Ancient Magic, Theurgy, and Philosophy
This commentary reflects on Radcliffe Edmonds’ remarkable Ancient Magic, Theurgy, and Philosophy, focusing specifically on his study of the interface between theurgy and magic in late antiquity. Edmonds explores the striking similarities of theurgy and magic. After demonstrating a keen understanding...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2022
|
| Dans: |
Gnosis
Année: 2022, Volume: 7, Numéro: 1, Pages: 92-101 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Porphyry
B Rituel B Magic B Theurgy B Iamblichus |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | This commentary reflects on Radcliffe Edmonds’ remarkable Ancient Magic, Theurgy, and Philosophy, focusing specifically on his study of the interface between theurgy and magic in late antiquity. Edmonds explores the striking similarities of theurgy and magic. After demonstrating a keen understanding of how theurgy worked for Iamblichus and the later Platonists, he compares its metaphysics and theory to the magical papyri. Although magicians were far less “theoretically inclined” than Platonic theurgists, Edmonds argues that they implement theurgical principles in their practices. He finds remarkable parallels and makes a strong case, but I argue that in one significant respect the magician and theurgist were profoundly different, a difference defined by the fact that Platonists like Iamblichus had passed through the withering catharsis of Platonic mystagogy, something that was not required or evident among magicians. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2451-859X |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Gnosis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/2451859X-00701006 |