This edited volume comprises fourteen papers (all in French) that were presented in 2010 at a conference organised by the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) and École pratique des hautes études (EPHE) in Paris under the auspices of the research project ‘Corpus des énoncés de noms barbares’ (CENOB). As the title of the volume makes clear, most of the contributors analyse the variegated modes of communication between the divine and the mortal domain. Due to the nature of the monograph (i.e. edited conference papers), readers cannot expect a systematic overview of the ‘language of gods, demons and humans in Antiquity’, but rather highly selective probes that focus predominantly on literary sources (as opposed to epigraphic ones), from Late Antiquity and Neoplatonic philosophers. Preceding the papers are prefaces by the senior editors of the Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses series (G. Freyburger & L. Pernot) and the director of the CENOB project (J.-D. Dubois) as well as a brief general introduction by the editors of the volume.
In ‘Langage des dieux, musiques des hommes’, M. Tardieu focuses on Iamblichus’ treatise De mysteriis Aegyptiorum and argues that the requirement of abstention (ἀϕαίρεσις) from the ‘voice that the bodies make’ (συμϕυομένας) that is required of theurgists reciting the nomina sacra points to the antithesis of stringed (Greek, Apollonian) and woodwind (Barbaric, Dionysian) instruments, while the peculiar ἦχος of the latter is related to the pronouncements of the ὀνόματα βαρβάρα and brings forth ‘une conception de la voix et du son qui cherche à échapper à la corporalité’ (p. 27).
P. Chiron, in ‘Le nom des dieux, la langue des dieux chez Homère’, combats the rather facile interpretation of Homeric religion as a simple and unequivocal one, as opposed to more mysterious and ambiguous Semitic religions. Chiron argues that the names, characters and actions of Homeric gods testify to their irreducible ambiguity. Because of the continuum between the human and the divine domain and the various ways of merging primal, archaic and naïve concepts of the gods with the philosophical and reflective ones in Archaic Greece, Chiron concludes that, compared to the heterogeneity of the Homeric pantheon, ‘la narration de type biblique … est paradoxalement moins ouverte à la diversité des interprétations’ (p. 51).
In ‘Langage des dieux et langage des hommes dans les Oracles chaldaïques’, H. Seng analyses different facets of this fascinating text, especially those that deal with the ὀνόματα βαρβάρα and related terms (e.g. χαρακτῆρες, συνθήματα, σύμβολα). Seng is trying to answer three questions: (1) do the ὀνόματα βαρβάρα have some semantic content? (2) Is the invocation of the theurgist to be perceived as an ascent of the soul to the divine or, rather, as a descent of the divine to the mortal realm? (3) Are divine pronouncements for humans perfectly intelligible (a position Porphyry seems to assume) or hopelessly ambiguous (a position defended by Proclus and the anonymous author of the commentary on Plato's Parmenides).
M. Troiano also pays attention to ὀνόματα βαρβάρα in his paper ‘Rituels et énoncés barbares dans la Pistis Sophia’. On the basis of this important Gnostic text, he first attempts to define provisionally the term ‘barbaric enunciation’ and then pivots to the particular instances of nomina barbara in Pistis Sophia. Troiano differentiates their use in ‘rituals of ascension’ and ‘rituals of absolution’, highlighting the many obstacles that scholars face when trying to interpret them, ranging from the problems of parsing to the lack of any meaningful context in some of the enunciations. According to Troiano, scholars could make some headway by using sources superficially extraneous to the Gnostic corpus, and he demonstrates this possibility by referring to Plotinus’ critique of Gnostic rituals and to the use of the term προσϕορά in Church Fathers. Gnostic rituals, or, more precisely, their performativity and orality, are also the focus of C. Besset-Lamoine's contribution ‘Le dire à haute voix: une nouvelle approche des textes de Nag Hammadi’. She offers an interesting overview of the orality and auditive features during the re-enactment of the Gnostic rituals; this largely unexplored territory might create some new interpretative momentum.
The following two contributions, ‘Le démon de Socrate et son langage dans la philosophie médio-platonicienne’ by C. Moreschini and ‘La voix des démons dans la tradition médio- et néoplatonicienne’ by A. Timotin, overlap to a significant degree. Both authors deal predominantly with the reception of Socrates’ δαιμόνιον in Later Platonism. Moreschini provides a neat overview of the varying positions held by different philosophers (Plutarch, Apuleius, Alcinous, Maximus of Tyre, Calcidius, Hermias), while Timotin's approach is more systematic. He finds in Middle- and Neo-Platonism two distinct interpretations: one group understands the communication between Socrates and his δαιμόνιον as a sort of a divination that is related to κληδών, the other considers it to be an instance of an immaterial, intellectual communication between two souls in which ‘le langage des daimones serait composé des paroles non articulées qui passent de l'intellect du daimon à l'intellect humain sans la médiation de la voix’ (p. 152).
In ‘L’étymologie dans la procession de l’Étant à partir de l'Un et dans la remontée de l’âme jusqu’à l'Un selon Plotin’ Soares Santoprete presents an illuminating discussion of a small but significant section of Plotinus’ Enneads (5.5.5.14–6.1), highlighting the undeniable influence of Plato's Cratylus on Plotinus’ argument based on the etymological relatedness of the whole nexus of words (e.g. ὄν, ἕν, εἶναι, οὐσία, ἑστία).
In ‘Jamblique: universalisme et noms barbares’ A. Lecerf provides a fascinating overview of Iamblichus’ views on the dichotomy between profanum vulgus and theurgic professionals with respect to their chances of knowing the divine and achieving salvation. According to Lecerf, Iamblichus understands nomina barbara or συνθήματα as the ‘divine heritage’, which are internally differentiated into two classes: those that are semantically void and humans cannot possibly understand their meaning, and only use them to connect with the divine; and those nomina that allow – through theological appropriation – at least some degree of human understanding. Lecerf then moves to Iamblichus’ ‘universalism’, a term he uses to denote the view that while those who ascended in philosophy, theology and theurgy might get closer to the divine, the special mental faculty shared between all peoples and nations, the ‘One of the Soul’, makes it possible even for uninitiated laypeople to know the divine and work towards their salvation. For Lecerf, this sort of universalism is ‘revolutionary’ and, in his view, ‘Jamblique réduit à néant l’élitisme philosophique plotino-porphyrien’ (p. 207).
F. Lortie, in ‘Intellection humaine, inspiration démonique et enthousiasme divin selon Proclus’, focuses on the role of δαίμονες as intermediators between the intelligible sphere and human beings. Since mortals cannot attain the intelligible sphere on their own, νόησις μετὰ λόγου requires an intermediary, namely a demon (or an angel). This gnoseological mode, so Lortie's interpretation of Proclus, is, however, subordinate to direct divine inspiration that may be arrived at by means of prayer. One might therefore differentiate between ‘l'inspiration démonique, qui met la raison au contact d'un intellect particulier’ and ‘l'enthousiasme divin, qui l'unit à l'intellect des dieux’ (p. 220).
In ‘Adad chez les néoplatoniciens: une lecture assyriologique’, C. Jean analyses the variegated uses that Neoplatonic writers make of the Assyrian god Adad. She first identifies several problems with the Neoplatonic reading of the name of the god, i.e. as a reduplication of the sign AD with the meaning ‘one-one’, but eventually (and on slightly different grounds), she finds Adad to be ‘un candidat plausible pour exprimer la notion d'hénothéisme’ (p. 229).
S. Van der Meeren, in ‘L’« entretien » philosophique d'après le commentaire de Proclus au Premier Alcibiade de Platon’, pays close attention to Proclus’ interpretation of Plato's First Alcibiades and to the process of the philosophical ‘being-with’ (συνουσία), highlighting the progressive stages of, first, caring for the soul (ἐπιμέλεια) and, second, following the steps that need to be taken to better it (τελείωσις).
In ‘Parler de rien: Damascius sur le principe au-delà de l'Un’, M. Vlad analyses Damascius’ ideas on how to approach the ultimate principle, although both Plotinus and Proclus are adamant that we cannot possibly think or talk about anything beyond the One. Damascius dares to venture where ‘une sorte d'implosion du langage’ (p. 268) points to Nothing as a principle beyond the One. She claims that Damascius differentiates between two distinct meanings of ‘nothing’ (τὸ μὴ ὄν; τὸ οὐδέν), and she then proceeds to analyse these axiologically as well as with regard to our linguistic (in)capacity to speak about ‘nothing’.
G. Casas discusses, in ‘Silence divin et pouvoir sacré: la théologie négative, de Plotin au Pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite’ the negative theology of ps.-Dionysius. He warns against the non sequitur that wants to make out of negative theology irrational mysticism and goes on to show the links of the theory of language present in the Corpus Dionysiacum to Plato, Aristotle and their Neoplatonic followers. Interestingly enough, Casas concludes that a turn to negative theology does not signal the inefficiency of the (natural) language, quite to the contrary, ‘[i]l nous faut donc affirmer paradoxalement que la théologie négative est un aveu de la toute-puissance du langage et le moyen de la limiter’ (p. 296). D. Cohen also studies ps.-Dionysius, in ‘Les fondements néoplatoniciens du logos théologique chez le Pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite’, and, as the title makes clear, he shows how ps.-Dionysius’ theory of λόγος relates to the theories of Neoplatonic philosophers.
C.O. Tommasi, in ‘L'Hymne au soleil de Martianus Capella: une synthèse entre philosophie grecque et théosophie barbare’, provides a valuable commentary on Martianus’ well-known hymn, first giving some background for ‘philosophical hymnology’, as she calls it, then discussing aspects of Solar theology in Late Antiquity, and, finally, proceeding to the interpretation of Martianus’ hymn itself.
The volume closes with a list of bibliographical references and four very helpful indexes (ancient sources, names, topics, Greek words). One can only congratulate the contributors and the editors for producing this exceedingly interesting and well-argued volume that is essential reading for all those interested in Neoplatonic philosophy, Gnosticism, nomina barbara and the variegated means of communication between the mortal and the divine sphere in Late Antiquity.
