ABSTRACT
Among the Neoplatonists, the most extensive, surviving discussion of the nature of divine inspiration (ejnqousiasmov~; ejpivpnoia) and possession (qeoforiva; katokwchv), the process of consulting oracles, the nature and operation of oracles and, in a wider sense, the phenomenon of divination (mantikhv) occurs in Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis 3.1 As a response to Porphyry’s request for a clear description of ‘what happens in predicting the future’ (tiv to; gignovmenovn ejstin ejn th`/ tou` mevllonto~ prognwvsei), Iamblichus’ exposition centres on what causes divine inspiration and divination and their possible classification.2 He offers a typology of diverse types of divination, categorising them into ‘inspired’ and ‘inductive’ modes. Using this typology, Iamblichus classifies oracles and certain types of dream divination (oneiromancy) as ‘inspired’ divination, but also discusses the nature and operation of various types of inductive divination, such as augury.3 By using this traditional Greek system of classification (of divination), he presents a view of ‘inspired’ modes of divination as caused by (at least in a partial sense) and based on states of divine inspiration and possession. Given that Iamblichus values ‘inspired’ modes of divination more than inductive types and views the former as the basis for the use of divination within theurgy, it seems important to undertake a comprehensive examination of Iamblichus’ views of the states of divine inspiration and possession and the way in which these states fit in with his broader views on the nature of contact with the gods.4 Iamblichus identifies three cumulative types of contact with the gods – participation (metousiva), communion (koinwniva) and union (e{nwsi~) – which operate whenever communication is established between humans and the gods, such as in prayer and sacrifice, as well as in divine inspiration, possession and divination.5
