Hellenistic Astrology & Plato’s Metaphysics
-Theurgy and Animated Images
Introduction
- Cosmos as a Living Statue
- Eikons, Talismans and Symbols in Greek Philosophy
- Theurgy and Animated Images
In the previous article we examined astrology and sacred images in the Hellenistic and Roman period, which shows roots of talismanic magic in the pagan temples of the Mediterranean. We will now explore some of its theoretical foundations in Plato’s teachings and its role in the works of Proclus.
1. Cosmos as a Living Statue
In his five books of commentaries on Plato’s Timaeus, Proclus repeatedly refers to the cosmos as a statue of the gods and living beings as “statues in motion”. This recalls the first book of Genesis and Elohim forming the archetypal Man in the divine “image” or tselem from primordial earth.
“But Plato says that the world was made the statue or resemblance of the perpetual gods, not that it is the image of the mundane gods; for he does not alone speak about the corporeal-formed nature of the universe, but also about the animated and intellectual animal, which comprehends in itself the mundane gods……The nature of animal itself was eternal, and this is impossible to adapt perfectly to that which is generated. Hence, he (the Demiurge) formed a certain moveable image of eternity and while he was adorning the universe, he made this eternal image according to number, of eternity abiding in one, which we call ‘time’.” – Proclus, On the Timaeus of Plato, Book 4, (Thomas Taylor translation)
This may shed some light on the criticism that Iamblichus heaped on image makers who he said mistakenly believed they were aided by the stars. He also said that their craft seemingly mimics the Demiurge. He doesn’t explain why or how they are mistaken, and with all his other praise for using divine symbols and sympathetic materials, it’s obvious that we don’t have the full context. Here, in the words of Proclus, we have an eloquent description of the Demiurgic process Iamblichus refers to.
The process of creating a divine statue or other image was likely an important learning process for the ancient priests. The knowledge required appears to be considerable from the Hermetic and Neoplatonist writings and required a combination of skills. The emphasis on deep contemplation and attaining visions indicates that could have been one part of a larger ritual procedure.
Throughout his writings, Proclus emphasizes that the primary goal was and always will be development and purification of the soul until it achieves divine union. Proclus describes several ways that it occurs and multiple paths for the philosopher to take in the process, including theurgy and visions along with rituals, devotion, study and contemplation.
The soul has within it divine images that can invoke those entities, and it makes a journey from sense perception, imagination and belief to Nous and pure intuition. Finally, it awakens the image of the One. I think that Iamblichus was simply scorning people who had no knowledge and experience of what he believed to be the most important parts of theurgy or falsely claimed to. It simply makes no sense otherwise.
Like Iamblichus, Proclus places more emphasis on gnosis and “raising” the human soul and only speaks in general terms about “bringing down” divinity and establishing direct links through matter. Proclus, living in the 400s, uses the same terminology as the author of Picatrix when discussing the linking of material and divine, namely that it was done by “wise men of old” and are implied to have possessed a considerably high level of skill, beyond both writers. Proclus does not claim this was done through astrology, but this statement is intriguing, nonetheless.
“The wise men of old (hoi palai sophoi) brought together various things down here with their heavenly counterparts and brought down Divine Powers into this mortal place, having drawn them down through Similarity (homoiotētōs): for Similarity is powerful enough to attach beings to one another.” – On the Priestly Art
Theurgists like Iamblichus and Proclus had extensive, firsthand knowledge of the theory and practice surrounding the use of sacred images. Astrology, eikons (images), and sympathetic materials were central to theurgy but detailed instructions for making astrological talismans aren’t in their surviving works. Regardless, there are a considerable amount of writings that have survived (see Julianus of Laodicea) and Proclus led the last of Plato’s Academy in its purely pagan form.
Links between Platonic philosophy of this period (500 AD) to Ghayat al-Hakim (1000 AD) is a gap of five centuries and a translation from Greek to medieval Arabic. I’m making this link primarily from the phrase “Science of Images”. Science is a broad term that means a system of knowledge. In the medieval context its now called “natural philosophy”, encompassing a wide range of subjects. The word “image” is more direct, but in the context of theurgy and Neoplatonist thinking it still opens more doors in its Greek form. I’ll begin with the medieval Arabic word and work backwards to the Greek equivalent five centuries earlier.
2. Eikons, Symbola and Talismans in Greek Philosophy
The medieval Jābirian text “Kitab al-Nukhab” provides some background information on what skill sets were needed to understand the Science of Images. The definitions of a talisman or tillasm is given in a dialogue between teacher and student in a way that’s designed to provoke more thought.
“A talisman is the likeness of artificial actions to natural actions […] Every talisman is a crafted thing that is like something natural, yet not every artificial likeness to something natural is a talisman. The meaning of talisman is distinguished by the celestial observation that characterizes it.” (3)
“The meaning of talisman is distinguished by the celestial observation that characterizes it” points to the use of astrological timing as its most defining feature. That’s the key factor but it encompasses a great deal more.
The Science of Images is further explained to the student as the culmination of multiple branches of knowledge, albeit in cryptic terms. A lengthy dialogue takes place where the student cannot give an adequate definition of what talisman means, and for every answer the teacher continues to steer the dialogue to other subjects: astronomy, astrology, geometry, philosophy, and practically all the natural sciences of the medieval period. Throughout the dialogue, the word “talisman” encompasses all these fields. The teacher emphasizes that it’s the culmination of them all and has been since ancient times, using Plato as the example of who the student should strive to emulate. They were continuing in Arabic what was practiced before in Greek philosophy, and the transitions across languages, cultures and eras creates a bit of confusion today. The Ghayat al Hakim was written by a Muslim and its translation Picatrix was circulated in Latin in Christian Europe. Both religions had prohibitions on images that the Greek philosophers had no need to circumvent.
Starting with the key word itself, the Arabic word Tilsam (طلسم) means magical symbol or charm. The Hebrew word Tselem (צֶלֶם) means “image” and its root word is “shadow”. A shadow is a form made by obstructing light. One of the ancient Hebrew words for the ghosts of departed human beings is “shades”. This has parallels in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, where the world is mistakenly perceived as the shadows cast on the cave walls.
When we look at the Greek writings, it becomes even more of a labyrinth. Images and talismans have a wide range of uses and meanings from Plato to Late Antiquity. Adding to the complexity is the importance of statues in Greek cosmology. Human beings are statues made by the divine; this concept was part of Greek thought before the philosophers. In the Iliad, Hephaestus was the god of craftsmen and forged “animated statues” that were intelligent and had souls. In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge crafts human beings as his living statues. Aristotle elaborates further in Laws I when commenting on the Allegory of the Cave; he says that human beings are ensouled puppets and the strings from the unseen world are emotions. Statues and shadows are both expressions of the nature of reality as a series of imperfect reflections of something unseen.
The Demiurge as a sculptor has parallels with creation according to the Egyptians. Ptah is depicted as a sculptor fashioning creation with a potter’s wheel, and in the Hermetic Perfect Sermon to Asclepius, Hermes tells Asclepius about statues ensouled by divine spirits. The same overall concept is in the Book of Genesis where Elohim fashions Adam in the divine image and likeness from earth, often translated as clay or dust.
The Neoplatonist philosophers wrote entire treatises on the use of statues, divine images, symbols, talismans, letters and more with many different terms. The precise meanings are often unclear and it’s difficult to discern if they were part of Ibn Qurra’s Science of Images, a related practice or if they’re something else altogether. The vast amount of medieval translations from Greek to Arabic are an enormous web that hasn’t been unraveled and may remain that way.
They also wrote volumes of commentaries on Plato’s books and many of the older foundational works of philosophy like Aristotle. These commentaries often have valuable information related to medieval occult practices and many English translations don’t always have this in mind. I’m compiling all the Koine Greek words here for reference in the hopes it may be of use to others who are pursuing similar research.
The older Greek terms related to divine images are:
1. Eikōn (εἰκών) (1)
o English Equivalent: Image, likeness, representation.
o Meaning: A material reflection of the Form. In the Allegory of the Cave (Republic, Book VII) the shadows on the wall are eikons of the objects behind prisoners. The objects are closer to the Forms, but not true reality.
2. Sunthemata (σύνθημα) (4)
o Common English Translation: Token, magical symbol, sign.
o Meaning: Embedded by the gods into the fabric of the universe that can link to the gods. They can be sacred words, symbols, geometric forms, natural objects like stones or plants, ritual gestures, or combinations of all. The Egyptian hieroglyphs are sunthemata.
3. Charaktēr (χαρακτήρ) (4)
o Common English Translation: Mark, engraving, seal.
o Meaning: A divine or mystical imprint, symbolic of the essence of a higher reality. They carry the essence of the divine reality they reflect. Astrological configurations can be understood as divine charakteres in the heavens. If inscribed on ritual objects the link and anchor divine presence.
4. Telesma (τέλεσμα) (1)
o Common English Translation: Talisman, consecrated object, completed ritual object.
o Meaning: Completed and consecrated vessel for the divine. In the early Common Era it becomes primarily used in the context of occult objects.
5. Agalma (ἄγαλμα) (1)
o Common English Translation: Sacred image, sacred statue, offering, ornament.
o Meaning: Spiritual treasures or inner alignment with the divine. In Symposium (212a), Socrates describes the soul as a statue housing divinity and a person’s virtue and knowledge are agalmata (treasures).
6. Phantasma (φάντασμα) (4)
o Common English Translation: Apparition, phantom, illusion, false reality
o Meaning: Distorted or incomplete appearance. False appearance generated by the imagination (phantasia) that misleads. Phantasia is required for divine visionary ascent as a mediator. Proclus and Iamblichus say phantasma reflects the higher intellect but easily misleads when influenced by base desires.
7. Symbolon (σύμβολον) (1)
o Common English Translation: Symbol, sign, token of recognition
o Meaning: Similar to tokens; part of a divided object that connects to a greater whole. Divinely embedded by the gods and carry their essences. Does not rely on human interpretation. Tokens are often human made and signify a concept. A specific tree can be a symbol because its very nature participates in something higher and has power in itself. Symbolon more often refers to an object, such as a cross, that signifies an idea pertaining to a god.
These words are used by all Greek philosophers. They’re used frequently by the Neoplatonists (Iamblichus, Proclus, Plotinus) who are much more explicit about the mysticism in Plato’s tradition than their predecessors. Oftentimes translators don’t differentiate between these words and use generic terms and this can create difficulties when trying to discern more details. The Neoplatonists began using more technical terms which will be examined next.
Sources:
1. Proclus. On the Sacred Art. Translated by Thomas Taylor.
2. Quack, Joachim Friedrich. “Dekane und Gliedervergottung: Altägyptische Traditionen im Apokryphon Johannis.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 38 (1995): 97–122.
3. Saif, Liana. “The Jābirian Kitāb al-Nukhab and Teaching the Science of Talismans in the Abbasid Era.” Journal of Abbasid Studies (2024): 1–26.
4. Shaw, Gregory. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. Penn State University Press, 1995.
5. Piperakis, Spyros. “Decanal Iconography and Natural Materials in the Sacred Book of Hermes to Asclepius.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017): 136–161.
3. Theurgy and Animated Images
The medieval teacher-student dialogue in Kitab al-Nukhab begins to take on a new perspective when we look at the relationship with statues and shadows. The meaning of “talisman” is distinguished by the celestial factors and that is easily understood by the student. But when pressed to examine it deeper from the perspective of a philosopher, the student attempts to answer for an entire year and is confounded at every turn.
Images encompassed not only the natural sciences of Greeks but all of metaphysics and occult practices as well. Images of various types, symbols and statues, were used to induce visions by Iamblichus and to purify the soul by Plotinus.
When attempting to draw direct correlations between astrological talismans of the medieval Arabic world and the metaphysics of the Neoplatonists, the lines get more blurry. Iamblichus, Proclus, Simplicius, Damascius, and the other philosophers of this era are the most detailed sources for the esoteric side of their tradition. “Idolatry” and the superstitions of old had become unfashionable and the works of Plotinus were a product of this trend but still sheds light on the Science of Images.
Plotinus is considered the first of the “Neoplatonists” and his work prompted Iamblichus to bring theurgy and ancient traditions back into focus. Plotinus had a practice of creating and cultivating an “inner statue”. In the Enneads (I.6.9, 7ff) he explains that a reflection of the Demiurge is cultivated within the human mind and soul. This was a way to reconnect the microcosmic soul of the philosopher to the macrocosm through intense visualization, contemplation and meditation. Plotinus reinterpreted the rites around statues as instructions for visualization so that divinity could dwell within the human being, itself a statue crafted by the Demiurge. This practice of developing the astral body or light body is foundational for the Kabbalistic practices in Sefer Yetzirah and many Sufi orders.
Even though Picatrix is mainly a manual of instructions for using physical materials, one of its prerequisites is inner spiritual work. Book 3, chapter 6 contains the Operation of Perfect Nature which is comparable to the “inner statue” of Plotinus. Elsewhere it states that “The spirit of the magician furthers the effects of the heavens just as the harvests of nature—that is, in the way that harvests are furthered by plowing and cultivating the earth.”(Book 4, Chapter 4, Warnock & Greer)
Connecting the medieval Science of Images directly to the Neoplatonists becomes more complicated with the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster. This was a highly influential book in the Neoplatonist circles, used and quoted extensively. Sadly, it only survives in fragments and commentaries. It makes for a lot of guesswork. Chaldean Oracles is often quoted and the words themselves are cryptic poems, but it proscribes the use of timing in rituals. One passage briefly instructs the theurgist in crafting a statue of Hekate.
“Says Hekate:
‘Complete my animal image purged as I shall instruct you: Make a body from field rue; ornament with delicate small beast forms (such as spotted lizards that live about the house);
Pound storax, myrrh, and frankincense with these beasts into a mixture and under a waxing moon in the clear light of ether finish the telestics’.”
Proclus himself made use of it and briefly mentions the experience in his Commentary on the Timaeus. The participants, while in a trance, witnessed Hekate surrounding the statue with an otherworldly light. Some only saw dim impressions while others saw her smiling and laughing. Hekate spoke through a participant in a trance acting as a medium. This same rite of Hekate was what drew the interest of the Emperor Julian. The Chaldean Oracles say the rite should be performed at night and to take the Moon into account.
Proclus says:
“The ensouled statue, for example, participates by way of impression in the art which turns it on the lathe or polishes it and shapes it in such and such a fashion, while from the universe it has received reflections of vitality which even cause us to say it is ensouled; and as a whole it has been made like the God whose statue it is. For a telestic priest who sets up a statue as a likeness of a certain divine order perfects the symbola of its identity with reference to that order, acting as does the craftsman when he makes a likeness by looking to its proper model.”(Commentary on Timeaus)
Around the time the Chaldean Oracles and early Hermetic books started to circulate, the Neoplatonist philosophers became far more open about their practices that would today be termed occultism and not philosophy. Christianity was becoming widespread, political stability questionable, and philosophers were increasingly forced to defend their traditions. The life work of Plotinus was a practice of pure contemplative mysticism while Iamblichus wanted to keep philosophy’s roots in ancient rites from being forgotten. Both were reconciled by the last philosophers of the Academy in Athens.
Telestikē is a major point of discussion for divine images in the theurgy of Iamblichus and Proclus. In the Chaldean Oracles, telestikē is ritual acts intended to draw down the divine into the material world through sunthemata (tokens, symbols) and invocations. One fragment describes how sacred symbols (sunthemata) “draw down the divine light” into material forms, enabling the practitioner to animate statues and engage with the gods. Statues are not gods themselves but are transformed into living intermediaries through telestikē. The sunthemata functions as communication nodes, each carrying the essence of the deity it represents.
Iamblichus emphasizes that the telestikē art depends on the correct use of divine symbols and invocations:
“For it is not thought alone that connects us with the gods, but the entire theurgical action, which perfects sacred statues and renders them receptive to the divine.” (De Mysteriis V.23, Emma Clarke translation)
Iamblichus introduces the term enpsychosis (ἐνψύχωσις) to describe how statues become ensouled. He asserts that physical objects are prepared to receive divine energy through ritual purification, inscription of sunthemata, and invocation of divine names. The statue becomes an empsychoi eikōn (ἔμψυχος εἰκών), a living image of the god. Hagnos Eikōn (ἁγνὸς εἰκών) is the pure image or pure likeness.
Like Hermes Trismegistus, Iamblichus distinguishes between the divine essence and the material statue, rejecting criticisms that these practices were idol worship. The statue becomes a vehicle for the god. He uses as an example the “Opening of the Mouth” ritual of the ancient Egyptians to explain the statue animation, where the symbolic act “opens” the physical material of the mummy to receive the anima, the animating principle of spirit underlying physical life. (1)
This anima is the underlying principle of “animated statues”, and it is this terminology that obscures the real meaning. Animation in a literal sense brings to mind a mechanically moving object but in this context it simply means ensouled with a certain type of spirit. Whether or not it “moves” for the observer is irrelevant; in a ritual trance state the observer may perceive visions around it or they may not. The anima in the statue is present either way.
Proclus builds on Iamblichus’ foundation and further links telestikē to celestial correspondences. Proclus explains that telestikē uses symbols placed on sacred objects by the theurgist; these symbols have a likeness to the celestial bodies. What exactly the likeness is, he doesn’t explain; it could be a simple color correspondence or very old names and symbols whose full meanings were lost, like the barbarous names that Iamblichus wrote of.
“The symbols placed upon sacred objects receive divine power through their likeness to the celestial bodies, reflecting the harmony of the universe.” (Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, I.28)
Proclus emphasizes that sunthemata are not arbitrary; they correspond to the divine forces and channel celestial energies. Statues and shrines are consecrated carefully to align with the specific deities and the sympathetic materials used. Proclus makes telestikē a mirror of the Demiurge forming living statues, as the cosmos was explained by Plato a thousand years earlier and by Homer’s story of Hephaestion before him.
For the purposes of utilizing the Science of Images in medieval writings, specifically the crafting of astrological talismans, the works of the philosophers seemingly have little to offer from a practical perspective. They show that the tradition has a multitude of ancient roots, deeper even than the Neoplatonists. Like the student in the Brethren of Purity, we can look at Picatrix as an instructional manual for making talismans that are defined strictly by astrological configurations, or we can look deeper and find a bigger perspective.
Sources:
- Iamblichus. De Mysteriis. Translated by Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
- Proclus. Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Translated by Thomas Taylor.
- Majercik, Ruth. The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
- Shaw, Gregory. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. Penn State University Press, 1995.
- Proclus, commentary on the Chaldean Oracles, as discussed in Flower of Fire: Hekate in the Chaldean Oracles, pp. 16-18
- Algis Uždavinys, Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth, pp. 91, 137
- On Magic: Epistles of the Brethren of Purity, pp. 85-95