Katerina IerodiakonouPanteio University of Athens

The Greek Concept oI Sympathera and ltsByzantine Appropriation in Michael Psellos

The anthropologists of the nineteenth century who tried to give atheoretical account of magic argued that the common basis of thedifferent variants of magical beliefs and rites are the so-called "lawsof sympathy": like produces like; objects that have been in contact,but since ceased to be so. continue to act on each other at adistancel a part is to the whole as an image is to the represeniedobject. Although modem anthropologists are sometimes skepticalas to whether these really are the necessary and sufficient criteriafor identifying all magical actions, it is generally agreed that thebelief in one version or another of the laws of sympathy is as old ashuman society. For it seems that humans have always had thetendency to assume mysterious relations between all beings whichinhabit the earth and the heavens. And it is exactly the belief inthese sympathetic relations that has provided people from differentcultures, throughout the centuries, with the principles for their moreor less sophisticated theories on astrology, alchemy, necromancy,

Katcn ir lcrodiakonou

dream interpretation, augury, geomancy, and generally with the

foundations for the developmcnl ()f the oecult sciences.'

The Byzantines, too, talked about sympathclic relations when they

discussed the many branches of the occult sciences praciised in

Byzantium. They had inherited the idea liom the ancient Greeks,

and they used, in invoking it, the very term the ancient Greeks had

used'. syntputheiu (ouFrc0tLcr). But was their understanding of the

Greek concept of sympatheiu the same as that of the ancients? This

is the topic of my paper. I want to examine, in particular' how the

Byzantine philosophers understand synryatheia when they, too,

refer to it in order to explain the nragical beliefs and practices of

their contemporaries. I want to find out whether their use of this

notion is thc same as that of their pagan predeccssors, or lvhelher

they had to adapt and to modify it in the light of the diff'erentcircumstances of their Christian culture. For Byzantinephilosophers were in a difficult position. On the one hand' both

Church and State authorities rejected magic as a vile remnant of thepegan tradition. On the other hand, magical beliefs and practices

still had a strong hold on all parts of the Byzantine poPulation, boththe uneducated and lower strata of society as wcll as persons of

considerable education and high social status. Byzantinephilosophers were meant. as philosophers, to develop theoriesproviding a rational understanding of the natural order of things;they were, hence. supposed to somehow make sense of the occult

sciences, too, without violating Christian dogma. But could the

Greek concept of sympatheia, or the particular way they

appropriated it, give them some theoretical backing in dealing with

the dangerous issue of the occult sciences?

The history of the use of the concept of s1-mputheia by Christianauthors stretches back to the second century A. D., almost to the

beginning of Christianity. Early Christian Fathers like, for instance'

Athcnagoras, Clement of Alexandria, St Basil, Gregory of Nyssaand John Chrysostom all use the notion of s)'mPath?idi and we alsofind it later in the writings, for instance, of John of Damascus'Photios, Michael Psellos and Nikephoros Cregoras. In this paper I

'J. G. Frarer. 7he Golden Bolrh, I (London, l9l3),51ff: M Mauss. A Gottal

Theor,- oJ Ma\i i t , tr . R. Brain (London and Bosk , l9?2) l l f f .

'fhc Creek Concept of .Syr?drr.,r-,a and Its ByzrntincAppnrpriat ion in Michael Psel los

want to focus on how one panicular Byzantine philosopher of theeleventh century, Michael Psellos, used the notion of svmpatheiu nhis attempt to account for the use and abuse of the occult sciences.So Psellos is discussed here as a representative of the Byzantineappropriation of the Greek concept of swputheio. It should benoted, though, that it is a separate issue to what degree he wasinfluenced in this matter by earlier Christian rvriters, as well as theextent to which his interpretation had a signilicant theoreticalinfluence on Byzantine thought after him.

kt us begin by examining the ancient background against whichthe Byzantines talk about sympatheiu. In ancient Creek synrpatheicthas differenr, though obviously interrelated, meanings: it is used inmedical writings, as for example in the Hippocratic corpus (Dealirn.23.l\, to refer to the fact that when a pan of the human bodysomehow suffers another part may be alfected. toot2 it is also usedto talk about the fact that people may share the feelings of therrfellow-citizens, for instance in Aristotle's Polirics (1340a13);lfinally, it is used to refer to the supposed phenomenon that allbeings on earth and in the heavens are inextricably linked together.That is to say, the ancient notion of sympatheia indicates a closeconnection between things which are parts of some kind of a whole,either at the same level, as different parts of the body are in relationto the body as a whole, or at different levels, as the body and thesoul are in relation to the living being as a whole. Thus symputherucould refer to the close connection between different parts of thesame body as a whole, but also to the close connection betweendifferent human beings as parts of mankind as a whole, or the closeconnection between everything in the world as a pan of the worldas a whole. or between the body of the world and its soul as parls ofthe world. And it is this latter use of the notion of sympatheie,lhecosmic sympathein, which I want to mainly concentrate on in whatfollows, since this is the most relevant to the explanation of theoccult sciences.

I Hippocrates Iattributed tol, I)e ulinrenn, ed. E. Littri. Oeuvres tnmplitesd' H ipyr rate, lX (P aris, | 116 | I repr. Amsterdam, | 962). 9E- I 20.'A.istotlc, P(rliri.a, cd. W. D. Ross, Arrrtot,/is polilica (Oxfbrd, 1957:repr. 1964).

9998

t00 Katcrina lcrodiakonou

The notion of cosmic sympatheia was introduced by the Stoicphilosophers in the Hellenistic period.a Some scholars haveattributed the full development of this notion to Posidonius at theend of the second and the b€ginning of the first century 8.C..5 butthere is no doubt that even the early Stoics, and in panicularChrysippus, believed in a close affinity among the different pans ofthe universe: and for this close affinity they most probably used thetej;m sympatheia,o as well as the nouns synecheia (ouv6x€io) ors y no c he (<tts,t oyil),7 sy mp hy ia (ou !r$ufa),8 s y m mo n e 1ou ptrrovf ),'sympnoia (oi-r trurvolc),ro syntrsnia (ouvrovicr)," and theconesponding verbs and adjectives. According to the Stoics, thereis nothing particularly mysterious about sympatheia, and especiallyabout the relation between the things in the heavens and those oneanh. ln Stoic physics the whole cosmos is presented as a perfectliving body whose parts, though, are imperfect. insofar as they arenot self-sufficient and autonomousl for they cannot function bythemselves and always depend on their being parts of this wholeand its other parts. What holds the system together is a certaininternal tension, a r6vog, created in the universe by the so-calledpneuma (nttxf:'pa),rr which consists of a mixture of fire and air andpermeates the entire world as its soul, sustaining everything. Thusthe Stoics thought of the world as a unified living organism, a ioon(lrirov):rr just as pneuma permeates a human body and makes it as

o For an earfier use of the notion of sympatheb. cl Theophrastus. I)e.axrrrpkntarum, ed. F. rNimmet, Theophntsti Eresii olera quae supersurtt omnia (Pans,1886i repr. 19fl) , 2.19.4.' K. Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie: neue Unterstchungen iiber Pos.idonns(Munich, 1926).6 Stoicorunt vetetum lragnenta, ed. H. von Amim (Leipzig, l9O3), ll. nos. 441,4'13.415,532,534. 546, 912; Posir lonius, F26 Thci leFF2lT E-K; F29lTheiler=F123 E-K: F3?9 Theiler=F106 E-K; F400fTheiler.1 Skticorum veterun Jragmenta, ed. von Amirn, tl, nos. 389, 416. 439, 411, 447,.149,473, 546. 550, 716,91 L3 Suticorum velerunt fragmrrt r, ed. von Amim, ll, 546, 550. 9l l.

' Stoicorun velerumfragrnentu. eA. von Amim. Il, 44l, 473. 550.tu Skticorun veterum Jragmerta. ed. von Amim. Il, -543,912." Sttticorunr veterum JroSrrdntd, ed. von Amim, 11.543.

'1 E.g. Suticorum veterum fragnenta. ed. von Amim, II . 389, 416, 439. 441, 447.546, 7f6, 9lf . On the different kinds of Jrv€il(r, cf. also Suticorun veu'rnnt

fragmenta, ed. von Amim, ll, 458, 459.

" Pfutarch, Conjugulitt lraecepta, ed. F. C. Babbitt, Phtarch's moralia. ll(Cambridge, Mass., l92l l : repr. 1962), 34; Sertus Empir icus, Adversur

The Greek Concept of Slrnparlr?la and Its ByzantineApprcpriation in Michael Psellos

its soul a living and organic whole, with each single part growntogether in close connection with all the rest, in the same way thewhofe world is permeated and given life by pneumu: this pneumathe Stoics identified with God who, in creating the world. becomesits soul .

Hence, since everything in the world is permeated by pneunn,according to the Stoic view it makes perf'ect sense to say that, ifsomething changes in (he cosmic order in one pan of the world, thrsmay result in a change of something else in some other part of theworld, though the two pans do not seem, ar least at first sight, to bedirectly linked. And this holds, of course, also in the case of therelation between the heavens and the eanhl for the tensionalconnection created by lhe p eunn among all parts of the universeimplies, in panicular, the sympathetic relation between heavenlyand tenestrial things and, as a result, the connection betweencelestial and terrestrial phenomena. So, we may apply the analogyof the living organism even turther: just as a well-trained medicaldoctor can diagnose diseases affecting bodily organs by studyingtheir symptoms revealed in other parts of the body, it should bepossible for someone who has acquired the relevant knowledge tointerpret signs or symptoms fbund in any one part of the world inorder to have a better understanding of other pans of the universe.This is, in fact, how the Stoics justified divination and, in particular,astrology.rr Since the events of a person's life are connectecl, as aresult of the cosmic sltmputheh, with astral movement, a certainconstellation of the stars can indicate a certain event in a person'slife. Or in the case of dreams. the Stoics claimed that while we aredreaming the human soul, which is in a sympathetic relation to

m th?nrutid), cd. J. Mau and H. Mutschmimn, S(-rfi Fhtpirici opera, U-lll, 2d ed.(Leipzig, l9 14 6 | ) , 9.78-85. On the Stoic appl icarion of rhe bioloSicol concept ofptrcunt.t to cosmology. cf. M. l-apidge, 'Stoic cosmology'. in J. Ris(. ed., Iie.Srnics (Bcrkefcy, 1978). l6l-85. csp. 176; D. E. Hahm, Ire Origins oI Sk' icCormrrlosr (Ohio. 1977), 163.l{ On astmf<rgy. cf. A.-J. Festugiarc. 1lr Ri|lkuion l' Hernls Ttir dfr.rri,. I (Pafis,1944), csp.89-l0l; A. A. Long, 'Aslrology: argumcnls pro and contra'. in J.Barnes. J. Brunschwig, M. Burnyeat. M. Schofield. cds.. Sr-iente and Spcculation.Sudies in Hellenisti( Thenry anl Prauice (Cambridgc. 1982). 165,92; N. Denyer.'The casc against divination: an cxamin{t ion of Cicero's De ( l ivi , |(niop',PrcL eeditg! oI the Cambridge Phiktlogicol ,Sr(t?/! 3 I ( 1985). l- 10.

t0 l

Kalerina Ierodiakonou

" Pfot inus. Enn?ades. ed. P. Henry and H -R. Schwyzet. Pktini operu.3 vols(l .eiden. l95l-73), 4.4.321 3?t 4.5 ?-3. For a discussion of Plot inus' use of lhe

notion of x)'rrpdtr.i(r. cf. C. M. Curtler. 'Symputhy in Plotinus'. Inte Itiotttl

Phiktsophitttl Quarteltr' 24 (1984). 395-406

The Greek Concepl of.t:''r,pdlr.i4 and lts ByzantineApprupriation in Michael Psellos

As a point of depanure the Platonists used the passage from Plalo'sTinneus (4la-b) conceming the harmonious order that theDemiurge imposes on matter, which as such moves inegularly. Godcreates the world as a highly rational mat€rial living being in theimage of the Divine Intellect, which is an intelligible immaterialliving being. The material world is held together, and its order ismaintained, by a rational soul of its own, the world soul, which,illuminated by the Divine Intellect, guides the life of the sensibleworld. The world soul as a whole operates in each and every part ofthe body of the world, and in this sense extends throughout theworld; but, being immaterial, it is not dispersed throughout thebody of the world, as the Stoic pneuma is. Such a Platonisticreinterpretation of the Stoic doctrine of cosmic sympatheia is firstfound in the writings of Philo, in which the organization of theworld is said to be due to God through God's L,ogos or Reason.'nLater. Plotinus and the Neoplatonists introduce a rvhole series ofdivine beings and daemons, who form the link between God and thesensible worldl they hold everything together in its ordained orderand they have the power to care and watch over the eternal cohesionof real i ty, including the v is ib le cosmos. '7

That is to say, the Platonists modified the notion of cosmtcsympatheie by placing the source of all power that permeates theuniverse in the immaterial intelligible sphere as opposed to thesensible world, which is constituted by both the sublunary and thecelestial world, i.e. by both the earth and the heavens. They thusexpfained cosmic symputheio nol in terms of something like theStoic pneunn, but rather in virtue of a non-physical linkage, somekind of analogy (crvotro'y(cr), or more specifically some kind oflikeness or similarity (opot6rly'6poiootE).'" both between theimmaterial intellisible world and the material sensible world, as

'" E.g. Philo, De opilickt mundi, etl. L. Cohn. Prilorir Ale.rantlrini oPeru qudesupersunt. | (Bcrl in, 1896r repr. 1962). l l7; Phi lo. De special ibus leRibus.ed.L.Cohn. Prrilonir Aletandrini opere quuc supe^unt, V (Berlin. 19061 rcV. 1962).l . l6: 1.329.l '8.g. Procfus, In Platonis' l imoeum conmentdria, ed. E. Diehl,3 vols. (Leipzig.

1903-.G6; rcpr. Amsterdam, 1965).3.162; 208: 241; Proclus, ln Ploronis rernpubli t 'an commental i i , cd. W. Krul l , 2 vols. (Leipzig. 1899-lml; rcPr.Amslerdam. 1965). 2.258.

' ' E.g. Plot inus, f , ' 'arades. ed. Henry af ld Schwyzer, 3.3.6.24-38: 4.5. 1 .34-8.

103t02

God, is to some extent liberated from bodily restraints and thus able

to share something of the foreknowledge of that divinity which ts

rts source.

To sum up, what is imponant to keep in mind in connection with

the Stoic notion of svnrpatheia is the fact that, since the entire world

is permeated by pneuma, everything in it stands in a sympathetic

relation with everything else. This means that, according to the

Stoics, cosmic sympatheia is in principle a symmetrical relation, in

the sense that a change in any pan of the universe' on eanh or in the

heavens, may result in a change in any other part of the universe' on

earth or in the heavens. A change in the hcavens may affect, or be a

sign of, what happens on earth. but also the other way round' what

happens on earth may affecl, or be a sign of, what happens in the

neavens.

The Platonists were influenced by the Stoic notion of cosmic

sympatheia to such an extent that it is only Possible to fully grasp

their use of the notion against its Stoic background. They also'

following in this Plato's Timaeus, stressed the lact that the universe

is a unified whole, and they also assumed that even pans of it which

are separated by a large distance may affect each other in a

conspicuous way, while the intervening parts seem unaffected'

Plotinus, for instance, like Plato and the Stoics, thought of the

world as a living organism.r5 Nevertheless' the Platonists'

understanding of cosmic symparheiu significantly differs in certain

respects from that of the Stoics. For their supreme God is

transcendent and not parl of the world, the way the Stoic God is

immanent. tn addition. on their view there is a sharp distinction

between the material and the immaterial world' of which the

material world is a living image. Hence, the Platonists strongly

opposed the Stoics' doctrine of a direct commingling of the Divine

with matter; they claimed that the Divine rather employs in the

formation of the world certain incorporeal powers.

r05l04 Katerina lcrodiakonou

well as between different pans of the mat€rial world that areequally affected by the intelligible world, for instance through theworld soul. And it is in this latter sense of sympatheia that,something spatially isolated in the sensible world cannot fail toaffect even a remote counter?an. Hence, the Platonists seem tohave regarded some sympathetic relations as asymmetrical andsome as symmetrical. The sympathetic relations between theint€lligible and the sensible world are asymmetrical, since it is onlythe sensible world which is affected by the intelligible world, andnot the other way round. On the other hand, the sympatheticrelations between the different parts of the sensible world, whichare similarly affected by the world soul, are clearly symmelrical;and this is why the sympathetic relation between the earth and theheavens guarantees that celestial phenomena may indicate whathappens on earth, while terrestrial phenomena may reliably provideus with a better grasp of what happens in the heavens. ThePlatonists, therelbre, like the Stoics, thought of divination aspossible and explainable on the basis of the concept of sympatheia.God through the Divine lntellect and a descending chain ofimmaterial powers engineers events in the sensible world that aremeant as signs about what he has in mind; it is, then, up to us tonotice and interpret these signs in order to find out what the futuremay bring.

This is not, however. the only way Platonists used the notion ofcosmic sympatheic; for they also extensively used it to justifymagic. Even Philo (De migr. Abrah. 178-9)re and Plotinus(Enneudes 4.4.40'4.9.3), who show no particular interest in magic,referred to cosmic sympatheia when they discussed magicalpractices.li) And it is this very same notion that we find in the worksof later Neoplatonists, like for instance in Proclus' De arrehieratica, as the main explanation of the magical beliefs and

fe Phifo Judaeus, De rriRratione Abruhami, ed. P. Wcndland. Prilottis Aletandnntopera quee supersunt. I I (Berl in and Reimcr. 1897; repr. De Cruyter, 1962),268-314.s E. R. Dodds, 'Theurgy and its relation to Neoplatonism'. Jourrd of RomanStudies 17 (1947r,55-69; J. Di l lon, 'Plot inus and the Chaldaean Oracles', in hisThe Great Tra<liriott, F-u h.'r Studies h the Devektpment of Platonism and Ea rClti.rtfunirl (Aldersho(, 1997), l3l -40.

The Greek Concept of S)'r?dtr,r?r',a and lts ByzantincAppropriation in Michael Psellos

practices of the Chaldaeans.:' But what exactly is the laterNeoplatonic use of the notion of symparheia in connection withmagic?

As has rightly been pointed out,zr one can distinguish in the so-called Chaldaean Oracles, a philosophical and a magical aspect.The philosophical aspect consists of a cosmology in which thevarious pans of the universe are in close cohesion and govemed bya system of powers with a strict hierarchy. At the apex of thehierarchy we have a triad of beings: the Father from whom thewhole world has emanated in manifold gradations, the PaternalIntellect who has organized the world rationally. and the DivinePower also called Hecate. Further down in the hierarchy there arevarious orders of angels and daemons, including good daemonswho help the human soul to ascend towards the Father and baddaemons who are responsible for all evils. And it is at this point thatthe magical aspect of the Oracles becomes crucially relevant. Forthe Oracles also contain rules and instructions for rituals which. ifperformed in the right way, summon up good daemons and wardoff bad daemons. Hence, the magical or theurgical aspect of theOracles has a preeminently practical purpose; it clearly is supposedto enable human beings to control the daemons' powers.

The later Neoplatonists, who recognized in the cosmology of theOracles beliefs that are very close to their own, used the notion ofsympatheia in order to explain how the manipulation of daemons rspossible in magic and theurgy. For they believed that there is somelikeness or similarity that allows not only daemons to have an effecton human beings, but most importantly human beings to have aneffect on daemons. ln fact, some Neoplatonists thought that humanbeings and daemons share in materiality, even if not to ihe samedegree, and this is mainly the reason why certain kinds of daemons,for instance the terrestrial and subterrestial. can more easilv be

'' Pf<rclus, De ane hieratica l=De socrifi<io et nagial, ed. L Bidez. CMAG. \l(Brussels. 1928). 148-5 l .tt J. M. Duffy, 'Reactions of two Byzanrinc intcllcctuals to lhe theory and praciiceof magic; Michael Psel los and Michael l lal ikos', in H. Maguire, ed., Blu t ineMdSic (Washinglon. D. C., 1995),83-9?.

t07106 Kuterina lcrod ialtonou

enslaved by the magicians' rituals.rr That is to say, the notion ofsympatheiu between different pans of the sensible world ispresented here as a symmetrical relation having a function that Soesbeyond that of divination. For it allows human beings to influencethe behaviour of daemons, either in order to use the help of thegood daemons for the ascent of the soul or in order to neutralize theactivities of the bad daemons. This asain is an idea not to be foundin Stoicism.

To sum up, the N€oplatonists adjusted the notion of .t),t,p.lth?ia toft their metaphysical doctrines. Cosmic .r.vntpalheia is for themsome kind of likeness or similarity between the immaterialintelligible world and the material sensible world. as well asbetween the different parts of the sensible world that are similarlyaffected by the world soul. lt is on the basis of this notion that theyregarded divination as possible. But they also added to it a furtheraspect; for they recognized that cosmic svntPatheia can be used notonly to predict what happens in the future, but also to explain howhuman beings can manipulate the daemons who are theintermediaries between them and the Divine.

We should now turn to Psellos' use of the notion of cosmicsymputheia. The challenge for him, as for all Christian thinkers, ishow to use this notion in order to understand the world and therelations between its parts without coming into conflict withstandard Christian dogma. Psellos believes that there is cosmlcsympatheia and it is God himself who establishes it; he even saysthat all parts of the world are closely connected in accordance withan ineffable (daalroE) sympatheia that reminds us ofthe unity ofaliving organism.2a The Christian God, though, is not pan of theworld; rather, he created the world and, in particular, he created thehuman beings in his image (xcr'eix6vc rtal opo{tllotv). Thehuman soul constitutes the divine element in us, which aspires,when freed from the restraints of our body, to be in touch with God,

rr On the nature of daemons and lheir different kinds. cf. H. Lewy. Chaldoean

Orades and Theurgy (Paris, 1956; rev. cd. l9?8).

" Michael Psellos. oraktrid minora, ed. A. Liltlewood (Leipzi8, 1985) op. 37.

366-8: rci nrilg ro p6Ql xoO rovrdE opovoei rqog iiltr1)'<r xorq trupto0€rov

rigqqrov xct oir0q awurtr0€i 6E ivos !,qbol' roi x6opou ruYl/rvowoE

Thc Creek Concept of S'rft/)arr?r(r and Its ByzantineApproprial ion in Michael Prel los

and finally to ascend after death to heaven. Hence, there is no doubtthat the Platonists' notion of cosmic sympatheid lits much betterthan the Stoic view with what the Christians are prepared to sayaboul the sympathetic relations in the world. There is some kind oflikeness or similarity, even if not directly between God and thecreation, certainly belween God's Son and human beings. lnaddition, there may also be some kind of likeness or similarity rnthe way things in the sensible world are affected by God's power;for since all pans of the rvorld are closely connected, when one panis affected by God's power other parts are similarly affected. so thatan event in one part of the world can be used to predict anotherevent in another part of it.

But does Pselfos also endorse the function of cosmic sl,mpathemwhich the later Neoplatonists used in connection with Chaldaeanmagic? When Psellos in his writings discusses the cosmologicaltheories and magical practices of the Chaldaeans, he as a malter ofcourse also refers to the notion of J-ynpdrheiaI for he is well awareof the fact that this is the way philosophers before him justifiedsuch beliefs and practices.25 However, the fact that he refers to thenotion of r.yn?(.trc,rir in this context does not mean that he himselfin his other treatises uses cosmic sympatheie the way it was used rnconnection with Chaldaean magic. lf we carefully read Psellos'remarks aboul the Chaldaeans. what seems to be the main reasonfor his strong disapproval of the Chaldaean tradition is the practiceswhich involve inducing daemons, by using hymns, sacrifices,perfumes or statues, in order to serve the purposes of the magicranand to break the natural order of things.rn As Psellos himself says, itis indeed monstrous to claim that one could change the order ofthings, since God himself arranged them in the best possible way(Sathas, V,57).ri Hence. what Psellos finds really offensive in the

" Michael Pscllos, Phiknophi<tt mirrtra. ll. ed. J. Duffy (Stuttgart and Lcipzig,1992), op. 39. 148.8; l2: op. 41, 152.15: l8; Michael Psel los, I /reolo3ita, ed. P.Cautier ( l-eipzig, f989), 123A.53i 57; cf. Michael Psel los, Priktsophiur nrinora,l ,cd. D. O'Mcar.r (Leipzig, 1989), L l |9-20.:" P*llos. Philosophico ninoru,l, cd. O'Mcara, 3.137-47; Pscllos. Epistukr 181,cd. K. Sathas, M.o..r,{rrlxt) Btlll@qir.q.V (Paris, 1876),474. 478.r7 TrpatdbeE i11;rrr! ld tlv t<i-rv 6)'<ov tdlrv ptr<raoreiv trrcly€).l,ro0or tf.1roi' OEoO neovoi{r rerolfvorv xn}rdE...

Katerina Ierodiakonou

Chaldaean tradition is the attempt to influence and manipulate the

course of things, to interfere with divine providence and change

fate.

Besides, whereas the Chaldaeans and the Neoplatonists believe that

there are good and bad daemons, all daemons' according to

Christian faith, are bad.r8 Human beings, thereftrre' should not try to

manipulate them, even if they can' because dealing with them

always brings misfortunes That is to say, as a Christian, Psellos

cannot accept that the sympathetic relations between lhe pafls of the

world are such that human beings may control the powers of the

daemons for their own benefit. ln tact, this is why Psellos

repeatedly refuses to give us detailed information about magical

practices; for he claims to be afraid that, if we follow them, they

could harm us, and then he may be held responsible.2e It is only in

cases of trying to avoid the daemons' malevolent influence, for

instance in exorcisms, that Christians are allowed to have

something to do with them, as Psellos himself admits in his life of

St Auxentioslro but these are clearly cases of antipatheia' of driving

the daemons away, rather than of sympatheia.

What about cases. however, in which Psellos gives the impresston

of using the Greek concept of sympotheia to justify magical

practices? After all, Psellos is the writer of a treatise on the

properties of stones (Phil. min. I op. 34), in which he not only

describes the external appearance of precious stones, but also gives

an account of their powers of healing' which very much sound like

magical powers. For instance, he claims that g(t/.Iftlres helps

humans forget bad things and remember good things (39-42)' while

topaion ctres cases of mania (99-104) and snrrlon.)x those

suffering from melancholy (79-82). Moreover, Psellos seems to

approve of certain ways of venerating the icons, which are again

r* E.g. Psel los, P,ir i losolhicu Minora,l l . cd. Dufty, op.38. l4-5.8-l0 Psel los seems

to hJld inconsistent views on the issue of the daemons' corPoreality: cf Michael

Psellos, Mltqorologie, ed. J Bidez CMAG' Vl (Brussels. 1928)' 6l and Psellos,

Dtmonologie, ed. Bidez, ibid., | 19.n Psellos, Prilx(,/rri.'d mittoru,I, cd O'Meara. 1.125-551 Psellos. LTirrda 187,

ed. Sathas, M.dd(rttxl B$1@0ix4.v '475s Michaef Pselfos, Oratknes hagiogruphicae, ed. E A. fisher (Stuttgart, 1994),

oD. 1A.505- l l .

The Creek Concept of Synt/rariera and lls ByzantineAppmpriation in Michael Pselk)s

very similar to magical praclices. For instance, he talks in hisChronogruphia (6.6-5-7) abour the remarkable icon of Christ, whichwas commonly refened to as the "Antiphonetes", and which theEmpress Zoe consulted in difficult moments! as if it were alive;when the colours of the icon became vivid, she interpreted it as agood sign, but when the colours tumed pale, the forecast was bad.Similarly, Psellos talks about the icon of the Virgin Mary ofBlachernai, which the people of Conslantinople often used as a wayto predict the future (Orat. hag. 4); when they asked the iconspecific questions about their everyday affairs. they believed that, ifthe Virgin's garment moved, the answer was positive. if it did notmove, the answer was negative.r'

But what exactly differentiates these cases from magical practices,so that Psellos can present them as perfectly onhodox an<lrcspectabfe? How can he claim, as he actually does (Orat. min.7. 156-80), that he is not acting as a magician when he finds himselfengaged in such practices? According to Psellos, practices whichonly are meant to bring human beings closer to God, or to assistthem in making forecasts and in determining favourable andunfavourable circumstances for particular actions, have nothingobjectionable. For such practices do not aim at commandingdaemons to produce good or bad effects, and thus at interferingwith divine providence; they simply help us, always with God'sassistance, to learn his will and adjust our lives accordingly. So,there is nothing unonhodox in believing that cenain stones havesympathetic powers of healing. or there is nothing wrong inattempting to predict future events by paying attention ro thechanges of an icon. Furlhermore, there is nothing reprehensibleabout performing liturgies for victory in war, using incense, fasting,or praying; all such practices are supposed to make our soul cleanand pure in order to be ready to accept God's will.

Therefore, it may be that Psellos does not use the notion ofsvmpatheio the way the Neoplatonists did in order to justify magicand theurgy, but he follows both the Stoics and the Platonists whenhe uses it to explain divination. For he seems to understand the

'' On the icon of Virgin Mary of Blachcmai. ci E. Papaioannou .Thc ..usual

miracle" and an unusr la l image' ,JOB5t(2001), 177 88.

t09108

The Greek Concept of.t)rrpdrheia and Its ByzantineAppropriation in Michael Psellos

briefly, because I think that it gives us a good sense of how he

understands the notion of sympatheia and its use in theinterpretation of the divine symbols.

To start with, it is interesting to note that the Greek term whichPselfos uses here to denote a letter of the alphabet ts stoicheion(morx€iov), and not gr(mma (ySdlrpd) which he also uses in hiswritings.ra In Byzantine times the aerm stoicheion retains its ancientmeaning, according to which it refers to the four elements, earth,water, air and fire, as the basic constituents of everything in theworld. lt also retains the sense which we find in early Christiantimes, when it refers to the astral bodies and the powers believed tof ie behind them. Most imponantly, it seems that the aerm stoicheionacquires at this time another sense, for it seems to refer to adaemon, and in panicular a daemon attached to some concreteobjectl fbr instance, a daemon attached to a statue which thusexhibits supematural forces, i.e. it becomes a talisman. Iike theHippodrome monuments on the basis of which future events, andespecially disasters, could be predicted. This is, after all, how wenowadays understand the term stoicheion in modem Greek.r5Hence, just talking about stoicheia most probably brought to themind of a Byzantine in that period some connection with daemonsand magical practices. Does this mean, however, that Psellospresents his interpretation of the letters of the alphabet as implyingmagical relations between letters and the world?

In the proemium of the treatise, Psellos twice boasts to be the firstto interpret the letters of the alphabet as divine symbols(xcrvdv/rix<rrvot6prlocprv: l4-l'7, 49-50). He also claims at theend to have written it in just one night, as if he were, we could say,in a state of divine inspiration (63742). But what is exactly theachievement which he regards ds innovative and God inspired? Is it

! E.g. Pselfos. Or.ri,.rnes hagiographicae, ed. Fisher. lB.l99; Psell<>s, PhiktophicMin(,r.i, f, ed. O'Mcara, 32.87i 36.445; Psellos. Theobgica. ed. Gautier. I 74.142r5 F. Domseiff. l)(tr A lphabet in Mrsti( und Mdfie (Lcipzig and Berlin, 1922), l '1-l7: C. Blum, 'The mcaning of orot l€iov and i ts derivatives in the Byzantine age',

t:tenos Jahrbuch 44 (1946),315-25: R. Ctrcnficld. Trdditions of Belief itt llte

Byzantine Duemonokt8) (Amsterdam, 1988), 190-95.

lI t0 Katerina lerodii*onou

notion of symPatheia as the main explanation behind the facr that

we are able to have, because of our affinity to the Divine' a better

understanding of the world and of Gotl's will by interpreting the

divine signs and symbols (ouv0i1pcro, orl ppo)'tr: Orat' hag 4'-34:

37). For Lstance, in the case of the icon of the Virgin Mary' Psellos

claims that it is our close relation to Virgin Mary that helps us see

things which cannot otherwise be seen' so that we can predict lhe

futuie (Orat. hae. 4.32-82)', and interestingly enough, he uses in

this context both the term s.v-ntpatheia (Orat' hag' 4'68) and another

Stoic term, namely the lerm oikeiosis (oixetoors) (Orul' hug'

4.66).rr But to notice the cosmic symPatheiu and to interpret God's

signs and symbols in the right way involves, according to Psellos'

no manipulation of the natural course of things, and thus no magtc'

There are indeed many writings by Psellos in which he refers

directly or indirectly to the notion of s-vmpatheia in connectton wttn

the inierpretation of Cod's signs and symbols' Among such

rvritings ihere is a small treatise, which Psellos devotes to the

interpietation of the twenty-four letters of the alphabet' though ln

this case he does not exPlicitly use the term ouprdoetc The title of

the treatise is Interpretation of the twenly-four /etrers ( Epprlveict

n€QI rtDv eitootteoodporv ororlelurv) and has been edited by

John Duffy as opusculum 36 of Psellos' Philosophic'a minora l''fhe

idea behind thii text is that the letters of the alphabet' as well as

their order and shape, are symbols (ouppoltxor5: 63, 129' 5 I 5)' in

the sense that they hide ineffable messages (cur6ppqrcddppqrct

pqvtrp<rtcr: 292-7. cf.631 624) which provide us, if we manage to

unravel them, with a better understanding of the world and of God's

will. Since modem scholars have not paid any attention to this

treatise,rr in what follows I want to discuss Psellos' text, at least

r: In thc sympathetic rclations betwcen humans and thc divine Psellos secms lo

,"eui rrt"'virgitt Mary and thc Chtistiitn Saints as intermcdiariesi cf the use of

",i-",rnc foi the Viigin Mary (Prclbs, orationes hagiograpii<ae' ed Fisher'

4.73) and for St Auxentios ( ibid , 1A.sf i)).

" t tre only discussion of this treatisc. and in part icular of P-scl los' claim.lhal his

work is the first on lhe subject. can bc found in u unpublished papcr by John

Dutfy, "'The child of one night's labor": A treaiise on the Creek alPhabcl by

Michael Psellos' (prescnted at the Byzantine Siudies conference' Brookline' MA'

Novembcr 8-10, l99l ).

l t2 Katerina lcrul iakonou

really true that nobody before him iried to interpret the letters of the

alphabet as symbols of the Divine ?

In ancient texts as well as in the works of Christian Fathers we

sometimes do find isolated interpretations of individual letters. For

instance, Plutarch's treatise De E apud Delphos gives sevenpossible interpreiations of the letter "Elrrtrov which is found tn

Delphic inscriptions.'o Since in Plutarch's time the diphthong'EI'was used as the name of "ErpLtrov, this particular letter acquired asymbolic character, not only because it refers to the number [ive,

but also because it refers to the conditional particle 'if ' as well as tothe second person singular of the verb 'to be'; according to one ofthese interpretations, 'ErpLtrov is the second vowel, and since the

Sun is the second planet and Apollo is identified with the Sun'"Erp ov is a symbol of Apollo. Also, in the scholia on DionysiusThrax (321.37) there is some discussion of the letter @t1tc' whicn

is said to ponray with its circular shape the universe, having an axisin the middle as the division between the heavens and the earlh.Then in John's Apoc'alypse (1.8; 21.6; 22.13), famously enough.God presents himself as the A),'Qa and the Opeyc ol everything.And in one of John Chrysostom's hontilies (in Epist. acl Hebr.: PG

63, 77) the letter Al'Oc is said to be the foundation of the alphabetjust like Christ is the foundation of Christianity. Furlhermore, thereare also passages in which ancient philosophers used the letters of

the alphabet as an example for understanding the constitution anddivision of reality, like for instance when Plato and Aristotlecompare the letters with the basic elemenls.rt Finally. it should beadded that both ancient philosophers, starting from thePythagoreans, and Christian thinkers were very much intrigued bythe symbolic meaning of numbers, for which letters were used, aswell as by the unraveling of the real meaning of names in terms ofthe letters from which they are composed, an issue notoriouslydiscussed in Plato's Cratvlus.

to Plutarch, D. E apud Delphos, ed. W. Sieveking. Ptutaft'hi moralia lll (Leipzig'

1 929 1 rclt. 1972\. l -24.11 Plato. Tirnaeus, ed. J. Bumet, PLtto is oper1, IV (Oxford, l9O2; repr' 1968).

48c: Pfato, Philebus. ed. J. Bnfie| Plat(tnis opera, ll (Oxford. l90l; rcpr'

1967) l8bff.; Pfato, ?r eaetetus, e,J. l. B\Jnet, Pl|bnis oPera, I (Oxford. 1900; rcPr'

1967),202eff; Aristot lc, Metcorolovi(a, ed lnd tr. P Louis (Paris, 1982). l04lbff.

The Greek Concept of Synpatheia ^nd

lts ByzantineApproprialion in Michael Psellos

Moving next to the magical tradition, there is no doubt that letters,as well as numbers and names, play an imponant role in magicalbeliefs and practices. For they are said to be the symbols which Godhas sown in the world in order to keeo awake in us the desire for theFirst Being.rs The magician who knows thes€ "vocal images of thedivine"re should use them in their original form without, forinstance, translating them into another language, so that he managesthrough them to communicate with the daemons.'' And there areindeed many instances of the use of magical letters both in theGreek magical papyri from the second to the fifth century A. D., andamong Delatte's Anecdota Atheniensia which may be as late as thesixteenth century, but most probably present a much earlier magicaltradition. For example, vowels are often used in a cenain order forall kinds of incantations.o' ktters are written in magical recipes forcuring diseases, like for instance insomnia,'r or the bite of a wilddog,ar and even for identifying a thief.{ In addition, there is atreatise by the alchemist Zosimus on the interpretation of the letterQtrryo, which he takes to be the symbol for the planet Satum,

although he adds that it also has an inexplicable (av€epilvsutov)incorporeal meaning.

So, why does Psellos claim that he is the first to write on thesymbolic meaning of letters, when there is plenty of interest beforehim in the subject? It is true that in his treatise on the interpretatlonof letters Psellos presents the symbolic meaning of every single oneof the twenty-four letters of the alphabet in a systematic way, whichis far more soohisticated than the scattered remarks of his

" Chaklaeun Oracles , ed., tr.. and comm. R. Majercik (Leidcn. 1989),108.1:Procfus, /rr Platonis ' l inaeum comnentaria, ed. Diehl. I 2l l . l ; lamblichus, D?mlst.'/iis, ed. E. des Places. J.rmrlique. lzs nrtsta'res tt tXypte \Pans, 1966), I l242.r5,r8.]u Damaskios, /n Pl i lebrrrn, ed. and tr- L.G. Wcstcrink (Amstcrdam. t959).24.$ Chuldaean Oraclcs, cd. Majercik, | 50.'t E.g. Pupyri Croetrte Magkve, Die griuhischen Zauheryupy , ed. K.Praezidanz et a1. ,2 vols. (Leipzig, 1928-31, 2d cd. 1973-1974). I , l l -19.26; I I ,l66e: tV.493.

" A. Defatre. Anec&,kt Atheniensiu. | (Liage and Paris, 1927), 142.9-11,550.5-12. 551. t0- t3.' ' Del^tte. Anecdota Athe iensa.l . l4|. |3-2l.* Delatte. Ane.'dokt Atheniensia, l , ( . / . l9. l4- 15, 610.16- 19.

l

Kalerina lerodiakonou

predecessors. For he strongly believes that this comprehensive

exegesis of the alphabet may reveal to us the structure of the whole

world and our position in it, since there is cosmic sympQtheiu' i.e.

some kind of affinity between God and his creation. down to the

letters of the alphabet. For instance, the firsl three letters symbollze

in Psellos' view the Trinity; Al.Qct, which he connects with the

verb ouv<rl,e (Qetv, "encomPasses" everything in itself, Brlrcr,

which he connects with the verb pcriveLv, "proceeds" from itself

and does not turn back to some other principle, and fdppc, which

he connects with the adjective 16vtpo5, "is productive of'

everything in the world. A6)''rcr symbolizes the division. the

6rcipeorE, of the world, which has as a result the wonder, the

6ui.'q!rE, human beings feel towards the world, and this is the

reason why they start their unending inquiry, their lfttlotg. Thus.

Psellos manages to give us an interpretation of the next three letters,

A6lrcr, "EqLtrov and Zilttt, and of their particular order. And he

continues in the same way by relating the rest of the letters from'Hrc to Qptyc with the different modes of human enquiry' starting

from our atlempts to acquire knowledge of the sensible world and

moving to our difficulties in grasping the intelligible reality.

Moreover, Psellos in this treatise interprets not only the letters and

their order, but also their shape; for instance, the circular shape of

the letter 'Oprxpov symbolizes on his view the pure intellect,

because the pure intellect always tums to itself.

This brief description of the contents of Psellos' treatise shows' I

hope, that his exegesis of thc letters of the alphabet is not supposed

to be used for magical purposes. For there is cerlainly no hint that,

by knowing the symbolic meaning of the letters, human beings may

influence the order of the universe. Even in his life of St Auxentios

in rvhich there are many descriptions of attempts to drive away

daemons, Psellos is careful not to make any reference to the use of

letters or names, at least not in the way these are uscd in magicalpractices.ls Also, when he talks about the icon of Virgin Mary of

Blachernai and how people ask for its help, he makes sure to point

out that in venerating the icon it is not imponant to use certain

t l There is a passage, howevcr. in which Pscl los clearly sayr thnl cvcn lhc ul lerance

of the name of Cod has lhc powcr to drive away daemons (Psellos, ora,ir,,|t'r-

hagiographiute, ed. F isher, I 8.238-9; cf. also ibid.. I A.7 I 6-7)

The Greek Concept of S!r?dr!.i., and Ils ByzantineAppropriation in Michael Psellos

names and formulae, possibly implying by this a contrast with thesignificance in magic of a precise use of letters and names (Orat.

hug. 4.19-82). Hcnce, the sole motivation behind Psellos' treatiseseems rather to be his wish to construct a systematic exegesis of thealphabet, which is in accordance with his metaphysical views,overrides the scattered interpretations of the previous thinkers andcancels the paradoxical interpretations Siven to letters in magic. Inother words, Psellos tries, on the basis of his belief in thesympathetic relation between the letters and everything else in theworld, to give a reasonable interpretation of their hidden meanings;and this interpretation does not serve any purpose other than toprovide human beings with a better understanding of the world andGod's wi l l .

But what kind of understanding do we get through Psellos'interpretation of thc letters of the alphabet'l The cosmic sympathenbetween God and his creation is often characterized by Psellos withan adjective, which is very common in the Neoplatonic and magicaltradition, namely it is called "ineffable" (<ipptltog).'" lt is notineffable, though, in the sense that it is shameful or forbidden to bespoken of; rather, it is ineffable in the sense that it cannot be

expressed, since it cannot be fully grasped. For the true extent ofour relation to the Divine is not something we can fully understand,since there is so little we can know about God. Nevertheless,because of Cod's sympathetic relation to the world, we canunderstand something about his will, if we carefully read his signsand symbols. So, learning, among other things, to interpret the

letters of the alphabet may help us in Psellos' view to acquire abetter understanding of God.

We should not, of course, expect that this understanding could havethe certainty of demonstrative knowledge. The signs and symbolsCod sends us, including the letters of the alphabet. are mere

6 Pseffos, Odrti.)nes hulliogruphicoc, cd. Fishc., 4.67; Michael Pselloti ' Orutoria

ninora. e<1. A. Litllewood (Leipzig, 1985), 31 167; Phikrophictt minora l. etl.

O'Meara, 3.I l9; Michael Psclhs, I 'heob1li t t t . l . ed. P Gautier (f-cipzig l989),t t 1.14.

54

|1

his

I t6 Karerina lcrodialonou

indications, they are dtrrQdoetg, as Psellos often repeats."' In fact,there are two occasions in which he alludes to the literal sense ofthe Greek noun 6p$crotg as a "mirror image": in his interpretationof the three first letters of the alphabet, Psellos points out that, sincewe cannot experience Cod's light in all its glory, it is at leastimportant to see its reflection in water (Pfiil. rrin. I 36.130-6); andin his account of the miracle of the icon of the Virgin Mary ofBlachemai, he again says that, since we cannot see the Sun, just aswe cannot have knowledge of the Divine, it is at least important tosee the Sun's reflection in vlater (Orut. has. 4.49-53). This means,of course, that our interpretations of God's signs and symbols notonly fail to give us certain knowledge, they always run the risk ofnot being correct. To avoid false beliefs, Psellos often stresses thatwe have to be very vigilant in reading God's symbols. For instance,again in his account of the miracle of the icon of the Virgin Mary,he goes to great length to show that even the way questions areposed to the icon considerably influences our interpretations ofGod's wi l f (Orat . hag.4.6l1f f . \ .

But, then, who is really in a good position to interpret God's signsand symbols? In the proemium of his exegesis of the letters of thealphabet, Psellos draws a sharp distinction between on the one handthe sophists, who have always something to say about everythingwithout getting involved in serious thought, and on the other handthe philosophers, who work hard to avoid false beliefs and toacquire at least some true understanding of the world and irsCrearor (Phil. min. | 36.1O-14). Psellos obviously thinks of himselfas a philosopher when he presents his systematic interpretalion ofthe letters of the alphabet, and in general when he arduously tries tograsp the hidden meanings of things in the sensible world on thebasis of their sympathetic relation to the Divine. I do think thatPsellos considers himself a philosopher in a long philosophicaltradition, when he appropriates the Greek concept of cosmlcsympatheia in such a way as to reconcile Christian dogma with

n7 Michael Ps€llos, De omniJu a doctrilo, ed. L. G. Westerink (Nijmcgen, 1948).25.6; Pseflos, O/drrbres hagiogrophiute, ed Fisher. 4.679: 687: 698: 703: Psellos.The!,lopica, etl. G^utier, | 62.64: 76. | 291 91.51: 54.

The Greck Conccpt ol .5_yrnl.rr,,t"l(, and hs Byz.antineApprupriat ion in Michae I Psclbs

popular beliel!. I hope, therefbre. to have shown thatappropriation of this notion is worthy of serious consideration.'

' I would l ike to thank John Duffy and Pavlos Kall igas for thcir hclpful commentson an earlier version of this oaoer.