Theurgy, Paredroi, and Embodied Power in Neoplatonism and Late Antique Celestial Hierarchies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will place the rituals of the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM) for the acquisition of a supernatural assistant (paredros) into conversation with broader late antique debates surrounding the place of daimones within the celestial hierarchy. In considering the writings of Plotinus, Plutarch, Porphyry, and Iamblichus, it will survey points of contention surrounding questions of appropriate and inappropriate displays of ritual power, as facilitated by intermediary spirits who act as intercessors between humanity and the divine. Through analyzing the metaphysical underpinnings of the nature of the paredros, as variously articulated within the rituals for their conjuration within the Greek Magical Papyri, it will contextualize the aims of the ritualist against the backdrop of Iamblichus’ theurgy in pursuit of mastery of—and intimate, transcendent communion with—the fundamental numinous nature of the world. In doing so, this article argues that Iamblichus’ theurgy and the paredros rituals of the PGM ultimately grasp towards similar soteriological goals using different ritual methodologies; both seeking to elevate the incarnated body of the ritualist into a higher level of spiritual attainment through direct confrontation with the powers of nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".