιν δὲ τῆς διανοίας τὸ μὲν πεζότατον λέγεται καὶ κυρίως ἐστὶ διάνοια, τὸ δὲ ἀκρότατον, ὃ καὶ νοῦς αὐτῆς λέγεται, καθὸ μάλιστα νοερὰ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ, ὃ καὶ «δυνάμει νοῦν» τινες ἐκάλεσαν. Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τοῦτο, ὅ ἐστιν ἀκρότατον τῆς πάσης ψυχῆς καὶ ἑνικώτατον, ὃ πᾶσι τὰ ἀγαθὰ θέλει καὶ ἀεὶ ἑαυτὸ ἐπιδίδωσι τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ ὅπερ ἂν ἐκεῖνοι βούλωνται τοῦτο ἕτοιμον ἐμποιεῖν· ὃ καὶ ἓν λέγεται τῆς ψυχῆς [ὃ] καὶ ἴνδαλμα φέρει τοῦ ὑπερουσίου ἑνὸς, πᾶσαν ἑνίζον τὴν ψυχήν. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν, μάθοιμεν ἂν ἐντεῦθεν· ἡ λογικὴ ψυχὴ παρά τε τῶν πρὸ ἑαυτῆς αἰτίων πάντων ὑφίσταται, τουτέστι παρὰ νοῦ καὶ θεῶν· ὑφίσταται δὲ καὶ παρ’ ἑαυτῆς· ἑαυτὴν γὰρ τελειοῖ. Καθὸ μὲν οὖν ἐκ θεῶν ὑφίσταται, ἔχει τὸ ἕν, ὃ καὶ πάσας αὐτῆς τὰς δυνάμεις καὶ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος ἑνίζει καὶ ἑνοῖ εἰς ἕν, καὶ πρῶτον δέχεται τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀγαθοειδῆ ποιεῖ τὴν πᾶσαν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν, καθὸ καὶ συνάπτεται τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ἑνοῦται πρὸς αὐτούς. Καθὸ δὲ ἐκ νοῦ ὑφίσταται, ἔχει

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 160 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179

Hermias holds that possession is evident in all parts of the soul, but is primarily applied to the one-in-the-soul. The latter is the supreme and the most unitary part of the whole soul. It desires what is good concerning everything that exists, always offers itself to the gods and is ready to accomplish any task assigned to it by the gods. It goes without saying that the one-in-the-soul is an image of the ultimate One and unifies the human soul. Hermias stresses that the one-in-the-soul primarily receives directly from the divine whatever is good thus making the whole substance of the soul good as well. In this respect it is united with the gods. Since this is the part of the soul which is united with the divine and contemplates it ultimately, the primarily true divine enthusiasm possesses this particular part of the soul. A consequence of this fact is that the whole human intellect and the human body are illuminated by divine enthusiasm. According to the philosopher’s view, possession that corresponds to the one-in-the-soul is manifested primarily, mainly and truly. The whole analysis is put in a context of Neoplatonic psychology that bears little (if any) relevance to the original Platonic text that elaborates the types of madness. In other words, Syrianus’ teaching concerning the possession that corresponds to the one-in-the-soul, as it has been preserved by Hermias, is an excellent example of the philosopher’s ability to express his own doctrines in the course of the analysis of the Platonic text. It should be noted that the philosopher states that the νοερὰ ψυχή (intellectual soul) is otherwise called δυνάμει νοῦς (potential intellect) by some people. Ballériaux7 rightly ascribes the term δυνάμει νοῦς to the Peri- patetic exegesis and, more particularly, to the exegesis of chapters Γ 4 and 5 of Aristotle’s De anima. As the School of Athens in general and Syrianus

τὸ νοερόν, καθὸ ἁπλαῖς ἐπιβολαῖς καὶ οὐ διεξοδικῶς αἱρεῖ τὰ εἴδη, καθὸ καὶ συνάπτεται τῷ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτὴν νῷ. Καθὸ δὲ καὶ ἑαυτὴν ὑφίστησιν, ἔχει τὸ διανοητικόν, καθὸ ἐπιστήμας τε καὶ θεωρήματα πολλὰ γεννᾷ καὶ διεξοδικῶς ἐνεργεῖ καὶ συλλογίζεται ἀπὸ τῶν προτάσεων τὸ συμπέρασμα. Ὅτι γὰρ καὶ ἑαυτὴν ὑφίστησι, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ καὶ ἑαυτὴν τελειοῦν· ὃ δὲ εἰς τελειότητα ἑαυτὸ ἄγει καὶ τὸ εὖ εἶναι ἑαυτῷ παρέχει, πολλῷ πλέον τὸ εἶναι αὑτῷ παρέξει· μεῖζον γὰρ τὸ εὖ εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι· εἰ οὖν τὸ μεῖζον ἑαυτῇ παρέχει, πολλῷ πλέον τὸ ἔλαττον παρέξει. 7) See O. Ballériaux (1989), 18, n. 20, where he quotes Themistius In de an. 97.26-27, mentioning a possible influence of Iamblichus. We may also add the In de an. 95.9, 98.5-33, 99.2, 99.29-30, 100.16, 100.30-31, 103.31, 104.14, 104.30, 105.4, 105.23, 107.30, 108.12, 109.4, where the term δυνάμει νοῦς is found.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 161 in particular bore influences by Peripatetics and Iamblichus,8 Ballériaux’s remark is well-placed. 2) Immediately after that, at 89.20-32 Hermias explains that possession (ἐνθουσιασμός) is also applied to reason (διάνοια), opinion (δόξα), imagi nation (φαντασία), thymos (θυμός) and desire (ἐπιθυμία), all the above being distinctive parts of the human soul, but not as important as the one-in-the-soul.9 We note that in this discussion the philosopher brings forth two Homeric passages in order to support his views. So, Hermias expands the Platonic doctrine of the soul, acknowledging that it has six parts. As we have already mentioned, all six can be possessed. The philosopher states that when enthusiasm is applied to the intellect then knowledge and theories are discovered in no time and before all other parts of the soul.10 The fact that Hermias applies possession to other parts of the soul is interesting in itself, because it further shows the Neoplatonic flavor Her- mias gave to the notion of possession. Yet the philosopher’s choice to use Homeric material is even more stimulating. Let us examine his use of the Homeric verses. The first one is the Od. XI 613. Hermias begins with enthusiasm that is applied to opinion and

8) For the various philosophical influences on Syrianus see A. Longo, “Syrianus” in L.P. Gerson (ed.), The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Vol. II, Cambridge 2010, 616-629. 9) Hermias, In Phaedr., 89.20-32: Γίνονται μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλοι ἐνθουσιασμοὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς δαιμόνων τινῶν αὐτὴν κινούντων ἢ καὶ θεῶν οὐκ ἄνευ δαιμόνων· καὶ γὰρ ἡ διάνοια ἐνθουσιᾶν λέγεται, ὅταν ἐπιστήμας καὶ θεωρήματα ἐξευρίσκῃ ἐν ἀκαρεῖ χρόνῳ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸν ἄλλον ἄνθρωπον· λέγεται καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ φαντασία ἐνθουσιᾶν, ὅταν τέχνας εὑρίσκῃ καὶ ἀποτελῇ παρά- δοξα ἔργα, οἷον Φειδίας ἐν ἀγαλματοποιΐᾳ καὶ ἄλλος ἐν ἄλλῃ τέχνῃ, ὡς καὶ Ὅμηρος περὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὸν τελαμῶνα εἶπε· μὴ τεχνησάμενος μηδ’ ἄλλο τι τεχνήσαιτο· λέγεται καὶ ὁ θυμὸς ἐνθουσιᾶν ὅταν ἐν τῷ πολεμεῖν ὑπερφυῶς ἐνεργῇ· μαίνετο δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ Ἄρης ἐγχέσπαλος. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπιθυμήσας τις ἔφαγέ τι ὃ ἀπηγόρευεν ὁ λόγος, κᾆτα ἐκ παραδόξου ὑγίανεν, εἴποις ἂν καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐντεθουσιακέναι ἀμυδρῶς· ὥστε γίνεται καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα μόρια τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνθουσιασμός. For the parts of the soul to which possession is applied according to Hermias see also A. Sheppard, “The Influence of Hermias on Marsilio Ficino’s doctrine of inspiration”, Jour- nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLIII, 1980, 104. 10) Cf. O. Ballériaux (1989), 17-19.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 162 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 imagination. He holds that this type of enthusiasm is manifested in creativity that accomplishes handicraft and produces exceptional works of art. The example of magnificent works of art the philosopher brings in just before quoting the Homeric verse is rather expected: the statues that have been created by Pheidias. The second Homeric example is the famous Il. XV 605. According to Dodds,11 in this verse Hector is only a step from the idea of actual possession, but this is a step Homer does not take. We should nevertheless stress the fact that Dodd’s view that Hector is not possessed is shared neither by ancient scholiasts (for example, bT scholia, which consider the verb to denote madness)12 nor by many modern commentators of the Iliad.13 What is more interesting is the fact that Porphyry had used this verse in order to show the madness caused by Dionysus.14 It is evident that our philosopher considered the verse to describe a human being in a state of possession, as Porphyry did, and this is why he chose to use it to show that possession is applied in thymos (θυμός).

11) E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1951, 10. 12) bt 605: μαίνετο δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ Ἄρης: ἐναργῶς ἐκινεῖτο τῷ σώματι. καὶ χαλεπὸν μὲν ὅμως εἰς †εὔνοιαν† ἂν ἐλθεῖν καὶ σωφρονοῦντος Ἄρεος, ὁ δὲ καὶ τὸ μαίνετο προσέθηκεν. καὶ οὐ μέχρι τούτου τὴν εἰκόνα ἵστησιν, ἀλλ’ ἀφρίζειν τε αὐτῷ φησι τὸ στόμα τρόπον θηρίου καὶ τὰ ὄμματα λάμπειν ὥσπερ ἐνθουσιῶντος (cf. Ο 607-8). 13) For example, see R. Janko, (1992), The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. IV: books 13-16, comm. ad loc., in G.S. Kirk (ed.) (1985-1993) The Iliad: A Commentary, 6 vols., Cambridge. 14) Porphyry, Questiones Homericae ad Iliadem VI 129: μαινόμενος δὲ ὁ Διόνυσος οὐ κατὰ βλασφημίαν εἴρηται, ἀλλὰ παραστατικῶς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ βακχείαν ὁρμῆς, φλέγοντος ἰσχυρῶς καὶ ἀκμάζοντος ἐρρωμένως ἐν τῇ τῆς χορείας καταστάσει, ὁμοίως τῷ μαίνετο δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ Ἄρης ἐγχέσπαλος ἢ ὀλοὸν πῦρ (Ο 605). καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπερβαλλόντων τοῖς ἔργοις κατ’ ἀνδρείαν μαίνεται φαμέν, μανίαν τὴν ἐνθουσιαστικὴν πρᾶξιν λέγοντες. καὶ Πλάτων δὲ διαιρῶν τὰς μανίας δείκνυσι τὰς ἀγαθάς τε καὶ θείας, αἵ τινές εἰσι. φυγὴν δὲ Διονύσου οὐχ ὁ Διομήδης κατέγνωκε, τοῖς δὲ λεγομένοις καὶ κεκρατηκόσι μύθοις Ὅμηρος κρίνων αὐτοὺς εἰς χρῆσιν κατὰ καιρὸν τοῖς ἥρωσιν ἀνατέθεικε. τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Λυκουργίαν οἰκεῖον ἦν εἰδέναι τῷ Διομήδει· Οἰνεὺς γὰρ ὁ πάππος αὐτῷ ὁμόλεκτρος λέγεται Διονύσῳ γενέσθαι. οἶδεν οὖν εἰκότως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Διόνυσον καὶ ὁποίου τέλους ἔτυχεν ὁ πρὸς τοῦτον μαχεσάμενος Λυκοῦργος. ἐναργῶς δὲ καὶ ἐν ὀλίγοις καὶ κυρίᾳ τῇ λέξει χρώμενος χορείαν ἀπήγγειλε Βακχῶν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Λυκοῦργος τὸν πέλεκυν ἀνατετακὼς ὁρᾶται—οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ βουπλήξ—, αἱ δὲ φεύγουσαι κατὰ τὸ ὄρος, οἱ δὲ θύρσοι κείμενοι χαμαί, ὁ δὲ Διόνυσος διὰ δέος καταδυόμενος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ὡς ἂν ἔτι παῖς, καὶ Θέτις ὑποδεχομένη τοῖς κόλποις ὡς νήπιον ἔτι καὶ παῖδα. τὸ δὲ δεδιότα διὰ τὴν ἀπειλὴν τοῦ ἐπανατειναμένου τὸν πέλεκυν ἀνδροφόνου Λυκούργου καὶ τὸ τὰ θύσθλα δὲ καταχέαι φάναι, ἀλλὰ μὴ ῥῖψαι, τὸ ἁβρὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον Βακχῶν παραστήσει.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 163

3) The third issue Hermias discusses is whether all sorts of possession derive from the divine. In the course of his analysis the philosopher also explains why the human soul is not always possessed. Hermias acknowl- edges the existence of possession which has to do with the one-in-the-soul and is due to the divine, but he also states that at the same time different gods cause enthusiasm in different parts of the soul, i.e intellect (νοῦς), reason (διάνοια) and imagination (φαντασία) according to the susceptibility of each one.15 In any case, in a passage containing medical terminology, the philosopher holds that some have ascribed to possession various additional causes such as temperament of their bodies or mildness of the air or the differences between exhalation or susceptibility of seasons or places or the demiurgic role of the celestial bodies. According to our philosopher, these people attribute possession to secondary and not its main causes.16 Hermias brings in Aristotle at this point. As the divine is not the only cause of enthusiasm, the philosopher using the Aristotelian doctrine of four causes (efficient, material, formal and final) specifies that the divine corresponds only to the efficient cause (ποιητικὸν αἴτιον). The material cause (ὑλικόν) corresponds to the soul itself or the external symbols. The formal (εἰδικόν) cause is the divine inspiration concerning the one-in-the- soul, whereas the final (τελικόν) cause is the Good.17 The philosopher then poses the following question: if we accept that the gods always wish good things for the human soul, then why is the soul not always in a state of possession? In his effort to answer this question he holds that the soul is not always susceptible and this is due to a number

15) Hermias, In Phaedr. 89.33-90.3: Ὁ μέντοι κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνθουσιασμός ἐστιν, ὅταν τὸ ἓν τοῦτο τὸ ὑπὲρ νοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνεγείρηται πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιπνέηταιˑ ἄλλοτε δὲ ὑπ’ ἄλλων κατέχεται θεῶν παρὰ τὰς ἐπιτηδειότητας ἑαυτοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἔλαττον κατέχεται, ὅταν ὁ νοῦς ᾗ ὁ κινούμενος ἢ ἡ διάνοια. 16) Ibid., 90.3-11: Ὥσπερ οὖν ὅταν φιλοσοφίαν τίς ἐστι ζητῶμεν, μὴ ἀκριβολογούμενοι δὲ ἀλλὰ καταχρώμενοι πολλάκις, καὶ τὴν μαθηματικὴν ἢ τὴν φυσικὴν ἢ τὴν ἠθικὴν φιλοσοφίαν τεκαὶ ἐπιστήμην καλοῦμεν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ. «Ἐνθουσιασμὸν» γὰρ εἰώθαμεν λέγειν κἂν ἡ φαντασία ᾖ ἡ κινουμένη. Οἱ μέντοι τὸν ἐνθουσιασμὸν κράσεσι σωμάτων ἀνατιθέντες ἢ ἀέρος εὐκρασίαις ἢ ἀναθυμιάσεων διαφοραῖς ἢ καὶ καιρῶν ἢ τόπων ἐπιτηδειότησιν ἢ καὶ τῇ τῶν κατ’ οὐρανὸν περιιόντων ποιήσει, τὰ συναίτια μᾶλλον καὶ ὑλικὰ τοῦ πράγματος ἤπερ τὰ αἴτια τὰ κυρίως λέγουσιν. For a discussion of this passage see O. Ballériaux (1989), 19-20. 17) Ibid., 90.11-14: Ἔχεις οὖν ποιητικὴν μὲν αἰτίαν τοῦ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ τοὺς θεούς, ὑλικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν ἐνθουσιῶσαν ψυχὴν ἢ καὶ τὰ ἔξωθεν σύμβολα, εἰδικὴν δὲ τὴν ἐκ θεῶν ἐπίπνοιαν περὶ τὸ ἓν τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, τελικὴν δὲ τὸ ἀγαθόν.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 164 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 of reasons.18 He then evaluates the view of some people, according to whom, telestic madness extends only until the sublunary area. The philosopher’s opinion is that this view is absurd for two reasons: first, whatever belongs to the heavens functions in the sublunary area. Secondly, the τελεσταί would not be able to function above the moon, if the dwelling place for all souls were in the sublunary world alone. According to our philosopher, there are souls whose dwelling place is above the moon, so this means that the soul is able to act in the heavens as well.19 Generally speaking however, Hermias accepts two undeniable facts: the souls by themselves cannot act above their dwelling place (and this has to do with the souls whose dwelling place is in the sublunary world) and no soul whatsoever can be possessed even for short time periods without the help of the gods by means of telestic madness. 4) Last but not least, Hermias examines the fact that possession is to be traced not only in the human soul but also in the statues. This seems to be a stimulating issue. It is true that the animation of statues is a wide- spread motive in ancient civilisations. As A. Uzdavinys has shown,20 the ancient world is rich in testimonies about statuas animatas sensu et spiritu plenas. Evidence from Greek texts as well as from texts from Mesopotamia

18) Ibid., 90.14-17: Ἀλλ’ εἰ ἀεὶ βούλονται τὰ ἀγαθὰ τῇ ψυχῇ οἱ θεοί, διὰ τί μὴ ἀεὶ ἐνθουσιᾷ;ἢ βούλονται μὲν αὐτῇ τὰ ἀγαθά, βούλονται δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς τάξιν κρατεῖν· καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ οὐκ ἀεὶ ἐπιτηδεία ἐστὶ διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας· διόπερ οὐκ ἀεὶ ἐνθουσιᾷ. 19) Ibid., 90.18-91.1: Τινὲς δὲ λέγουσι τὴν τελεστικὴν ἄχρι τοῦ ὑπὸ σελήνην φθάνειν· εἰ μὲν οὖν οὕτω λέγουσιν ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ὑπὲρ σελήνην καὶ οὐρανίων εἰς τὸν ὑποσέληνον τόπον ἐνεργεῖ, ἐναργῶς ἄτοπα λέγουσιν· εἰ δὲ ὅτι οἱ τελεσταὶ οὐ δύνανται ὑπὲρ τὴν σεληνιακὴν σφαῖραν ἐνεργῆσαι, ἐροῦμεν ὅτι, εἰ μὲν αἱ λήξεις τῶν ψυχῶν πᾶσαι ὑποσέληνοί εἰσιν, ἀληθὴς αὐτῶν ἔσται ὁ λόγος, εἰ δέ εἰσι λήξεις ψυχῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ σελήνην (ὥσπερ οὖν εἰσιν· αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἡλίου ὁπαδοί εἰσιν, αἱ δὲ σελήνης, αἱ δὲ Κρόνου· ἔσπειρε γὰρ τὰς μὲν εἰς γῆν, τὰς δὲ εἰς ἥλιον, τὰς δὲ ἄλλας ἀλλαχοῦ), δυνατὸν ἔσται τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ὑπὲρ σελήνην ἐνεργῆσαι. Ὅπερ γὰρ ἡ ὅλη τάξις αὐτῇ παρέχει πολυχρονίως, τοῦτο δυνήσεται καὶ ἑαυτῇ παρασχεῖν ὀλιγοχρονίως ἡ ψυχὴ διὰ τελεστικῆς ὑπὸ θεῶν βοηθουμένη· ὑπὲρ μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἑαυτῆς λῆξιν οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐνεργήσειεν, ἄχρι δὲ τῆς ἑαυτῆς λήξεως ἐνεργήσειεν ἄν· ὥσπερ εἰ λόγου χάριν ἡ λῆξις τῆς ψυχῆς ἄχρι φιλοσοφίας ἦν, ἠδύνατο ἡ ψυχή, καὶ μὴ βίον ἑλομένη φιλόσοφον ἀλλὰ ἄλλον τινά, ἐνεργῆσαί τι καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ βίῳ φιλόσοφον. Λέγονται δὲ εἶναί τινες καὶ ὑπερκόσμιοι ψυχαί. 20) A. Uzdavinys, “Animation of statues in ancient civilizations and Neoplatonism” in P. Vassilopoulou and S.R.L. Clark (eds.) Late antique epistemology. Other ways to truth, Hampshire and New York 2009, 118-140.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 165 and Egypt, suggests that statues are indeed vehicles of divine forces and provide images of everlasting gods.21 If we limit ourselves to a Neoplatonic context, the statues do have a prominent place in the Neoplatonic universe. Plotinus describes the process of working on one’s inner statue, in order to accomplish perfection.22 It has been rightly noted23 that this demiurgic work is an interiorisation of the ancient hieratic art that reveals its true esoteric meaning. But all this stimulating procedure has nothing to do with enthusiasm or madness. It has also been said that for later Neoplatonists divine images were not only symbols of gods: they were filled with divine presence. Of course, theurgy and its key role in Neoplatonism has been a major factor in the formation of this attitude. Porphyry was certainly aware of the animation of statues. In the De abstinentia we encounter the phrase τελεῖν τε ἀγάλματα καὶ ναοὺς κινεῖν with reference to what can be done by some worshipers of Sarapis in Egypt,24 whereas in the Ad Marcellam25 the philosopher considers the

21) We may mention the Opening of the Mouth ceremony (ritual), which used to take place in Egypt and was performed for the sacred building as a whole. After the ritual is completed, a cult statue is considered to be alive on two different levels: the level of the ka and the level of the ba of the god. For more details see A. Uzdavinys (2009), 127-129. 22) Plotinus, Ennead I.6.9.7-15: Πῶς ἂν οὖν ἴδοις ψυχὴν ἀγαθὴν οἷον τὸ κάλλος ἔχει; ἄναγε ἐπὶ σαυτὸν καὶ ἴδε· κἂν μήπω σαυτὸν ἴδῃς καλόν, οἷα ποιητὴς ἀγάλματος, ὃ δεῖ καλὸν γενέσθαι, τὸ μὲν ἀφαιρεῖ, τὸ δὲ ἀπέξεσε, τὸ δὲ λεῖον, τὸ δὲ καθαρὸν ἐποίησεν, ἕως ἔδειξε καλὸν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀγάλματι πρόσωπον, οὕτω καὶ σὺ ἀφαίρει ὅσα περιττὰ καὶ ἀπεύθυνε ὅσα σκολιά, ὅσα σκοτεινὰ καθαίρων ἐργάζου εἶναι λαμπρὰ καὶ μὴ παύσῃ τεκταίνων τὸ σὸν ἄγαλμα, ἕως ἂν ἐκλάμψειέ σοι τῆς ἀρετῆς ἡ θεοειδὴς ἀγλαία, ἕως ἂν ἴδῃς σωφροσύνην ἐν ἁγνῷ βεβῶσαν βάθρῳ. For this Plato-inspired assimilation of the process of working one’s inner soul the way a sculptor creates a statue, in order to accomplish perfection, its similarities and differences from Plato, as well as its the use it by Hierocles, Stobaeus and Demophilus see Π. Καλλιγᾶς, Πλωτίνου Ἐννεάς Πρώτη. Ἀρχαῖο κείμενο, μετάφραση, σχόλια Π. Καλλιγᾶς, Ἀθήνα 1994, comm. ad loc. 23) See A. Uzdavinys (2009), 127. 24) Porphyry, De abstinentia 4.9.36-46: ἔτι δ’ ἐκ περιττῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸ θεῖον συντρο- φίας κατέλαβόν τισι τῶν θεῶν προσφιλῆ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ μᾶλλον ἀνθρώπων, ὡς Ἡλίῳ ἱέρακα, σύμπασαν μὲν τὴν φύσιν ἐξ αἵματος ἔχοντα καὶ πνεύματος, οἰκτείροντα δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ κωκύοντα ἐπὶ νεκρῷ κειμένῳ γῆν τε ἐπαμώμενον εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, ἐν οἷς τὸ ἡλιακὸν κατοικεῖν πεπιστεύκασι φῶς, καὶ ζῆν μὲν ἐπὶ πλείονα ἔτη κατειληφότες, μετὰ δὲ τὸν βίον ἰσχὺν ἔχειν μαντικὴν καὶ εἶναι λογικώτατον ἀπολυθέντα τοῦ σώματος καὶ προγνωστικώτατον, τελεῖν τε ἀγάλματα καὶ ναοὺς κινεῖν. 25) Porphyry, Ad Marcellam 11.1-8: λέγει δὲ ὁ λόγος πάντῃ μὲν καὶ πάντως παρεῖναι τὸ θεῖον, νεὼν δὲ τούτῳ παρ’ ἀνθρώποις καθιερῶσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν μάλιστα τοῦ σοφοῦ μόνην, τιμήν τε

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 166 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 statue to be a living image of the adorned god. We should note, however, that in his work Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων he drops no hint that can lead us to believe that he actually accepted the animation as such. On the contrary, Iambli- chus believed in the animation of statues. He referred to them as being associated with the most holy of worships and divine providence in the De vita Pythagorica,26 whereas in the De mysteriis he argued that they par- ticipate in the divine power27 and also evidently considered them to be images of the intelligible divine paradigms.28 This difference in attitude is what we should expect between Porphyry and Iamblichus—it is due to their diverging attitudes towards theurgy.29 Bearing all the afore-mentioned evidence in mind, we cannot but conclude that Hermias’ idea that statues can be possessed is certainly due to existing tradition, but the philosopher seems to give a fine analysis

προσήκουσαν ἀπονέμεσθαι τῷ θεῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ μάλιστα τὸν θεὸν ἐγνωκότος· τοῦτον δὲ εἶναι εἰκότως μόνον τὸν σοφόν, ᾧ τιμητέον διὰ σοφίας τὸ θεῖον καὶ κατακοσμητέον αὐτῷ διὰ σοφίας ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐμψύχῳ ἀγάλματι τῷ νῷ ἐνεικονισαμένου ἀγάλλοντος θεοῦ. θεὸς μὲν γὰρ δεῖται οὐδενός, σοφὸς δὲ μόνου θεοῦ. 26) Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 32.215.5-11: ὅτε γὰρ ὑπὸ Φαλάριδος τοῦ ὠμοτάτου τῶν τυράννων κατείχετο, καὶ συνέμιξεν αὐτῷ σοφὸς ἀνήρ, Ὑπερβόρειος τὸ γένος, Ἄβαρις τοὔνομα, αὐτοῦ τούτου ἕνεκα ἀφικόμενος τοῦ συμβαλεῖν αὐτῷ, λόγους τε ἠρώτησε καὶ μάλα ἱερούς, περὶ ἀγαλμάτων καὶ τῆς ὁσιωτάτης θεραπείας καὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν προνοίας, τῶν τε κατ’ οὐρανὸν ὄντων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν ἐπιστρεφομένων, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπύθετο (. . .). 27) Iamblichus, De mysteriis 23.10-19: Πάντων δὴ οὖν τούτων καὶ ἄλλων παραπλησίων ἀπεράντων ζητημάτων μία ἀρίστη λύσις, κατιδεῖν τὸν τρόπον τῆς θείας λήξεως. Αὕτη τοίνυν ἐάν τε μοίρας τινὰς τοῦ παντός, οἷον οὐρανὸν ἢ γῆν, ἐάν τε πόλεις ἱερὰς καὶ χώρας, ἐἀν τε καὶ τεμένη τινὰ ἢ ἱερὰ ἀγάλματα διαλαγχάνῃ, πάντα ἔξωθεν ἐπιλάμπει, καθάπερ ὁ ἥλιος ἔξωθεν φωτίζει πάντα ταῖς ἀκτῖσιν. Ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ φῶς περιέχει τὰ φωτιζόμενα, οὑτωσὶ καὶ τῶν θεῶν ἡ δύναμις τὰ μεταλαμβάνοντα αὐτῆς ἔξωθεν περιείληφεν. 28) Ibid. 43.17-44.2: Λέγω δὴ οὖν ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν νοητῶν θείων παραδειγμάτων καὶ περὶ αὐτὰ ἀπογεννᾶται τὰ ἐμφανῆ τῶν θεῶν ἀγάλματα, γενόμενά τε παντελῶς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἵδρυται, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰ ἀνήκουσαν ἔχει τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀποτελεσθεῖσαν εἰκόνα· ἑτέρως τε τὰ αὐτὰ ˂κατ’˃ ἄλλην διακόσμησιν δεδημιούργηται, συνεχῆ τέ ἐστι τὰ τῇδε πρὸς ἐκεῖνα κατὰ μίαν ἕνωσιν. Καὶ τὰ μὲν παρόντα θεῖα νοερὰ εἴδη τοῖς ὁρωμένοις σώμασι τῶν θεῶν χωριστῶς αὐτῶν προϋπάρχει, τὰ δ’ ἄμικτα καὶ ὑπερουράνια αὐτῶν νοητὰ παραδείγματα μένει καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ˂ἐν˃ ἑνὶ ὁμοῦ πάντα κατὰ τὴν διαιωνίαν αὐτῶν ὑπερβολήν. 29) For this difference see H.-D. Saffrey, “La théurgie comme pénétration d’ elements extra-rationels dans la philosophie grecque tardive”, Wissenschaftliche und außerwissen- schaftliche Rationalität. Referate und Texte des 4. Internationalen Symposiums 1978. Athènes 1982, pp. 153-169; repr. in H.-D. Saffrey, Recherches sur le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. His- toire de doctrines de l’ Antiquité Classique, 14, Paris 1990, 33-49.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 167 of enthusiasm which is associated with telestic madness. As we see at 87.4-19,30 according to Hermias’ argumentation, a statue might be inani- mate, but telestic madness purifies and imposes certain characters and symbols on it, thus rendering it susceptible to receive illumination from the divine. The language used in the passage is beyond doubt theurgical, but the philosopher states that only telestic madness can accomplish the task of rendering a statue possessed. The philosopher insists on the fact that without telestic madness, a statue is absolutely non-susceptible. What is more, in an interesting passage of Proclus’ commentary on the Cratylus we find the same view about statues that are characterized by telestic madness.31 The terminology used is more or less the same as in the

30) In Phaedr., 91.1-17: Πῶς μὲν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ ἐνθουσιᾷ[ν], εἴρηται. Πῶς δὲ καὶ ἄγαλμα[τα] λέγεται ἐνθουσιᾶν; ἢ αὐτὸ μὲν οὐκ ἐνεργεῖ περὶ τὸ θεῖον, ὅ γε ἄψυχόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὕλην ἡ τελεστικὴ διακαθήρασα καί τινας χαρακτῆρας καὶ σύμβολα περιθεῖσα τῷ ἀγάλματι πρῶτον μὲν ἔμψυχον αὐτὸ διὰ τούτων ἐποίησε, καὶ ζωήν τινα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καταδέ- ξασθαι, ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο ἐλλαμφθῆναι παρὰ τοῦ θείου αὐτὸ παρεσκεύασεν· ὅπερ ἄγαλμα ἀεὶ χρηματίζει ἕως δύνανται δέχεσθαι οἱ ἐπιτήδειοι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄγαλμα ὡς ἂν τελεσθῇ μένει ἐφεξῆς ἕως ἂν πάντῃ ἀνεπιτήδειον γένηται πρὸς τὴν θεῶν ἔλλαμψιν· ὁ μέντοι δοχεὺς παρὰ μέρος· νῦν μὲν γὰρ δεξάμενος ἀποπαύεται, αὖθις δὲ πάλιν ἐμφορεῖται· τὸ δὲ αἴτιον, ὅτι ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ ἐμφορουμένη αὐτὴ ἐνεργεῖ περὶ τὸ θεῖον, διὸ ἀποκάμνει ὑπὲρ τὴν ἑαυτῆς δύναμιν ἐνεργοῦσα (ἦ γὰρ ἂν ἦν θεὸς καὶ ὁμοία ταῖς τῶν ἄστρων ψυχαῖς, εἰ μὴ ἀπέκαμνε), τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ὡς ἂν πάθῃ οὕτω μένει ἐλλαμπόμενον, διὸ καὶ ἡ ἀνεπιτηδειότης αὐτοῦ εἰς στέρησιν παντελῆ χωρεῖ, ἐὰν μὴ πάλιν ἐκ νέας ὑπὸ τοῦ τελε<σ>τοῦ τελεσθῇ καὶ ἐμψυχωθῇ. For an earlier discussion of the passage see Ballériaux (1989), 20-21. 31) Proclus, In Crat. 51.29-40: βουλομένη δ’ ἀύλους τρόπον τινὰ καὶ μόνης τῆς λογικῆς οὐσίας ἐγγόνους ὑποστῆσαι τῶν ὄντων ὁμοιότητας, ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς, χρωμένη τῇ λεκτικῇ φαντασίᾳ συνεργῷ, τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων παρήγαγεν οὐσίαν· καὶ ὥσπερ ἡ τελεστικὴ διὰ δή τινων συμβόλων καὶ ἀπορρήτων συνθημάτων τὰ τῇδε ἀγάλματα τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπεικάζει καὶ ἐπιτήδεια ποιεῖ πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν τῶν θείων ἐλλάμψεων, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ νομοθετικὴ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀφομοιωτικὴν δύναμιν ἀγάλματα τῶν πραγμάτων ὑφίστησι τὰ ὀνόματα διὰ τοίων καὶ τοίων ἤχων ἀπεικονιζομένη τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν, καὶ ὑποστήσασα παρέδωκεν εἰς χρῆσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. For this passage see. E.R. Dodds (1951), p. 292 (appendix 2: Theurgy). Dodds considers this passage to show telestic as a branch of theurgy, but it seems that in Hermias and Proclus’ texts there is no difference between the use of τελεστική to denote telestic madness on the one hand and a branch of theurgy on the other. According to Hermias’ view, madness was involved in the procedure of theurgy—this is denoted by the terminology used in his discussion of madness. Thus, the animation of statues through telestic is well- placed in Hermias’ discussion of the Platonic distinction of madness. Further on, Dodds rightly brings in other passages of Proclus (namely Theol. Plat. I.28.70, In Tim. I.5.25, In Tim III 6.12ff. and In Crat. 19.12) as examples of the association of telestic and the animation of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 168 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 text of Hermias. Thus we may attribute the whole idea to master Syrianus, who lectured on the Phaedrus in the presence of a class including at least Hermias and Proclus. The discussion of the extent to which Proclus has followed his master in various philosophical issues is a far reaching one— Proclus often ascribes many ideas of his to Syrianus, but we should always be cautious if we are to take always literally what he says. But as long as an idea is common and is expressed with the aid of the same terminology in both Hermias and Proclus, we may surely attribute it to Syrianus. Up to this point, we tried to show that in the discussion of possession Hermias, actually reproducing the lectures of his teacher Syrianus, incorporates Platonic, Aristotelian and theurgic elements. As Ballériaux has noted, telestic madness plays a key role in the whole analysis, but it should be added that by referring only to telestic madness we do not cover everything the philosopher has to say about possession.32 Moreover, the role of telestic madness in Hermias becomes clearer if we take into consideration what comes after the text we have discussed: as we are going to see in the second section of this paper, the philosopher gives a fine Neoplatonic analysis of the inter-dependence of all four Platonic kinds of madness. Then, he proceeds to an interesting exposition of the function of all four kinds of madness inside and outside the soul. In this analysis he clearly proposes an original classification, a strict hierarchical evaluation of the four kinds of madness, on the top of which we encounter erotic madness. After that follow the madness of the seer, telestic madness and at the bottom of the hierarchy we encounter poetic madness. So, telestic madness is third in this hierarchy and this fact should not be underestimated when we discuss its role in the philosophical system of Syrianus. It is evident that in his evaluation Hermias follows Plato, who considered erotic madness to be the best of all. Hermias nevertheless goes on to a hierarchical evaluation of all types of madness, something that it is not traceable in the Platonic text.33 magic statues, in order to obtain oracles from them. Nevertheless, his supposition that a part at least of this lore goes back to the Τελεστικά of Julianus, probable though it may seem, cannot be undeniably proved. On the contrary, he is right in being certain about the association of σύμβολα with the Chaldean Oracles. 32) See O. Ballériaux (1989), p. 25. 33) T. Gelzer (“Die Epigramme des Neuplatoniker Proklos”, Museum Helveticum, XXIII, 1966, 23) and A. Sheppard (1980, 105) point out the change in order of presentation from

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 169

Divine Madness Our text preserves a sophisticated presentation and analysis of the Pla- tonic distinction of madness. In fact, Hermias comments on the Phaedrus 244b-245b in great detail but seems not to bother to analyze the types of madness presented in it and the possible problems that may arise from this first distinction.34 He rather chooses to apply the distinction of 265a-c, where madness is either the cause of human disease or sent by the divine, the latter having four kinds, each attributed to a certain god. What is more, he does not only acknowledge, but also enhances the Platonic distinction, providing us with a strict hierarchy of the four divine kinds of madness, which is not identical with Plato’s and proposing a number of functions for each and every one of them.

Hermias’ part with reference to the Platonic text. It is true that Hermias at 92.9-12 presents the types of madness with the following order: poetic, telestic, prophetic and erotic, whereas at Phaedrus 265a-c Plato mentions the madness types with the following order: prophetic, telestic, poetic, erotic. What is more, Hermias in his analysis sets forth a strict hierarchical evaluation, according to which first comes erotic madness, then prophetic, telestic and poetic. We should note that the Platonic text distinguishes, but does not strictly classify all types of divine madness. What Plato certainly does is to acknowledge the superiority of erotic madness and Hermias follows him in this. But Plato does not give any hint that any of the other three types is superior to the others. On the contrary, Her- mias does not simply follow a different order of presentation—he sets forth a strict hierarchy in all types of madness. Also important is the fact that, as A. Sheppard has shown in her article, Marsilio Ficino followed Hermias’ classification and hierarchical evaluation. 34) At Phaedrus 244b-245b Plato refers clearly to the madness of the seer and poetic madness and also analyses a type of madness that is hereditary in some families and is associated with purifications and rites (τελεταί). This kind of madness has been identified with telestic madness by some scholars and by some others not. For instance, R. Hackforth (Pla- to’s Phaedrus, Cambridge 1952; repr. 1989, comm. ad loc.) has acknowledged the problem and tried to solve it, while C.J. Rowe (Plato: Phaedrus. With translation and commentary, Warminster 1986, comm. ad loc.) has been reluctant to accept that this type is clearly set. Rowe has given weight to the mixture of the serious and the playful the passage consists of and has pointed out that there is no equivalent to this very type of madness in ancient Greek literature. H. Yunis (Plato. Phaedrus, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2011, also comm. ad loc.) considers this type as identical to telestic madness discussed at 265b: after pointing out that this situation has parallels in common Greek beliefs and prac- tices, he associates poetic details and the striking personification of the healing madness that structures the entire passage with the imaginary archaic world of tragic poetry. Yunis nevertheless points out that no particular drama is called to mind, thus rendering Rowe’s reservations more challenging.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 170 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179

To be more specific, after analyzing the notion of enthusiasm in a clearly Neoplatonic way, at 92.12-93.8 Hermias stresses the dependence between the four kinds of divine madness.35 He quotes the Platonic text in order to sustain the view that poetic and mantic madness depend on each other and this is due to their own nature. The genre of poets is characterized as divine and inspired and it is pointed out that poets in many occasions are capable of producing true oracles. This is realized thanks to their close relation to the Muses and the Graces. This is a very interesting issue, according to which the poet is also a seer thanks to madness. At this point we should perhaps mention Iamblichus, who in the De mysteriis presented the examples of oracles as examples of theurgy.36 In theurgy the mystic unification with the divine is accomplished through certain magical rituals and through the use of a certain terminology in the prayers. According to Iamblichus, theurgy is as essential as philosophy, in order to approach the ultimate truth. When the gods touch the soul, the latter enters the state of a seer. And as the seer exchanges ordinary conscious- ness for divine possession, each transformation of the soul is a theurgic exchange, a θεία μαντική. As G. Shaw remarked,37 Iamblichus generalized the specific phenomenon of mantis or enthousiasmos to describe theurgic transformations. In the passage of Hermias the poet is associated with the seer thanks to his ability to formulate true oracles. This is accomplished due to the relation of poetic madness with the madness of the seer.

35) In Phaedr. 92.12-28: Συμπνέουσι δὲ ἀλλήλαις καὶ δέονται ἀλλήλων αὗται αἱ τέσσαρες κατοκωχαί ̇ οὕτω πολλή τίς ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ κοινωνία· ἡ μὲν γὰρ τελεστικὴ δεῖται τῆς μουσικῆς (τὰ πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν κατὰ τὴν τελεστικὴν μαντικὴν ὑπαγορεύει), καὶ πάλιν αὖ ἡ μαντικὴ τῆς τελεστικῆς προσδεῖται (ἡ γὰρ τελεστικὴ τελεῖ καὶ καθιδρύει τὰ μαντεῖα), ἥ τε αὖ μαντικὴ τῇ ποιητικῇ καὶ μουσικῇ προσχρῆται (ἔμμετρα γὰρ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἀεὶ φθέγγονται οἱ μάντεις), ἥ τε μουσικὴ πάλιν προσχρῆται τῇ μαντικῇ αὐτοφυῶς ὡς αὐτός φησι· θεῖον γὰρ οὖν καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐνθεασταικὸν ὂν γένος χρησμῳδοῦν πολλῶν τῶν κατ’ ἀλήθειαν σύν τισι Μούσαις καὶ Χάρισιν ἐφάπτεται ἑκάστοτε. Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐρωτικῆς καὶ μουσικῆς τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν; σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ αὐτοὶ τήν τε μουσικὴν καὶ τὴν ἐρωτικὴν ἤσκησαν, ὡς ἄνευ ἀλλήλων εἶναι μὴ δυναμένων, ὥσπερ δὴ Σαπφώ τε καὶ Ἀνακρέων καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι. Πρόδηλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἡ ἐρωτικὴ πάσαις συμβάλλεται, ὅπου οὐ μόνον ταύταις ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἅπαξ καὶ ἁπλῶς παντὶ ἐνθουσιασμῷ· οὐδένα γὰρ ἐνθουσιασμὸν ἄνευτῆς ἐρωτικῆς ἐπιπνοίας συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι. 36) See G. Shaw, Theurgy and the soul. The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, Pennsylvania 1995, 231. 37) G. Shaw, ibid., 232.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 171

The philosopher also stresses that the prominent figures who were possessed by poetic madness have been possessed by the erotic as well. Quite naturally, the examples he sets forth are no other than Sappho and Ana- creon. It should not escape our notice, also, that, according to Syrianus, Orpheus is considered to evidently possess all the above-mentioned char- acteristics of madness, which depend on one another.38 Then Hermias discusses the twofold operation of the four Platonic types of madness, all of which function inside and outside the soul (ἔνδον καὶ ἔξω τῆς ψυχῆς). The operation inside the soul is richer and expressed in four domains: the restoration of the soul after it has lost its wings, the restoration of man as a whole in three levels (the level of existence, the intellectual and the intelligible level), the mathematical system and the logical processes. Moreover, the operation ἔξω τῆς ψυχῆς is associated with social human activities. (a) Let us start with the operation inside the soul. We saw that madness plays active part in the restoration of the soul after the shedding of its feathers. Hermias describes analytically how the wings are broken. At the beginning the soul was unified with the divine, but then distancing itself from this divine union descended to the level of the intellect.39 After

38) Hermias, In Phaedr. 92.28-92.8: Ὁρᾷς πῶς Ὀρφεὺς πάσας ἐπιτηδεύσας φαίνεται ὡς δεομέ- νας καὶ ἐχομένας ἀλλήλων· τελεστικώτατον μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ μαντικώτατον παρειλήφαμεν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος κινούμενον, ἔτι ποιητικώτατον ὅν γε δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ Καλλιόπης υἱὸν γενέ- σθαι φασίν· ἐρωτικώτατός τέ ἐστιν ὡς αὐτὸς λέγων φαίνεται πρὸς τὸν Μουσαῖον καὶ προτείνων αὐτῷ τὰ θεῖα ἀγαθὰ καὶ τελειῶν αὐτόν. Πάσαις οὖν ὤφθη ἡμῖν οὗτος ὁ ἀνὴρ κατασχεθεὶς ταῖς μανίαις· καὶ ἀναγκαίως δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνει· πολλὴ γὰρ ἕνωσις καὶ σύμπνοια τούτων τῶν θεῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῶν ἐφόρων τούτων τῶν μανιῶν, καὶ πολλὴ οἰκειότης πρὸς ἑαυτούς ἐστι Μουσῶν, Διονύσου, Ἀπόλλωνος,Ἔρωτος. For the choice of Sappho and Anacreon, as well as of Orpheus as examples cf. Sheppard (1980), 105. 39) Hermias, In Phaedr. 93.14-94.19: Λάβωμεν οὖν πρότερον τὰς ἔνδον καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς μόνας, καὶ ἴδωμεν τί δρῶσιν εἰς τὴν ψυχήν· καὶ ἵνα τοῦτο σαφὲς γένηται καὶ ἐν τάξει ληφθῶσιν, ἄνωθεν τὴν κάθοδον καὶ «πτερορρύ<η>σιν», ὡς αὐτός φησι, τῆς ψυχῆς θεωρήσωμεν. Ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὖν καὶ πρῶτον ἥνωτο τοῖς θεοῖς ἡ ψυχή, καὶ τὸ ἓν αὐτῆς ἐκεῖνο συνῆπτο τοῖς θεοῖς. Εἶτα ἀποστᾶσα ταύτης τῆς θείας ἑνώσεως κατῆλθεν εἰς νοῦν καὶ οὐκέτι ἡνωμένως καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ εἶχε τὰ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ ἁπλαῖς ἐπιβολαῖς καὶ οἷον θίξεσι τοῦ νοῦ αὐτῆς αὐτὰ ἤθρει καὶἑώρα. Ἔπειτα καὶ τοῦ νοῦ ἀποστᾶσα καὶ εἰς λογισμὸν καὶ διάνοιαν κατελθοῦσα, οὐκέτι οὐδὲ ἁπλαῖς ἐπιβολαῖς αὐτὰ ᾕρει, ἀλλὰ συλλογιστικῶς καὶ μεταβατικῶς καὶ ἄλλο ἐξ ἄλλου, ἀπὸ προτάσεων ἐπὶ συμπεράσματα ἐρχομένη. Ἔπειτα καὶ τοῦ καθαροῦ λογισμοῦ ἀποστᾶσα καὶ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ ἰδιώματος, κατῆλθεν εἰς γένεσιν καὶ πολλῆς τῆς ἀλογίας καὶ τῆς ταραχῆς ἀνεπλήσθη. Δεῖ οὖν αὐτὴν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκείας ἀρχὰς ἀναδραμεῖν, καὶ ὅθεν κατῆλθεν ἐκεῖ πάλιν ἀνελθεῖν· εἰς δὴ τὴν

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 172 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 its descent to the intellectual level, in which it did not incorporate in itself all beings as a whole, but intuitionally, it descended to the level of pure reason (καθαρὸς λογισμός). At this level the soul was able to approach everything through syllogisms and arguments and was capable of reaching conclusions. Its descent went on and eventually it came down to earth, where it became irrational and disordered. But as it is due to return to its initial state, the four kinds of madness help it go up and restore itself to its own principles. The role of poetic madness (Hermias uses the term μουσική as a synonym for ποιητική) is the first in a chronological order. As the soul is scattered and disordered, poetic madness undertakes the task of restoring its harmony. As it puts together and calms down the parts of the soul, it prepares it for the next stage, which is no other than its com- pletion through telestic madness. (b) Concerning the restoration of man as a whole in three levels, as a physical, intellectual and intelligible entity, poetic madness has a certain role as well. As we see at 94.20-95.2,40 the Muses and poetic madness unify

ἄνοδον ταύτην καὶ ἀποκατάστασιν συμβάλλονται αὐτῇ αἱ τέσσαρες αὗται μανίαι· τὸ τεταραγμέ- νον τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς καὶ εἰς ἀοριστίαν καὶ εἰς ἀναρμοστίαν ὑπενεχθὲν καὶ πολλῆς ταραχῆς ἀναπλησθὲν εἰς συμφωνίαν καὶ ἁρμονίαν ἄγει ἡ μουσική· ἡ δὲ τελεστικὴ τελέαν καὶ ὁλόκληρον ποιεῖ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ νοερῶς ἐνεργεῖν παρασκευάζει. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ μουσικὴ μόνα τὰ μόρια ἁρμόζει καὶ καταστέλλει, ἡ δὲ τελεστικὴ ὅλην αὐτὴν ποιεῖ ἐνεργεῖν καὶ ὁλόκληρον παρασκευάζει, ὥστε καὶ τὸ νοερὸν αὐτῆς ἐνεργεῖν. Κατελθοῦσα γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ συντεθραυσμένῃ καὶ παρειμένῃ ἔοικε, καὶ ὁ μὲν ταὐτοῦ κύκλος πεπέδηται, τουτέστι τὸ νοερὸν αὐτῆς, ὁ δὲ θατέρου πολλὰς κλάσεις καὶ στροφὰς ὑπομένει, τουτέστι τὸ δοξαστικόν· μερικῶς οὖν καὶ οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἑαυτὴν ἐνεργεῖ. Ἡ οὖν διονυσιακὴ κατοκωχὴ μετὰ τὴν τῶν μερῶν συναρμονίαν τελέαν αὐτὴν ἀπεργάζεται καὶ ποιεῖ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἑαυτὴν ἐνεργεῖν καὶ νοερῶς ζῆν· ἡ δὲ ἀπολλωνιακὴ πάσας τὰς πεπληθυσμένας αὐτῆς δυνάμεις καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ἓν αὐτῆς ἐπιστρέφει καὶ συνεγείρει (διὸ καὶ Ἀπόλλων εἴρηται ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἓν ἐπανάγων τὴν ψυχήν)· ἡ δὲ Ἐρωτικὴ λοιπὸν ἡνωμένην παραλαβοῦσα τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦτο τὸ ἓν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τῷ νοητῷ κάλλει συνάπτει. Ὁρῶνται μὲν οὖν, ὅπερ εἴπομεν ἐν ἑκάστῃ καὶ αἱ λοιπαί, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν ἑκάστη λέγεται· τριῶν γὰρ ὄντων τούτων αὐτῶν τῶν θεῶν τῶν διδόντων <καὶ> τῶν δόσεων αὐτῶν καὶ τριτ<τ>ῶν τῶν μεταλαμβα- νόντων, ἐπειδὴ τὰ διδόντα ἥνωται καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν καὶ ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐστί, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ αἱ δόσεις μετέχουσι καὶ κοινωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ ὑποδεχόμενον, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, πρὸς πάσας ἐπιτηδείως ἔχει τὰς δόσεις. 40) Ibid., 94.20-95.2: Λάβοις δ’ ἂν καὶ ἄλλως ἐκ διαιρέσεως τὰς τέσσαρας μανίας· ἐπεὶ γὰρἡ ὁλότης τριχῶς, ἢ ὡς ἐν τῷ μέρει ἢ ὡς ἐκ τῶν μερῶν ἢ ὡς πρὸ μερῶν (ἔστι γὰρ μερικῶς τὸ ὅλον, ὥσπερ ὁ ἄνθρωπος «μικρὸς κόσμος» λέγεται μέρος ὢν τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ ὁ μερικὸς νοῦς πάντα ἔχει τὰ εἴδη ὅσα ὁ παντέλειος· ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν μερῶν ὅλον, ὥσπερ ὁ κόσμος ὁ αἰσθητὸς ἐκ πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ· ἔστι δὲ τὸ ὅλον τὸ πρὸ τῶν μερῶν, ὡς τὸ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἢ τῇ ψυχῇ τῇ ὅλῃ ἢ τῷ νῷ εἶδος τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ τεχνίτου τὸ εἶδος τῆς οἰκίας), τοῦ μὲν ὅλου

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 173 the whole-in-parts. The example he sets forth is the following: when we say that man is a small world, we say this because man is part of the world. So, as the Muses and poetic madness unify the whole as part, in the same way the particular intellect includes in itself all thoughts included in the perfect divine intellect. This is accomplished through poetic madness. Telestic madness and Dionysus unify the whole which stems from the parts just as the sensible world is comprised as a whole by its parts. The madness which stems from Apollo unifies the whole before the parts, exactly as the soul of the builder includes in advance in itself the Form of the house before the actual construction of the house. Accordingly, the Form of the world preexists in nature or in the universal soul or in the intellect. Last chronologically comes erotic madness, which unifies the one-in-the-soul in all beings and establishes the soul in the gods, uniting it with their ineffable beauty. (c) Next comes the function of the four Platonic types of madness in relation to the mathematical system, which is of Pythagorean origin. Each type of madness attributed to a certain god corresponds to a certain number.41 The good and the god Eros correspond to the One before the Monad, while Apollo to the Monad, as he includes in himself all action (capability of ἐνεργεῖν, πράττειν), exactly as the number one includes in itself all numbers in a unified way. Dionysus corresponds to number three, the triad being perfect by nature as it has beginning, middle and end. It is Dionysus who renders the soul perfect. It should not escape our notice, though, that immediately after42 Her- mias states that Dionysus corresponds to number four, the latter being the

τοῦ ὡς μέρους συναρμοστικαί εἰσιν αἱ Μοῦσαι καὶ ἡ μουσικὴ μανία, τοῦ δ’ ὅλου τοῦ ἐκ τῶν μερῶν ὁ Διόνυσος καὶ ἡ τελεστική, τοῦ δ’ ὅλου τοῦ πρὸ τῶν μερῶν ὁ Ἀπόλλων καὶ ἡ μαντική· ὁ δὲ Ἔρως ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῦτο τὸ ἓν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ψυχὴν τοῖς θεοῖς ἐνιδρύει, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἔργον τῆς ἐρωτικῆς, συνάψαι τὴν ψυχὴν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τῷ ἀφράστῳ αὐτῶν κάλλει. 41) Ibid., 95.3-13: Λάβοις δ’ ἂν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν αὐτῶν τὴν τάξιν· τὴν μὲν γὰρ μονάδα Ἀπόλλωνι ἀνιεροῦσι διὰ τὸ ἑνιαῖον αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐνεργείας, ὡς καὶ ἡ μονὰς ἑνιαίως πάντας ἔχει τοὺς ἀριθμούς· τὴν δὲ τριάδα τῷ Διονύσῳ ὡς τελείαν, ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσα καὶ τέλος ἔχουσαν, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Διόνυσος τελέαν ποιεῖ τὴν ψυχήν· ταῖς δὲ Μούσαις τὸν ἐννέα, διότι πάσας τὰς ἁρμονίας καὶ τὰς σχέσεις ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἐπεὶ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ πρόοδος τῶν ἀριθμῶν εἰς τὸν ἐννέα περαιοῦται (διὸ καὶ †ἔννεον† αὐτὴν ἐκάλουν), καὶ ὁρᾷς ὅτι ἡ μὲν μονὰς ὡς πρώτη τὸν τρία τέλειον ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ τρία τὸν ἐννέα, πρὸ δὲ τῆς μονάδος λάβοις ἂν τὸ ἓν ἀνάλογον τῷ ἔρωτι καὶ τἀγαθῷ, οὗ πάντ’ ἐφίεται· εἰς γὰρ τὸ ἓν τὸ τῶν θεῶν ἀνάγει πάντα ὁ Ἔρως. 42) Ibid., 95.13-21: Καὶ τὴν τετράδα δὲ κατ’ ἄλλας ἐπιβολὰς τῷ Διονύσῳ ἀνατιθέασι διὰ τὸπρώτην

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 174 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 number which includes all musical harmony. Moreover, number four includes in itself all other numbers before it, as it is the root of all numbers and composes number ten. Number ten is called «τετρόμματος» or «τετραπρόσωπος». What is more important is the fact that Hermias uses the adverb «θεολογικῶς». The whole context of the analysis, as well as the use of this adverb enable us to acknowledge this passage as bearing Οrphic influences. In fact, we seem to be dealing with Orphic arithmology, which is also traced in yet another passage of Hermias.43 The Muses correspond to number nine, as this number includes all harmonies and relations and as the sequence of numbers ends at number nine. For once more, on the top of this function we encounter the erotic madness, while at the bottom the poetic. (d) The four kinds of madness are also associated with logical arguments (λογικὰ θεωρήματα).44 Each type of madness corresponds to a certain Aristotelian logical process. Poetic madness is associated with definition, the process through which the human is defined on the basis of prop- erties that belong to its species (animal, mortal etc.). Telestic madness corresponds to the division and analysis, thanks to which we move from the partial species to the most universal genus (γενικώτατον γένος). The madness of the seer, i.e. the madness of Apollo corresponds to the most

πάσας ἔχειν τὰς ἁρμονίας (ἐπίτριτον δγ΄, ἡμιόλιον γβ΄, [τὸν] διπλάσιον δβ΄, [τὸν] τριπλάσιον γα΄, [τὸν] τετραπλάσιον δα΄· τουτέστι διὰ τεσσάρων, διὰ πέντε, διὰ πασῶν, διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ πασῶν, διὰ δὶς διὰ πασῶν), κα διὰ τὸ περιέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς πάντας ἐν ἑαυτῇ· ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἡ τετρὰς διὰ τὸ κατ’ ἐπισύνθεσιν τῆς μονάδος ἄχρις αὐτῆς ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὸν δέκα, τὸν δὲ δέκα πάντα εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὅλως «τετρόμματον» καὶ «τετραπρόσωπον» ἡ θεολογία καλεῖ (Cf. Bernabé 133F). 43) Ibid., 144.12-17: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ δωδέκατος ἀριθμὸς ἐκ <τοῦ> τελείου ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ τρίτου καὶ τοῦ γενεσιουργοῦ τοῦ τετάρτου κατὰ σύγκρασιν ἀπεγεννήθη, ὅλον τὸν τῶν θεῶν περιέχων θεῖον διά- κοσμον, τοῦ δὲ τρίτου καὶ τετάρτου ἀρχαὶ μονὰς καὶ δυάς, εἴη ἂν μονὰς μὲν ὁ αἰθήρ, δυὰς δὲ τὸ χάος, τριὰς δὲ τὸ ᾠόν (τέλειον γάρ ἐστι), τετρὰς δὲ ὁ Φάνης, ὡς καὶ Ὀρφεύς φησι· τετράσιν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρώμενος ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα. (Cf. Bernabé 114F) 44) Ibid., 95.21-96.2: Λάβοις δ’ ἂν τῶν ἐνθουσιασμῶν τούτων εἰκόνας καὶ ἐκ τῶν λογικῶν θεωρη- μάτων· τῇ μὲν γὰρ μουσικῇ ἀνάλογον λήψῃ τὴν ὁριστικήν, ἥτις τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὸν ὁρισμὸν αὐτοῦ συναρμόζει ἐκ ζῴου καὶ θνητοῦ καὶ ἀποτελεῖ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ· τῇ δὲ τελεστικῇ τὴν διαιρετικὴν καὶ ἀναλυτικήν, ἥτις διὰ τῶν ὑπαλλήλων γενῶν ἀναπέμπει ἐπὶ τὸ γενικώτατον· τῇ δὲ ἀπολλωνιακῇ καὶ μαντικῇ αὐτὸ τὸ γενικώτατον, ὃ ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εἰς τὸ ἓν τὸ ἑνικώτατον ἀφῖκται. Λάβοις δ’ ἂν καὶ πάντων τῶν δέκα γενικωτάτην τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ὂν τὸ κοινῶς πάντων κατηγορούμενον ἀντὶ τῆς ἐρωτικῆς· πάντα γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ ὁ Ἔρως ἀνάγει.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 175 universal genus, the latter being able to move from the many to the ultimate one (ἑνικώτατον ἕν). The madness of love corresponds to the being predicated in all material objects, as love leads everything to the good. In this passage, where the functions of the types of madness are put in a context of logic, the Aristotelian influences are more than traceable. Having chosen to speak in Αristotelian terms, the philosopher once again distinguishes and classifies the types of madness, placing the madness of love on the top. Up to now we referred to the operation inside the soul. The philosopher evidently considers the operation outside the soul (ἔξω τῆς ψυχῆς) to be important as well. Thus, at 96.4-2445 we read that poetic madness pro- vides us with metrical narration of the deeds, the virtues and the proper- ties of divine men (τῶν θείων ἀνδρῶν), thus performing an educational task within the society. The philosopher, a devoted admirer of Plato though he was, in this passage clearly refers to the major importance of poetry for the ancient societies. Moreover, the use of «πράττειν» along with «κινεῖσθαι εὐρύθμως» seem to refer to orchesis. But what is more important is that poetic madness performs its educational task in the same way it unifies the parts of the soul. Moreover, telestic madness chases away every damaging and polluting element and restores the mental and psychic health of man, just as in the inner function it rendered the soul perfect. At this point we may remember the first classification Plato made at 244b-245b, according to which

45) Ibid., 96.4-24: Λάβωμεν δὴ καὶ τὰς ἐκτὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐνεργείας καὶ ἃ ἀποτελοῦσιν ἔξω περὶ ἡμᾶς. Ἡ μὲν οὖν μουσικὴ ἐμμέτρως τε φθέγγεσθαι ποιεῖ καὶ πράττειν καὶ κινεῖσθαι εὐρύθμως καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα τῶν θείων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτῶν ἐμμέτρως ᾄδειν, καὶ διὰ τούτων παιδεύειν τὸν βίον, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ ἔνδον συνήρμοζεν ἡμῶν τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς. Ἡ δὲ τελεστικὴ πᾶν τὸ ἀλλότριον καὶ μολυσματῶδες καὶ βλαβερὸν ἀποδιώκουσα, τέλεον ἡμῶν καὶ ἀβλαβῆ τὸν βίον τηρεῖ, καὶ τὰς μανίας καὶ δαιμονιώδεις φαντασίας †ἀποδιώκουσα†, ὑγιεῖς καὶ ὁλοκλήρους καὶ τελείους ἡμᾶς ποιεῖ, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ τὴν ἔνδον ψυχὴν τελέαν καὶ ὁλόκληρον ἐποίει. Ἡ δὲ μαντικὴ ἑνιαίως συναιρεῖ τὸ ἐκτεταμένον καὶ ἄπειρον τοῦ χρόνου, καὶ ὡς ἐν ἑνὶ παρόντι τῷ νῦν τὰ πάντα ὁρᾷ, τά τε παρεληλυθότα <καὶ> τὰ ἐνεστῶτα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα· διὸ προλέγουσα τὰ ἐσόμενα, ἅπερ αὐτὴ ὡς παρόντα ὁρᾷ, ἄπταιστον ἡμῶν ποιεῖ διοδεύειν τὸν βίον· ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ ἔνδον πάσας τὰς πεπληθυσμένας καὶ πολλὰς ζωὰς καὶ δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπὶ τὸ ἓν συναιρεῖ καὶ ἀνάγει, ἵνα μᾶλλον σῴζηται καὶ συνέχηται. Ἡ δὲ ἐρωτικὴ ἐπιστρέφει τοὺς νέους εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ εἰς φιλίαν ἡμῶν ἄγει, παιδευτική τις οὖσα καὶ αὐτὴ τῶν νέων, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ κάλλους ἐπὶ τὸ ψυχικὸν ἡμῶν κάλλος συνάγουσα τοὺς νέους, καὶ ἀπὸ τού- του ἐπὶ τὸ νοητὸν ἀναπέμπουσα, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ ἔνδον τὸ ἓν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῖς θεοῖς συνῆπτεν.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 176 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 there is a type of madness associated with purification and rites and is hereditary in certain families. Hermias regards this type as identical to telestic madness (although many modern scholars, as has already been mentioned,46 are reluctant to do so). In the passage where the operation outside the soul is elaborated the madness of the seer converges in a whole the infinite extension of time, in such a way that past, present and future are treated as a unified present. This is why the seer foresees the future, as the future is nothing more than a dimension of the present. At this point we cannot but remember the Homeric verse devoted to Kalchas who knew all present and previous things and all that was about to come.47 The verse in question is quoted by the philosopher at the In Phaedr. 157.22-24.48 Last but not least, we should note that, as we should expect, the madness of love plays the most important role in the outside the soul operation. This time the role is educational, as it leads the young persons from the material to the intelligible beauty, namely to the One which is united with the gods. We see that what is important in the function outside of the soul of all types of madness is that they are present in human society.

Conclusion To sum up: Hermias firstly discusses possession posing four important issues, some of which stem from the actual problems the Platonic text poses (as, for instance, the question whether madness is considered to be good or bad) and some not (as, for instance, the fact that possession is to be traced not only in the human soul but also in the statues). What is worth mentioning is the fact that his elaboration bears not only Platonic, but also Aristotelian and theurgic elements. Immediately after, still commenting on Platonic passages, but using the complex Neoplatonic system, he evaluates and classifies the four Platonic types of madness. He claims that they have a twofold operation and in

46) See above, n. 34. 47) Il. I 69-70 Κάλχας Θεστορίδης οἰωνοπόλων ὄχ’ ἄριστος, ὃς ᾔδη τά τ’ ἐόντα τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα. 48) For a discussion of this Homeric reference and its use by Neoplatonic philosophers prior and posterior to Hermias see C.-P. Manolea (2004), 184-187.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 177 each case explains their function, following the same hierarchical evaluation. He clearly proposes an original classification of the kinds of madness, on the basis of which we encounter poetic madness. After that follow telestic madness, the madness of the seer and erotic madness. The whole analysis shows a strong Platonic influence, enriched with Aristotelian, Pythagorean, and Orphic elements covering the fields of psychology, logic and metaphysics. Thus, we cannot but conclude that Ballériaux, despite some insufficien- cies in his approach to telestic madness, of which we spoke earlier, was nevertheless right in pointing out that Hermias’ work helps us define the way Syrianus perceived the existing relations among telestic madness, theology and philosophy.49 In our article we tried to show that Hermias’ work does help the reader perceive the function of all types of divine madness in the extended field of Neoplatonic philosophy and theology.

Bibliography

A. Primary Sources Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, eds. C.M. Lucarini, C. Moreschini, Hermias Alexan- drinus In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, Berlin/Boston 2012. Homer, Ilias, ed. M.L. West, Homeri Ilias, vols. 1-2, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998-2000. Odyssea, ed. P. von der Mühl, Homeri Odyssea, Basel 1962. Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica, ed. L. Deubner, Leipzig, 1937; rev. U. Klein, Stuttgart 1975. De mysteriis, ed. H.-D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds (avec la collaboration de A. Lecerf), Jam- blique. Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis), Paris 2013. Orphici, ed. A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta, Pars I-II, Berlin 2007. Plato, Ion, ed. J. Burnet, Platonis Opera, vol. 3, Oxford 1903; repr. 1968. Phaedrus, ed. J. Burnet, op.cit. vol. 2, Oxford 1901; repr. 1967. Res Publica, ed. J. Burnet, op. cit. vol. 3, Oxford 1903; repr. 1968. Plotinus, Enneades, eds. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera, 3 vols. Leiden: 1:1951; 2:1959; 3:1973. Porphyry, De abstinentia, ed. A. Nauck, Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta, 2nd edn. Leipzig 1866; repr. Hildesheim 1967.

49) O. Ballériaux (1989), p. 25: “Ce sont les Scholies d’ Hermias qui, une fois encore, nous aideront à préciser le manière dont Syrianus conçoit les rapports existant entre la téeles- tique, la théologie et la philosophie”.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access 178 C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179

De antro nympharum, ed. Seminar Classics 609, Porphyry. The cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey, Arethusa Monographs, 1, Buffalo 1969. Vita Pythagorae, ed. A. Nauck, Porphyrii philosophi Platonici opuscula selecta, 2nd. edn., Leipzig 1886; repr. Hildesheim 1963. De philosophia ex oraculis, ed. G. Wolff, Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, Berlin 1856; repr. Hildesheim 1962. Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, ed. J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre le philosophe néo-platonicien, Leipzig 1913; repr. Hildesheim 1964. Ad Marcellam, ed. E. des Places, Porphyre. Vie de Pythagore, Lettre à Marcella, Paris 1982. Quaestionum Homericarum ad Odysseam, ed. H. Schrader, Porphyrii quaestionum Homericarum ad Odysseam pertinentium reliquiae, Leipzig 1890. Proclus, Institutio Theologica, ed. E.R. Dodds, Proclus. The elements of theology, 2nd edn. Oxford 1963; repr. 1992. In Cratylum, ed. G. Pascuali, Proclus Diadochus in Platonis Cratylum commentaria, Leipzig 1908. In Rempublicam, ed. W. Kroll, Procli Diadochi in Platonis rem publicam commentarii, 2 vols., Leipzig 1: 1899, 2: 1901; repr. Amsterdam 1965. In Timaeum, ed. E. Diehl, Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria, 3 vols., Leipzig 1:1903, 2: 1904, 3: 1906. Theologia Platonica, ed. H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink, Proclus. Théologie platonici- enne, vols. 1-5, Paris 1: 1968, 2: 1974, 3: 1978, 4: 1981, 5: 1987. Themistius, In Aristotelis libros de anima paraphrasis, ed. R. Heinze, Themistii in libros Aris- totelis de anima paraphrasis, Berlin 1899.

B. Secondary Bibliography Ballériaux, O. (1989), “Φιλοσόφως τὰ θεουργικὰ ἐξετάζειν. Syrianus et la téléstique”, Kernos, 2, 13-25. Bernard, H. (1997), Hermeias von Alexandrien. Kommentar zu Platons Phaidros, Philosophis- che Untersuchungen, 1, Tübingen. Bielmeier, P.A. (1930), “Die Neuplatonische Phaedrusinterpretation”, Rhetorische Studien, 16, 4-96. Dodds, E.R. (1951), The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. Gelzer, T. (1966), “Die Epigramme des Neuplatoniker Proklos”, Museum Helveticum, XXIII, 1-36. Hackforth, R. (1952), Plato’s Phaedrus, Cambridge; repr. 1989. Janko, R. (1992), The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. IV: books 13-16, in G.S. Kirk (ed.) (1985-1993), Cambridge. Καλλιγᾶς, Π. (1994), Πλωτίνου Ἐννεάς Πρώτη. Ἀρχαῖο κείμενο, μετάφραση, σχόλια Π. Καλλιγᾶς, Ἀθήνα. Kirk, G.S. (ed.) (1985-1993), The Iliad: A Commentary, 6 vols., Cambridge. Longo, A. (ed.) (2009), Syrianus et la Métaphysique de l’ antiquité tardive. Actes du colloque international, Université de Genève, 29 septembre−1er octobre 2006, Napoli.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access C.-P. Manolea / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7 (2013) 156-179 179

—— (2010), “Syrianus” in L.P. Gerson (ed.) The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Vol. II, Cambridge, 616-629. Manolea, C.-P. (2004), The Homeric tradition in Syrianus, Thessaloniki. —— (2009), “The treatment of ancient Greek Myth in Syrianus’ philosophical works, in A. Longo (ed.) (2009), 499−514. Moreschini, C. (1992), “Alcuni aspetti degli Scholia in Phaedrum di Ermia Alessandrino in M.O. Goulet-Gazé, G. Madec, D. O’ Brien (eds.) ΣΟΦΙΗΣ ΜΑΙΗΤΟΡΕΣ—“Chercheurs de sagesse”, Hommage à Jean Pépin, Paris, 451-460. —— (2009), “Alla scuola di Siriano: Ermia nella storia del neoplatonismo”, in A. Longo (ed.) (2009), 515−578. Murray, P. (1996), Plato on poetry. Ion, Republic 376e-398b, Republic 595-698b, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Cambridge. Praechter, K. (1912), “Hermeias” in Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclopädie d. class. Alterumswis- senschaft 8.1, cols. 732-735. Rowe, C.J. (1986), Plato: Phaedrus. With translation and commentary, Warminster. Saffrey, H.-D. (1982), “La théurgie comme pénétration d’ elements extra-rationels dans la philosophie grecque tardive”, Wissenschaftliche und außerwissenschaftliche Rationalität. Referate und Texte des 4. Internationalen Symposiums 1978, Athènes, 153-169; repr. in H.-D. Saffrey (1990), 33-49. —— (1990), Recherches sur le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. Histoire de doctrines de l’ Anti- quité Classique, 14, Paris. Shaw, G. (1995), Theurgy and the soul. The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, Pennsylvania. Sheppard, A. (1980), “The Influence of Hermias on Marsilio Ficino’s doctrine of inspiration”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLIII, 97-109. Uzdavinys, A. (2009), “Animation of statues in ancient civilizations and Neoplatonism” in P. Vassilopoulou and S.R.L. Clark (eds.) Late antique epistemology. Other ways to truth, Hampshire and New York, 118-140. Yunis, H. (ed.) (2011), Plato. Phaedrus, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Cambridge.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 09:01:16AM via free access