Platonic Spirits

Thracian conversations with Michael Psellus

This essay is primarily composed of a commentary and analysis of Michael Psellus’s work, On the Operation of Daemons, which I will from here on refer to simply as On Daemons. The purpose, the aim, of this essay is to cover in some brief detail the goal of the treatise itself, the symbolism of the characters in the dialogue, and finally a discussion on the validity of Psellus’s ideas in both the Christian and Platonic traditions. Before we get into things, I would like to remind the reader that I tend to rabbit-trail off into the sunset, so please find it in your heart to forgive this one tragic flaw of mine!

 Michael Psellus (or Psellos, the “more Greek” rendering) was a regular polymath, serving as an imperial courtier and advisor to a succession of Eastern Roman emperors throughout the 11th century, he was also a monk, philosopher, historian, and Platonist among a multitude of things. He may have single-handedly reinvigorated the pursuit of classical studies in the Eastern Roman Empire, in addition to writing anti-heretical treatises (the most infamous of which we will cover in this essay). Now, his efforts in re-introducing the rather pagan pursuit of classical studies to the educated clerical and noble elite of his day were not always received kindly, in fact, some of the topics, namely theurgy, that are covered in On Daemons were expressly forbidden by the church during his lifetime.

Michael Psellus(os) with unidentified emperor

 It seems that Psellus intended for this dialogue to both expound on and argue against the theological notions propounded by the “Manes” and the “Euchitae”.  The term “Manes” refers to Manichaens, a common target in attacks on heretical groups by orthodox theologians. Now, I do not want to assume complete familiarity on the part of the reader in relation to the various incarnations of dualist/Gnostic theology, so allow me to briefly introduce the aforementioned groups in minor detail. The Bogomils, of Armeno-Thracian fame, were an anti-hierarchical and anti-clerical gnostic sect that arose out of a hodge podge of radical heterodox Christian sects in the 10th century, primarily in Bulgaria, known to the classical world as Thrace. Given that Thracian is one of the primary speakers in Psellus’ dialogue, one may infer that he is supposed to be readily knowledgeable on topics of a spiritual nature. 

 Views differ as to the exact conditions of their growth, either due to the garrisoning of Eastern Roman fortresses on the Bulgarian border with former Armenian rebels (this group comprised of what are known as “Paulicians” another Gnostic sect), or from the Euchitae. The Euchitae, more commonly known as Messalians, were a 4th-century gnostic sect that was condemned as heretics in a synod in 383 A.D. Besides the usual practices that gnostics were accused of (orgies, baby eating, child sacrifice, etc.) they were more specifically associated with lycanthropy, or the shape-shifting of a man into a wolf/wolf-man. In fact, the Bogomils, as the supposed inheritors of the Euchitae, were pejoratively called “Lycopetrians”, following the belief that the founder of the sect was a man named Peter that would arise again in the form of a wolf 3 days after his death. Finally, while Psellus is writing in the 11th century and is inspired in part by the Bogomils, he is writing about 4th-century matters.

Brief aside concluded, we may now move on to the characters and their dialogue. The first phase of the dialogue begins with a short discussion between two friends, Thracian and Timothy. Thracian has been abroad for a couple of years,  Timothy enquires as to why he had tarried so long in his travels. Thracian proceeds to relate that the entire account of his absence and his reason for it may be too long to explain, so he says, “ I must devise Alcinous’ narrative if I am to particularize everything I was present at…” The reader at this point should immediately pick up on an esoteric thread being communicated by Psellus.

This reference to “Alcinous narrative”, nicely explained in the footnotes,  refers to a conversation between Ulysses and the Alcinous the king of Phoenicians (Phoenicians being characterized in classical literature as particularly prone to lying), in which Ulysses gives a highly exaggerated and fictitious account of his adventures to amuse the king. Thus, any lying or highly imaginative narrative became “Alcinous's narrative.” This allusion to a classical literary tool by Psellus communicates to any learned cleric that the contents of what Thracian says, and even the entire treatise itself, might be fictitious and absurd.

Odysseus at the court of Alcinous by Francesco Hayez

Psellus does not leave the sharp reader disappointed however, as Timothy delivers this beautiful line in response to Thracian insistence that telling Timothy of his travels will do him no good: “ Nay, but I shall be greatly benefited, Thracian; surely it is not unserviceable for physicians to be acquainted with drugs of a deadly nature, that none may be so endangered by their use: besides, some of the particulars, at all events, will not be unprofitable. We have our choice, therefore, either to carry off from your disquisition what is profitable or to be on our guard of it if it has anything pernicious.”  What is meant to be communicated by Timothy's appeal to continue the course of their conversation is that it is indeed justified, even beneficial, to discuss the evil traditions and beliefs of the Euchitae. Thracian then launches into an exposition on the Euchitaen idea of the Trinity, namely that it mirrors the Greek mythological conception of dividing the world into three “portions” or planes. The reader interested in a deeper exposition of the idea of a universe divided into three planes should acquire a copy of The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade.  

Thracian further elucidates Euticaen particulars, their worship of the fallen angel “Satanael” as the creator of all animals and plants, and as the “First-Begotten of God”. Thracian goes on to explain that all of these doctrines are, of course, lies, from the foremost Liar, Lucifer himself. We are led into a vulgar description of the Euchitae being promised gold and other material advancements by daimons (not devils, remember this, it will be important later) if they would just eat human or animal excrement as part of a “sacrifice”. This same charge, of the consumption of fecal matter in a ceremonial capacity, was leveled at the Cathars in the lead-up to the Albigensian Crusade. As the dialogue progresses, we move from a philosophical consideration of the Euchite heresy to a discussion of the forms and functions of different daimon “tribes”.

Representation of the Bogomils. “Bogomil” is translated from the Slavonic as “dear to God”

The corporeal nature of spirits is elaborated on by Thracian, indicating that daimons of either order, good or evil, are believed to have some sort of material form. “...the daimon tribe”, says Thracian, “have a body, which one may learn even from the holy fathers of our religion (St. Basil)”. Daimons, Thracian says, are corporeal but not in a way that may be immediately perceived by human senses. As evil daemons (finally we are able to use the word “daemon” with certainty) are fallen angels, they retain a thin “aura” of light, through virtue of which they are able to pass through solid objects. Thracian begins to briefly mention that, since the Bible says that daemons will be punished for eternity, they must have some material form as it is not possible to physically torture what is pure spirit.

Before Thracian takes us any deeper, he stops and exclaims, “ Much, however, I have suppressed which I heard from some who adventured themselves to intuition, for my part, I have never seen a being of that nature- Heaven grant that I may never behold the fearful looks of daemons!”. Psellus has so far not only distanced himself from the substance of the dialogue via the use of Thracian but once again, he takes us further away from any evidence of personal obsession, as he attributes any further knowledge of the “daimonic” to a “Mesopotamian monk.” The monk in question was an “ initiated inspector of daemonic phantasms: these magical practices he afterward abandoned as worthless and deceptive…”, and it is related that he recanted and applied himself to a “course of instruction” under Thracian, during which the monk told Thracian, “many and extraordinary things about daemons.” 

At this point in the text, a few things should stand out to the perceptive reader. Namely, a Mesopotamian monk is the primary source of much of Thracian’s knowledge regarding daimons. Both the Euchitae (read as Messalians)  and the Bogomils had roots in Mesopotamia, specifically in the region of Armenia. Psellus is, therefore, interacting with two separate gnostic sects, centuries apart, that ended up in the same region, having formerly shared a common homeland. Later, towards the end of Of Daemons Marcus relates to Thracian that an exorcist expelling a daemon from a foreign woman cried out against the demon in the Armenian tongue and that the daemon answered back in the same language.

Now, Marcus the monk, apparently dictated to Thracian the existence of “orders” of demons, and they are as follows: the Leliurium, the Aerial, the Earthly, the Aqueous/Marine, the Subterranean, and lastly the Lucifugus. The reader ( of On Daemons) is launched into a dialogue on the different behaviors of the various daemonic orders, ranging anywhere from the violent consumption of animals to leading men into sensual sin. There is a small aside, which I have left out for the sake of “readability”, in which the three triangles, scalene, isosceles, and acute are supposed to correspond to humans, spirits, and God Himself. There was no further commentary on this. The basic principle that should be conveyed to the reader is that Psellus understands daimons to be corporeal, active 

 Now, the point of this essay is not to give a step-by-step on the invocation of malevolent spirits. This essay is, however, aimed at understanding what the author meant to convey by writing the text. By nature, esoteric truths are constantly hidden and refracted, but if one looks carefully they may pick up the trail. Psellus takes his readers through a mix of classical pagan and Christian nuances, themes, and environments. We are introduced to the interests of a proto-Renaissance man, who broke socio-religious taboos (I hate that word, but there it is) in delivering the study of Plato and Aristotle to the Eastern Roman elite, and advised Patriarchs and emperors. Psellus hides bits of criticism where the initiated would be able to find them, a true student of Neoplatonism. Psellus and his orthodoxy were called into question multiple times throughout his life, and he was rather unpopular with the church hierarchy. However, he was clearly persuasive both as a philosopher and rhetorician, and he cleared a path in the wilderness for the Renaissance.

I would like to leave you with a few questions, which are always more interesting than answers. To what extent did the works and thoughts of Plato anticipate Christianity? Was Psellus attempting to revive genuine, “pagan” Neoplatonism in the Christian Eastern Roman Empire? What debt does European Christian civilization owe to the synthesis of Platonism with Christianity

-

All quotes, in chronological order come from pages 54, 55, and 67 from Psellus, Michael, and Stephen Skinner. Michael Psellus on the Operation of Daemons: De Operatione Daemonum. Golden Hoard Press, 2019.