Secrets, Secrecy, and the Study of Religion

Secrets, Secrecy, and the Study of Religion

Citation

Jong, A. F. de. (2006). Secrets, Secrecy, and the Study of Religion. In . Routledge, London. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/10709

Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown)

License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license

Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/10709

Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if

2 Secrets and secrecy in the

study of religion

Comparative views from the

Ancient World

Albert de Jong

"And \ o u . 1 ,\t and Asclepius and Mammon, hide these divine mysteiies .unonj« t i n - >.<•< i d s of your heart

. n u l shield them with silence."

The comparative study of religion(s)

From its inception in the nineteenth century to the present, the academic study of religion h.is been dominated In the ( omp.ir.ilive method. Alongside the study ol individual religious traditions, most olten on t h e basis ol t e x t u a l evidence, si holars have explored ways of studying "religion" and "religions" In loinp.iring fundamental elements and strategies loi n u l in \ a i ions di lieren t ( radii ions. I he validity ol t h i s approach to the s t u d y ol religion has olten heen questioned, hut it seems t h a t no viahlc a l t e r n a t i v e has yet heen presented.3 Nie i o m p a r a l i \ e method in the sludv ol religion is obviouslv f r a u g h t with difficulties. l'o\\er relations and ideology loom large in various stages of the process of comparison, for instance in the selection and n a m i n g ol the subject, the selection ol cultures or traditions to he c o m p a i ed, t h e description and contcxtualrsa-lion ol t h e s u b j e c t , and so on.' This is why opponents ol compat am ism have l i t t l e difficulty in pointing ont the many examples of'projects t h a t have gone- ha\ \ \ i i r . o l t e n on a m o n u m e n t a l scale.

38 Albert de Jong

S u c h concerns are voiced both by representatives of the religions ("believers" and "theologians") themselves, and by scholars who have been influenced by the wave of post-modern theories and approaches.

This first objee lion is often coupled to the se( ond objection thai compar-ative approaches have an essenlialisl agenda, t h a t they aim at constructing the universal, unchanging, and (almost) metaphysical "essence" of a given phenomenon. If that were the aim of the comparative study of religion, the risk of subsequently imposing that essential meaning or function onto the various religions of h u m a n k i n d would become d i s t i n c t l y real. I n this way, s( holars w o u l d be able to (on e c u l l u r a l l y conditioned meanings onto religions, communities, or individuals who are no longer expected or allowed to respond. Suc h pi oc esses ol disembodying or reification (or "epistemic violence") are often highlighted by post-modern scholars ,md by those w o r k i n g w i t h i n the framework of post-colonial theory.''

This assortment of opponents to comparativism thus groups theologians (in the sense of those' working explicitly from a religious perspective) and post-modern or post-colonial theorists together. None of them, however, have been able to escape the fact that classification and taxonomy are the most basic intellee l u . i l strategies ol all h u m a n s , inc hiding scholars. To quote the famous s t a t e m e n t by J o n a t h a n /. S m i t h :

The process of comparison is a fundamental characteristic of h u m a n intelligence. Whether revealed in the1 logic al grouping ol ( lasses, in poetic similes, in mimesis, or o t h e r l i k e - ac l i v i i i e s - comparison, the b r i n g i n g together of two or more ohjec is for the purpose of noting either s i m i -larity or dissimi-larity, is the omnipresent substructure of h u m a n thought. Without it, we could not speak, perceive, learn, or reason.

(Smith 1993, p. 240)

I ' h i s is why, in i r e c-nl c o n t i ibutions that aim to defend or re-establish the comparative1 method, one1 is showered by words such as "inevitable," "indispensable," "inelue table," or "unavoidable."1' The- fact t h a t comparison is the most important h u m a n way of learning forces us to pay it due' attention in theoretic al and methodological disc ussions. ( )ne c anno) ignore, however, some ol the1 issue's raised by t h e opponents ol e omparativism: "power" and "polities" have had and continue' lo have' a Listing impact on the' development ol scholarship and there is every reason to welcome analysis of this impact.

Sirrets and secrecy in the V/H//V of i'rligiaii W

group o f h u m a n a c t i v i t i e s .nul experiences. It has no olnious evolutionary I n n « lion to f u l f i l , hul U is a h u m a n "universal." In tin- i n t r o d u c t i o n to his fascinating s t u d y of t r a c k s of biology in early religions, Walter Burkcrt i i i t r o d i u c s in addition to t h e biologically grounded phenomena a second se1! of h u m a n universal*:

What is s t a i t l i n g is the- ubiquity of certain less trivial phenomena, whic h arc < nil in ally determined in every case and yet not generated nor explicable in isolation. They always appear integrated into specific cultures and t a k e various shapes accordingly, but their u n m i s t a k a b l e s i m i l a r i t y makes them a general class transcending single- c u l t u r e svsicms. They must be presumed to f u l f i l basic f u n c t i o n s for h u m a n social lilc in all i t s f o r m s , even if it is cas\ to i m a g i n e1 a l t e r n a t i v e s . These u n i v e r s a l s ine lüde s u c h disparate phenomena as the n u c l e a r f a m i l y with a marked role of the father and the special father-son relationship; the use of technology, especially of fire; interactions t h a t i n c l u d e economic exchange but also warfare; and above all language, a r t , and religion. The last two mentioned may come as a surprise1: w h a t are in fact the f u n c t i o n s of art and religion-' They sce-m to be- m u c h less necessary for human life than the other i t e - i n s mentioned, yet they have been with us for all the time- homo w/tii'iu has been in existence.

(Burkert 199<i, p. 1)

If'religion is, in t h a t sense-, a 'Vc c Mid-order" human universal, one- would c-xpe-c t it to be- deeplv involved with primary h u m a n activities and expei i e-necs, w h i c h it obviously is, and to use these in developing its symbolic s \ s i e - m s o f ' m e a n i n g . Secrecy, t h e - sub)c-ct of the present book, is a good example-. It is undeniably a biologic,illy programmed capacity th.it is characteristic of the1 behaviour of m a n y animals, who hide- themselves or their young, hide- lood or knowledge of where lood c a n be1 f o u n d and divert allc'iition by focusing i n t e n t l y on imagined dangers (Burkert 1996, p. 25). It is alse), on a secondary level, one of the1 basic s t r a t e g i e s in group forma-tion and, in its wake-, t h e - generaforma-tion of i n d i v i d u a l i t y (see below) In religious traditions, in particular, it has alse> fulfilled an important ( u n c t i o n t h a t one- c o u l d call the- creation of" a unity of experience. It is ide-alU suited, therefore, for comparative study, as long as we specify the ways in which we are going to approach it.

Definitions of secrecy

40 Albert de

the Ancient World, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.' Although m a n y of' the c o n t r i b u t i o n s to these volumes are excellent, t h e y m a i n l y provide materials to illustrate particular points. Thorough analysis of the concept of' "secrecy" itself is remarkably absent from them. In fact, the various scholars representing "the religions" differ markedly in their interpreta-tion or demarcainterpreta-tion of sec rec y. There is, ol c ourse-, no b i n d i n g definiinterpreta-tion ol t h e - concept; the statement that "secrecy has more ö l t e n been defined than understood" ( I eflt I WO, p. 35) may be true', but at least in compar-ative analysis, some sort ol definition must precede our a t t e m p t s at analysis and understanding.

Fortunately, the s u b j e c t of s e c r e c y has he-en explored and analysed in recent works using the- tools of psychology, philosophy/ethics, and literary history.8 The sociology of secrets has been dominated by the work of deorg Simmel, w h i c h w i l l be- disc ussed separate!) below. On the- basis ol these works, we can isolate certain requirements lor a comparative study of secrets and secrecy in religious c oniexis.

The two basic requirement! are that a secret inusi be nili'iilioniil and that it mus! lu- sww/, t h a t is to say it must include three parties: two w h o share the secret and establish a bond to keep it, and t h e - rest ol h u m a n i t y , .is ,1 t h i r d party, wine h is to be excluded. The private se-c re-is of individual men and women of the- past arc- not only most oltc-n lost to us (unless the-y were committed to writing), but also do not provide us any possibilitie-s for comparative a n a K s i v fliese are see rets t h a t arc- governed either by the (biological) programme- ol saving one's l i f e or s a l e - g u a r d i n g i t s q u a l i t y or by tne-e hanisms of mode-sty, shame, and so on. I he-re- arc- < i i l l m . i l < onslramls on these mc-c h a n i s m s and these may have- been i n f l u e n c c - d by religious sensibilities, but this is not necessarily the case and our focus will there-fore be on secrecy as a social institution.

The subsidiary requirement to the two mentioned is that the- se-c re-Is must be- capable- of being formulated and transmitted. These requirements can be- portrayed in four cases. We shall contrast see re-c y w i t h ( I ) oilier (types of) restrictions, (2) privacy. C > ) esoteric ism, and (4) mysticism.

Si'i iii\ mul \i'/ )<•< v in llii' s/w/v c/ irligio» 1 1 (and sometimes Hindi) tin- l, u t l l i a t entrance is reserved solch lo I'arsis.'1

( ci lain parts ol the lire-temples themselves .ire also oil-limits to most /omastrians, being the e x e l u s n c reserve lor ( onsei rated priests. The reasons lor these restrictions have nothing to do with sei i ec \ . but are guided by the concept ol p n r i t v : lii e-trmplcs are the dwclling-plae e-s ol eonsee rate-d lires and a high state ol r i t u a l p u r i t y must he- preserved in ihe-se sanrluaries. Non-belie-vci s are by delinition r i t u a l h i m p u r e and there-lore i anno) c - n i c - r a lirc--templc- as long as a lonsei rated lire is present. In (art, whenever the tire is t e m p o r a r i l y removed, lor i n s t a n c e1 when .1

temple- is he-ing repaired or re-decorated, non-1'arsis are- allowed to enter.1"

I he- r i t u a l s in the lirc-te-mplcs. moreove-r. are- known in every minute detail, can be- witnesse-d in schools lor priests, and have- be -en lilme-d and eloe iimented e-xtensiy elv. ' '

In addition to concerns lor p n r i t v . there- are other resit u lions lhat may he- in lone- lor re-asons other i l l . in s r i r e i v : selection on the basis ol ge-nder. lor instance. Most religions prescribe certain rituals in which only women or only men are- allowe-d to p a r t i c i p a t e . In some case-s, s u c h restriction! may be connected with see re-e \ , but in others other soi i.il 1 odes 01 c -t ic | u c - i i e seem to be- I he- d o m i n a n t c o n c e r n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e - r e - ma\ be- class i cstrie lions, ( i n a n e i.il ban ie-i s, or many other tvpe-s ol e-\i lusivism. It is true, of' course-, t h a t ihe- e-\c lude-d parties mav Irown upon sin h i n s t i t u t i o n s , and because of their Ic-e-ling ol' being e-xelude-d l a u n c h t h e a« ( us, U K HI ol secrecy against the excluding group. This would be a Mib|i-( I lor a i i a K s i s only if one- w a n t s to s t u d \ t h e - use- ol " s c i n - i y " in polemical contexts, but as long as secrecy is not explicitly intended, such institutions should not be- considered lo be- "see n-l."

2 Secrecy IYT.SM.S />mwo'

Although we tend to c l a i m p r i v a c y as one- ol the great c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ol modern \Ye-siern civili/alion, a i c-rl.iin wish lor privacy sc-e-ms lo be- common I o all h u m a n s ol all t i m e s and places. I he- d i s t i n c t i o n betwe-e-n se-i in \ and | ) I I \ . K \ is vital in modem \\esterii c i\ ilisation, but only, in the- present author's view, as moral categories. Sisse-la liok distinguishes secrecy Irom privacy in the following m a n n e r : whereas sei i ce \ is " i n t e n t i o n a l c one val m e - n t , " p r i v a c y is " t h e - l o n d i l i o n ol being prote-e le-il Irom u n \ \ a n l e i l an ess by others - either physical airess, personal information, or attention. C.laims lo p r i v a c y arc- c l a i m s to e ontrol auess to w h a t one lakes h o w e v e i grandiosely - to be- one's pet sonal d o m a i n " (liok l 9SL'. pp. 10-1 1 ).

In some- Middle- Kastei n c i i l t u r i - s , t h e - conn-pt ol' "modesty" w o u l d lie roughly eejuated w i t h Hok's d i - l i n i t i o n ol " p r i v a c y , " but it is obvious t h . i t the- backgrounds in both i .ises a i e t h o r o u g h l y c o n d i t i o n e d In c i i l t u i a l perceptions ol i n d i v i d u a l i t y and social p l a c e m e n t , and h a \ c .1 n o r m a t i v e -basis.1 ' Apait Irom its normative foundations in Western c u l t u r e , privai \

42 Albert de Jong

context, it immediately changes into "real" secrecy (or else, we would be forced to ponder the concept of privacy of any group of humans).

3 Secrecy versus esoteric is HI

The terms "secret" and "esoteric" are almost interchangeable in common speech as well as in many modern studies of various religious traditions." In recent years, the field of "Western esoteric ism" has made a Cinderella appearance on the Mage of the academic study of religion.' ' The term is now used for a specific group of religious and spiritual movements that originated in the appropriation of certain types of knowledge and traditions from the Ancient World in the period of the Renaissance. As a conse-quence, the term "esoteric" can now be used in two d i s t i n c t m e a n i n g s : .is a general term to refer to a system of interpretation focusing on finding extraordinary realities behind ordinary texts, persons, or objects, and in a special meaning referring to these European movements. In both meanings, the c o n c e p t of secrecy is i m p o r t a n t . The movements t h e m -selves (spiritual alchemy, neo-Hermetism, I'aracelsianism, theosophy, etc.) are often claimed or believed to be secret soc ieties (which is by no means always t h e - case-). Also, in its general application, the term "esoteric" c onjures up ideas ol sec recy and c one calment. "'

It is crucial, however, to distinguish secrecy, as defined in social terms, from esoteric ism. Ksoteric interpretations of texts and objects (including the cosmos) are found in many religions. They are also often claimed to be "secrets," but if they are, their "owner" is, to put it in squarely mono-theist terms, God. Many of the branc lies of Islam, lor example, are based on the distinction between zahn ("manifest") and Ix/l/n ("inner, hidden") in their interpretation of the Qur'an, but they do not all keep t h e ' inner (and obviously more important) meaning hidden from others. What is there to penetrate, in most esoteric t r a d i t i o n s , are the' d i v i n e - secrets, and those- visionaries and others who have penetrated these sec rets may c hoose to reveal t h e m to all or to keep them within a limited circle.

Divine sec rets, by definition, are not social secrets, finis there- is a s p l i t within the esoteric traditions: sonic- of t h e m . t i c - see i c - t in lh.it they re-strict access to the keys for unloc k i n g t h e - hidden meanings, others are- not, but s h a l e - t h e - knowledge gained freely and w i t h o u t reservation to those' interested.

und Wien' in ih/1 s///f/v ofntigitn 43

(Christian g n o s t i c i s m , i n c l u d i n g t e x t s t h a t are r e m i n i s c e n t of' t h e gnostic l e x i s quoted in anti-gnostic polemics by the Christian theologian Irenaeus and the Neoplatonic philosopher l M o t i n u s . 's Several of the t e x t s in t h e ' collection are "esoteric" in that they claim to give the "real" meaning of' many biblical passages, often on the authority of a divine revelation.

Within the corpus, quite a few texts begin with an indication of' secrecy (the opening words of the- (Josficl a« unling to I'liamas, for instance, are "These are the' secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down"), but many of these end with a

doxology and an announcement that the t r u t h is now finally revealed

and made known to all.1'1 The function of sec ree v m these l e x i s , apart from investing it w i t h spec i.il i m p o r t a n c e ' In a s c r i b i n g it as a d i v i n e (self-) revelation to important holy persons, is chiefly to give a reason for t h e i r sudden, unexpected appearance. This mechanism is well k n o w n f r o m m a n y ancient texts, which o f t e n claim to transmit know-ledge or texts from before the flood (the books a t t r i b u t e d to Enoch, for c x . i i n p l e , and c e r t a i n p a r t s of ' Mesopotamia)! literature), t h u s h a v i n g to g i v e - a reason loi t h e lac I t h a t these v c r v a n c i e n t t e x t s made t h e i r f i r s t appearance t h o u s a n d s of years a f t e r their alleged c o m p o s i t i o n (Tromp

iw:i, p. 147).

Only a small number of texts, however, end with the command of keeping the text or the knowledge secret. Some texts stress the fact that the1 revealed knowledge is only destined for a select group ("the race of Sc-tli") and others end with exhortations to s i l e n c e and impressive oaths and t h r e a t s (especially the ApOCTjphon />/ John and the Ditrtnirv' un the

I'.iffhlli mid Ilii' Nitilli ^/ihi'ii'). So, w i t h i n t h i s c o r p u s ol esoteric l i t e r a t u r e

w i t h secret origins, only a part continues to keep t h e t e x t s or knowledge sec ret. This split in esoteric t r a d i t i o n s can lu- observed in m a n y c l i l f c r e n l religions and systems. It is important, therefore, not to consider all esotci u literature1 sec i el in a soc ia! sense.

•/ .S'mvr-v

The final vital d i s t i n c t i o n is between secrecy and mysticism. Like gnostic ism and magic, m y s t i c ism as .1 c o n c e p t defies pree isc d e f i n i t i o n and is. there-l o i e , probthere-lematic. Severathere-l i c there-l i g i o n s t h a t o i i g i n a t c c there-l in t h e - N e a i Last in late antiquity (Judaism, C h r i s t i a n i t y . Islam, and Hermetism) encapsulate

tradition! t h a t stress the possibility of a t t . lining unity with the divine.

44 A /her l rlr Jung

The pioneering efforts of Georg Simmel

No exploration of secrecy in the religions traditions o l ' t l i e An< ient World can be complete without a mention of the first and most influential theo-rist on the snhjed, the German sociologist and philosopher (ie-org Simmel (1858-1918). The work of (ie-org Simmel is known as the most important example of formal sociology. He pioneered the construction of "soc ial type's," most f a m o u s l y t h e - soi i.il type of t h e - "siranger" in society. For Simmel, individuals un- /»<>(/iin>/l by soc icty. To instantiate this, Simmel (notorious for Ins r e f u s a l to start from definitions) s t a l l s his portrayal of l y pc-s ol soc ial striK lures by looking at the relations between two individuals, as the- smallest possible social grouping, hut p a r t u n l a r l y foe uses on what happens once we move from a dyad - two individuals - lo a t r i a d , wliii h in his analysis is the first "group" and therelore the first s u b j e c t lot t i n -sociologist. This is because only a triad makes it possible- for a group to display the basic c harac (eristic s of group behaviour t h a t arc- impossible- in unions of two: majority decisions overruling minority points of view, mediation, and t h e - strategy of divide and rule.

The main part of his seminal study "The- Sociology of Secrets and of Secret Soc ic-ties" (Simmel I !)()(>) is devoted to the idea of the "secret society," which, as we shall sec-, is o n l y of l i m i t e d relevai» e loi ( b e - Ane ient World. In t h e - first part of his study, however, he sets out t h e - basic rules of s e c r e c y as a social phenomenon. Secrecy, first of all, is a "triadic" phenomenon in a double sense: it not only m a n i f e s t s itself in triads -consisting of two (or more) individuals who share- the secret and the third party (the re-si) from whom it must be- shielded - but it also consists of three dillc-rc-nt operations, naine-ly: concealing (initially), hiding (lasting), and r e v e a l i n g (spontaneous). These three options ("Interaktionstriade," Nedelmann 1995, p. 1) are of crucial i m p o r t a n c e - foi e-ac h and every i n d i v i d u a l bee anse- in c boosing to hide or to reveal some-thing of h i m s e - l f , an individual can create social p r o x i m i t y or soc ial d i s i a i » e - w i t h le-spee t to a n o t h e r person. To use a modern example-, t h e - m i n i m u m requirement lor any teal social i n t e - r a c lion bctwe-e-n two persons in contemporary Holland is knowledge- of one-'s f a m i l y name. All other items of knowledge, one's first name-, professional position, addie-ss, phone number, marital s t a t u s , re-ligion, history, income-, and so on may be- re-ve-ale-d, but ibis is not necessary. By selectively "revealing" s u c h ite-ins, one- has t h e option of maximising or minimising soc ial proximity. Revealing one's first name usually i m p l i e s m o v i n g from f o r m a l to i n f o r m a l mode-s of address, s h o w i n g p i c t u r e s of one's children opens up the possibility of dise ussing private- joys or sorrows, d i s c u s s i n g one-'s research can p r o v i d e - a spec i.il l i m i t e d field of proximity, a proximity w h i c h does not, however, n e c e s s i -tate the disc Insure of one-'s politie al or re-ligious position.

VMC/.N mit! M'cnri in Ihr \liul\ of trillion 45 is not l i m i t e d lo processes between i n d i v i d u a l s ; t h e - same- procedures can apply lo groups of people-, and in all cases secrecy plays a decisive role. I his is why Simnn-l a d a m a n t l y stre-ssed die soc lal produc t i v i l v ol se-c recy. S e - e i e e v as a social phenome-non was "one of the greatest accomplishments ol humanity" (Simmel 1906, p. 462) and neither p o l i t i c s nor religion could exist without it. It is important to stress ibis point he-cause especially in the- lie-Ids of psychology and ethics, secrecy is often considered to be h a r m f u l . No one will deny t h a i s c e i c t s can be terribly u p s e t t i n g to the i n d i v i d u a l , but this chiefly belongs to the realm of individual p s y c h o l o g y ( K e - l l y 2002). Like-wise, stale secrecy is u n d o u b t e d l y h a r m f u l for private interests and therefore a problem lor ethic i s t s .J' I t b possible thai secrecy

in religious c o m m u n i t i e s c a n like-wise cause- harm lo individuals, but as a rule-, ils benefits are greater t h a n Us drawhac ks

The Ancient World' '

All a n c i e n t religions were characterised by a certain amount ol s e c r e c y . I he-re were restrictions t h a t applied lo p a i l s ol t h e - t e m p l e or t h e - temple-as a whole-;-'1 there were rituals without any h u m a n a u d i e n c e - , featuring

only the god and his priest or the king;-'1' and knowledge and le-xls were

ke-pt »m ol reach f r o m .ill bul a Icvs t r u s t e d ones.

.As a c onscqucncc-, tin-re- .ire- serious distortions in the- cvide-ncc we have a c e ess lo. On die one hand, one could say t h a t we know more- I ha n most people- in a n t i q u i t y : we- can e x c a v a t e b u i l d i n g s ih.il \\c-re oil-limits lo the vast majority of people in lin- Ane lent World and we can study texts that w e i c m e a n t to lie- d i s t r i b u t e d only to those i n i t i a t e d , if we- are fortunate e-noiigh lo find them. If we take the Roman invslerie-s ol Mithras as an example, we can study their various m.mile-stations over a period ol several centuries in a s t u n n i n g v a r i e t y of geographical and social settings: from Britain to Syria, from die- t i a c e - s ol a modest woode-n s l i m l i n e - i» richly decorated cave-like buildings. We- have- hundreds of works ol art t h a t c a n be- compared and analysed, and inscriptions that otlct t h e - hope of drawing up social pioliles as we-11 as religious ideas and practices. Almosi none ol these materials were available to t h e - lew a u t h o r s in a n t i q u i t y w h o attempted to write- Something about these m v s l e r i e - s and we- c a n . in many cases, point oui the- distortions thev mtroduc e-d in their de-sc riplions.

46 Albert

they remain silent, öl ( ourse, about t l i c m a j o r i t y of t h e sec rets t h e y OIK c harboured. Writing on clay, it now turns o u i , is an excellent option if you want your records to be preserved over several milk'iinia, but this was probably l lu- least of the coin crus of the scribes of Mesopotamia. Thanks to the scribal cultures of'Mesopotamia, Kgypt, and Greece, the particu-larities of the climate of Kgypt ( i t s extreme1 aridity, which favours the

preservation of papyrus), the efforts of medieval monastic organisations where manuscripts in Greek and Latin were copied, and the diligence with w h i c h various other religions t r a d i t i o n s (Judaism, the' religion of the Samaritans, /oroasti l a n i s i n . Maiidaeism) have preserved their literature, a lot of i n f o r m a t i o n has fortunately survived, but it is needless to say t h a t Mesopotamia, Kgypt, Greece, and Rome are documented in a m u c h more substantial way than all other cultures. Any reconstruction of the spiritual worlds of a n t i q u i t y is therefore by definition very provisional. With (lie-data we have, we ( a n < l i s < uss three different subjects: secret knowledge, secret rituals, and secret identities.

Secret knowledge

To be able to speak of sec ret knowledge, we must first tackle its opposite, the "public" nature of knowledge in antiquity. Here, fortunately, we h a \ e an excellent guide in Pamela Long's recent book on t e c h n i c a l arts and the culture of knowledge from a n t i q u i t y to the- Renaissaiic e (Long 2001 ). Long's book is, in effect, one of the f i r s t a t t e m p t s to study m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of a very recent concept in not so recent cultures. The concept is

tnlcllt'c-tualproperty, a highly significant subjec l of a specialised section of law and

jurisprudence in our times, SIIK c il involves SIK h enormous quantities of money. I o study the history of this ( O I K cpt in Western culture, Long has studied manuals on c a t a p u l t s , metallurgy, and many other technical s u b j e c t s t h a t are and were relevant for Western societies and especially for the military establishment. In her study, she distinguishes between t h i s technical knowledge, which was usually guarded w i t h secrecy, and religious knowledge ( b a t was equally secret. Long suggests that the secrecy of technical l i t e r a t u r e1 was guarded by guilds or families, because

it was one of the foundations of their wealth and well-being, whereas t he-religious literature was kept secret because it was so "sac red" that to reveal it to others would be a case of "profaning" the mysteries. I o quote from her introduction:

If t h e r e is evidence for intentional concealment, what is t h e context and how does il f u n c t i o n ? Is it, to m e n t i o n just two possibilities, the secrec \ of a priest of a mystery cult, protecting sacrc'd knowledge from defilement by the common rabble, or t h e secrecy of the- medieval artisan, protecting craft knowledge in the interest of profit?

,SVr;v7.v mul v r m y ni /lit' S/////Y ofrtUgiOH 47 This distinction is actually questionable. One does not even have to intro-d u c e Kom (lien's notion of "symbolic capital," although we- m i g h t , to show t h a i there is not as much difference as Long seems to suggest. Apuleius'

Métamorphosa e learly shows how expensive it could be to be initiated i n t o

m y s t e i v c u l t s . - " ' These movements did not just revoke' a r o u n d s p i r i t u a l goods, but also c ontrolled sums ol more easily quantifiable goods. To hand out secret knowledge in that sense would also imply spoiling the market. But not all knowledge was lor sale-; some1 of it was simply to be had by

those' able to find it.

Estimates of literacy rates for any ancient culture rarely rise above 10 percent of the population (and hover around 1 percent for Mesopotamia). I his means that "published" works in writing were- inaccessible to the' vast m a j o r i t y of the population. Political processes often excluded si/eable portions of the population: women, slave's, and peasants. I'rae t i e a l know-ledge in crafts and trade' was passed e>n in families or in guilds. Educ ation was often neither public nor free, and in many cases was not considered desirable.

In religious m a t t e r s , the s i t u a t i o n was not \ c r y different. The primary loins of religious socialisation, of the transmission of religion, in most .me ic'iil e iilture's, was t h e ' l a m i l v . '" ( Children were brought up in the religion by taking part in domestic rituals, by taking part in f e s t n a l s w i t h t h e n family members and by being taken to the temple by their parents or grandparents.*'

I hose' who chose religion as their vocation or were destined le>r a job m a religious organisation were t a u g h t their rituals and other p r a c t i c a l knowledge In t h e i r older colleague's in a style very similar to t h e ' t i a n s -mission of craft knowledge-. l'Or this particular subject, there' is .1 s i n k i n g difference between the ancient c u l t u r e s of the Near East and Egypt on l l i c ' one' h a n d and the i n s t i t u t i o n s ol t h e ' f . i e - c k s and Romans on t h e other. In Mesopotamia, in particular, priesthood was a life-long \ o c a t i o n that involved vast a m o u n t s of s t u d y . The rituals t h a t were performed were c o m p l i c a t e d and priests were expected to have a solid grounding in theology and literature; they were, .is .1 consequence, literate and most ol them were considered to be scholars (Bottéro 2001, pp. 119-25).

Among (.reeks and Romans, most priesthoods were of a completely different nature. Priesthoods were c h i e f l y honorary positions t h a t could easily be combined with other professional careers. They were- not associ-ated w i t h great learning ( a l t h o u g h priests c o u l d be- required to l a d i a l c moral a u t h o r i t y ) and required l i t t l e - formal t r a i n i n g (e h i e - f h knowledge ol the rituals themselves). Priests were not, in general, transmitters of sacred t r a d i t i o n s ' '

48 Albert de Jong

concept of secret knowledge in Mesopotamia, with its tradition of scholar-pi ie-sls, wa.s largely c o n f i n e d to the temples and is evidenced by ever more impressive "secrecy colophons" attached to tablets containing schol-arly and religious texts ( K e a n l i e u 1992). Among t h e - ( .reeks, by c o n t r a s t . secret t r a d i t i o n s in their social sense were only rarely associated w i t h temples. Several s a n c t u a r i e s , it is true, were place's of divine inspiration, and messages and i n f o r m a t i o n about the inner workings of these or,u les were probably restricted to the personnel of these place's (Johnston 200 1.0, but in general, temples were not houses of learning.

Among t h e ' (.reeks, ( h e - c o n c e p t of secret knowledge gained c u r r e n c y in small groups consisting of a teacher and his pupil(s). The paradigmatic examples of s u c h teachers are P y t h a g o i a s . n u l Kmpedoc les. '' In s u c h small-scale settings, at least as transmitted in the- traditions surrounding these teachers, knowledge t h a t was believed to represent t r u t h s about reality that not every mortal was able or e n t i t l e d to acquire was trans-mitted and developed. It required a c onsc ions ellort on the part of those interested to gain access to these t r a d i t i o n s . In the many manifestations of these groups, there was a whole range of options to restrict access to these truths or to prepare the candidate properly. Common features were preparatory p u r i f i c a t i o n s , dietary and c l o t h i n g rules (and s i m i l a r prescriptions lot t h e - style of living), and formal or i n f o r m a l t e a c h i n g . These options, which were alsnosl never otf present .is f a r as w e - c a n now r e - c o n s t r u c t , c o n s t i t u t e d a preparatory path following which the truths could be revealed to or perceived by the c a n d i d a t e s . ' ' One- o f ' t h e most import,ml c o m m o n f e a t u r e s u n d o u b t e d l y is t h e - ri'jrimi' i t s e l f , regardless of' i t s tee h n i c a l d e - t a i l s , and t h e1 Inn/' it look. ( )nc- of the- t h i n g s t h a t can be perceived in most c u l t u r e s is t h a t there1 is a c o r r e - l a t i o n be-twe-e-n the r a i s i n g of'expectations, the promise's made-, t h e - o f t e - n strenuous demands of p u r i f i c a t i o n and m o r t i f i c a t i o n , and the r e s u l t i n g i n s i g h t . The insight itself is c i i l t u r a l l y spec i f i e , but ( h e - p r e p a r a t o r y p r o g r a m m e - shows s t r i k i n g (loss-cultural similarities. '''

The (obvious) que-stion w h e t h e r t h e - knowledge t h a t was a c c u m u l a t e d in t h i s s e l l i n g was too sac re-el to be revealed to those without proper preparation or was to remain out of reach for such people- is a very modern one. The connection between the two is i l i e lac lor of experienc e: knowledge revealed in l l i e proper s e l l i n g t r a n s f o r m s the person who receives i t . " To hand it out to those- w i t h o u t p r e p a r a t i o n was perhaps not nee ess.irily seen as ofle-nsive, but rather it was ( onsidered to be- point-less: t h e r e was no way it could be el'le-c l i v e - . Thus, in the development of Platonism as a religious tradition, the i n j u n c t i o n against silence- is ollen encountered for the s t a t e - e l reason t h a t people- may l a u g h at t h e - know-ledge that is passe-el on. M

und \irm"\ ni lin' \//<il\ <>j irli^nin 49

.nid l'',iii|>c(|(x 1rs, we need to i r l \ on a m u c h hro.ulrr sélection ol sources t h a n i h r small f r a g m e n t s ol i h r writings t h a t h a v e brrn preserved of llirsr early t h i n k e r s . Ihr most i n i p o i t a n t set ol d a t a , in t h i s a u t h o r ' s opinion, is presented by the ('.i»'f>ns Hcnin'/i/inti, a collection ol'texts th.it was passed on u n d e r (lie name ol (he god Hermes I i ismcgistns, the' ( • r e e k UK ,ii n a t i o n o l ' t h e K g y p t i a n god Thoth. l hese a t e t e x t s Irom roughly the first three or loin < e n l i n les ( I . separated In more t h a n hall a m i l l e n n i u m Irom 1'vthagoras and Empedodes. I h i s gap (an he filled with several other movements and t r a d i t i o n s , hut the history of these traditions largely remains to ht- written. The cxmnections between the earlier emblematic figures and the H c n n c t u m o v e m e n t \\ere < l e a i l \ pointed out In Peter Kingslev (1095. pp. 371-75). 1 he Hermetic texts are favoured here because we can perceive t h e \\\li'ni of i n s t r u c t i o n and initiation through these texts.'"

1 ( )nr common denominator in the content ol sm h t r a d i t i o n s srrms to he t h e ' perception of living t r u t h s u n d e r l y i n g ordinary t h i n g s : \ \ e l l -k n o w n stories about the gods ( " i m t h s " ) , passages c i t e d horn early authorities (espc( iallv l lomer) and similar texts t h a t were read by everyone, and, of course', t h e cosmos itself I 'ndci the i i g l i l g u i d a n c e ' and \ \ i t h t h e proper p r e p . n a i i o n , pondering these' ordinarv (lungs c o u l d lead to other, better understandings of reality. We can see this, for example, in Porphyry's interpretation of the Homeric story of the Cave of the Nymphs." A spcn.il ( , i s e in this respect is, lor example, a l c h e m y in its "spiritual" loi in: working w i t h metals, dye-stuffs, and f n r i i a e es c onld be a goal in itself, hut was nu i casinglv seen as a method ol ac c | i i i n n g "sa\ mg knowledge'." especially in the works of the Hermetic alchemist /osiimis of Panopolis.1'-'

2 A second, related, element is what one could call the "defragmenta-tion" of r e a l i t y or experience. Our c o m m o n c x p c i i c n e c le.ids to a fragmented view ol r e a l i t y : various experiences or subjects are relevant to particular sections of our life, which we can store, so to speak, in dif-f e r e n t boxes. '1 his is what Mary Douglas c a l l s "boxing" or " dif-f r a m i n g " (Douglas 2002. pp. 78-79). Religion, work, f a m i l y l i f e ' , and leisure can be kept separate. W i t h i n these domains, f u r t h e r f r a g m e n t a t i o n is c o m m o n : we c an assoc late niathcmatic s, loi i n s t a l l e e. not only with trade' or practical use's, but also w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a I or religious pin poses. 01 \ \ e e an develop it as a career. The hidden tea« lungs most o f t e n stress t h e ' mien rlalcelncss of all thc'se- t h i n g s , of all human experienc cs.

50 Albert de Jong

could almost he reduced to a single unified domain. This simplification ol experience was thought to reveal profound truths thai would transform a person's life. This transformation should be connected with the whole preparatory path more than with the insight itself. The best example ol t h i s is the fact that in several religious systems of a n t i q u i t y and later times, including Greeks, Jews, Christians, and M u s l i m s , one c o u l d sum up the only truth that a person needed to embody and experience in a short phrase: "He who knows himself, knows All."'1 This Hermetic maxim

was surely part of texts that circulated widely, and access to the idea was by no means restricted, but the path leading up to the experience of this truth was long and arduous.

3 A third element is the important subject of the power secret know-ledge could bring, ' t h e experience' ol hidden t r u t h s not only changed a person's view of reality or transformed his life, but could also invest him (or her) with hidden powers. These claims can most obviously be associated with those elements of secret traditions that taught the hidden names ol divine beings in order to enable the candidate to influence them; the formulas, words, and symbols with which his soul could f i n d a path beyond this world. None of this knowledge was useful w i t h o u t a proper knowledge1 or understanding of its origins or

of the workings of reality. Revealing them to the uninitiated could be perceived as dangerous, in their leading persons to place's or stages for w h i c h they were unprepared, or as pointless, in their giving some-one instrumenta he would be u n a b l e - l e > use-. I t is c leal t h a t lhe-se- c laims cannot be tested empirically and should t h e r e f o r e be- se-c-n, first of all, as rhetoric or propaganda emanating from the circle e>l believers themselves.

-and v r m y in the N/W/V of trillion 51

experience of rapture. Alongside the-se- mystical dements, however, it also ( o m , m i s strings ol vowels and hidden names ol d i v i n e beings and llius combines the various elements of hidden i c . u h m g s that were outlined above.44

Secret rituals

The language used in the section on sei ret knowledge comes \crv dose to the language necessary for secret rituals, to the language of initiation and mystery cults. The Greek word mvslrnon itself, from which our WOK! "mystery" derives, means "initiation." It is derived from the verb wvro. "to initiate," and it c a m e to mean "(divine) .secret," chiefly in early Christian literature.4:) Without any doubt the most important secret from the

Ancient World was connected to the Mysteries ol 1 Icnsis (Burkert 198.'l. pp. 248-97). A large number of the citi/ens of Athens took part in these Mysteries at some stage of their lives and the "secret" of the i n i t i a t i o n m u s t , therefore, have been well known (Bie-ninier 1995b, pp. 70-78). It was, however, guarded and cnton ed w i t h mue h encrgv I'lolamng the secret by telling non-initiates about the Mysteries, even h i n l i n g at them, or acting t h e m out in a public context was punishable by death. Several cases of such a< i u s a t i o n s have in fact been preserved. Thanks to some "revelations" in literary texts, modern scholarship has been able to reconstruct some elements of the Mysteries, but there remain some important gaps in our r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n s .

There were, in the Ancient World, many other places where such local mysteries were celebrated. In one case, we even possess the "Rule" of the Mysteries, a long inscription t h a t d e t a i l s many of the f u n c t i o n s and rituals of the Mysteries of Andania on the Peloponnesus "' This text is important in that it shows us a lot of t h e "outer" workings of a t r a d i t i o n a l (•reck i n i t i a t i o n cult: it describes in de-tail the- v e s t m e n t s to be- worn, rules lor hair and make-up, the order of the procession, and so on. It also gives us a h i n t of the less t h a n solemn a s p e c t s ol s u c h rituals, which involved a large number of people. Among tbc' officials of the cult were the rod-bearers, who had to d i s c i p l i n e1 those- in a t t e n d a n c e , w i t h f o r c e i t

necessary. What the inscription does not reveal, however, is t h e - a c t u a l secret of the i n i t i a t i o n .

Several of the other mystery cults of antiquity had different patterns of organisation. Alongside the- local sanctuaries that did not even attempt to NprcMcl out g c o g i a p h i e a l l y (the model set by Kleusis), t h e - i e - were mysteries assoc iate-d w i t h w a n d e l ing pi ic-sts (Dionysus, the Mother ol the (•ods), temples w i t h personnel t h a t replicated themselve-s all over the-world (the Kgyptian Isis) and clubs t h a t had both social and religions aspects (ihc mvsienes of Mithras).1' In most ol these, the- rituals ol t h e

52 Albert dt' /tmg

s c h o l a r s to hunt for these secrets in the sense of l i m i t i n g lor t h e n secret t e x t s (lui1)*!*- logon) and knowledge, hut most schol,irs tod.iy agree that

guarding the secret ol i n i t i a t i o n had l i t t l e to do w i t h secret theologies. that such theologies in lac t probably never existed.

The secret of the Mysteries ol Klcusis was said to have heen based on the "awe" i n s p i r e d by the goddess (I)etneter). It was t h e reverence ol t h e gods that kept people f r o m t a l k i n g about these rituals. I his explanation has been deemed " h i l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y " (Bremnier 1995h, f). 72), but it is less t h a n s a t i s f a c t o r y to e x p l a i n t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s t h a i can be observed in most of the other mystery cults

"I'here are, obviously, sociologie .il mec h a n i s m s at work here: I he sec i et around w h i c h the mysteries were (thought to be) centred was one ol these c u l t s ' c hief strategics to attract a new f o l l o w i n g (Johnston 'J()()4h). But there may actually be more. One of the chief f u n c t i o n s ol ' s e c r e c y m i l u s i n i t i a t o r y context must have been the l i m e lion ol "c o n t r o l lor experi-ence." In all cases of initiation, the prime- motivation lor g u a r d i n g t h e ' secret seems to have been the wish to safeguard t h e e m o t i o n a l i m p a c t ol undergoing the r i t u a l . Revealing t h e ' r i t u a l s and t h e i r symbols before-hand meant not only t r a n s g r e s s i n g sacred i n s t i t u t i o n s or betraying bonds, h u t also spoiling the cl'lec (s t h e i i t n a I was supposed to ac c o m p l i s h .

To give some examples: it is k n o w n espee i a l l v from works ol ai I. w h i c li are much less reticent than texts in displaying elemeuls f r o m die mvsiei v cults, that i n i t i a t i o n s < ould c u l m i n a t e1 in a "hierophany," l l i e - revelation ol ,i sac red ob jee t . I n 1' leu si s, l h is w,is in all likelihood an car ol c o r n , and m

tni/l s/r/vrv in III/' s/w/v of religion ">!>

a wreath placed on his head and proclaim solemnly that Mithras was his

wreath.

There thus are various options: in certain i n i t i a t o r y contexts, secrecy was most likely used as a control lor experience, whereas the secret y <>l l i l u a l s in regular meetings ( r i t u a l me.ils, lor i n s t a n c e ) lav more in (Ins p e c t a i (Ins i g n i f i c a n c e the(Inse r i t u a l (Ins were t h o u g h t to have had and m ( h e -wish to celebrate- these in a f i t t i n g manner with initiated members only.

Secret identities

I he final subject to be discussed is the- "secret i d e n t i t y , " the existence of s e i i e t societies in (he- Ancient World. This is a problematic lie-Id lor various reasons. The- first of t hese is documentation. It belongs to t h e characteristics of secret societies that they can hide their e x i s t e n c e ( o i n p l e i e - K , since they rely on a mutually agreed bond of 'concealment (Simmel 1906, pp. 469-72). In general, such secret societies do not manage to remain secret for a long period, but it is certainly possible- that there were various secret societies in t h e - A n c i e n t World of w h i c h we remain wholly unaware for total lack of documentation.

I n most lases t h i s is not t h e - ease-. Various religious movements in the Am lent World may have been elusive or secluded, but they were not altogether u n k n o w n . To remain entirely unknown creates difficulties in ( b e .nc-.i ol lee r u i t m e n t . More- o f t e n , c o n c e a l m e n t is a t t r i b u t e d to \ a r i o u s groups without a real foundation in the- some es. I bis applies particularly (o gnostic C h r i s t i a n i t y , w h i c h is h a b i t u a l l y described as secretive. I h i s description, however, is an i n e x t i ic able part of (be- fierce polemics against these Christians by other Christian authors and requires m u c h more solid documentation t h a n is usually ottered.

In view ol t i n - s t r u c t u r e ol religious l i t e in a n t i q u i t y , characterised by 'be- d o m i n a n c e - ol ( p o h t l u - i s l u ) i i x i e « n i l s and t h e - absence of religious exclusivism, the emergence of real secret societies w i t h a religions agenda is

not really to be- expected.

Participation in the so-called "mystery c u l t s " did, however, otter those interested (he- option of enriching their life with some-thing e x t r a and sei recy added to (his new i d e n t i t y . It is bevond doubl t h a t (he secrecy of certain groups was a major element in t h e i r a t t r a c lion to outsiders.

Final considerations

54 Albert de /ong

to r e c o n s t r u c t t h e main sociological and psychological mechanisms operative in the secret traditions.

Most importantly, secrecy ensured the social cohesion, a t t r a c t i o n , and prestige of the movements and created a u n i t y in experience. Il l u seel private instruction, ritual, the manipulation of symbols, and above all time and expectation together. For comparative purposes that will have to do. Those- who are still interested in the p a r t i c u l a r s c>( the ancient mysteries will have to reconcile themselves with the fact that many initiates in antiquity have, indeed, obeyed the commands of Hermes Trismcgistus and have1 shielded the divine mysteries within themselves w i t h eternal

silence.

Notes

1 Asclepius 32 (Copenhaver 1992, p. 87).

2 For i n s t r u c t i v e overviews, sec Slut pc 1986 and cspce ially Kippenberg 2002. 3 For recent discussions, see, inlfi inn/In^ ali/i\, I'atlon and Ray 2000, and

l l i c spec i . i l issues ol l l i c journals Niinifii 48/3 (2001) and Method &f 1'lii'iin' in Ihr

SliirH <>/ IMipon 16/1 (2004).

4 A l a n d m a r k study ol diese d a n g e i s is Platvoet 1082.

5 Foi instance, see K i n g l ' C I « ) Sec also Domgci 2000 lor an elegant d i s c u s s i o n of the issues

6 These have all been taken from the contribution! to Numrn and Mr/had &f

I'lii'iin ni lin- S/w/v o/ Hrli/rimi re-lerrcd to in n. 3, most o f t e n from t h e i r titles.

7 Bolle 1087; Kippenbcrg and Stroumsa 1995; Wollson 1999 A c olle n of c o n l r i b u t i o n s from the so< i . i l s< u-ni es c.in he f o u n d in Teilt 1080

8 Psychology: Kelly 2002; ethics: Bok 1982; (literary) history: Long '_'<)01. '.) See H a r t m a n 1980, p l a t e s V I I , V I I I , IX, loi i l l i i s t i a l i o n s .

10 This was told to die a u t h o r ol l l n s css.iv by Professor Shaiil Shakccl, who was fortunate enough to he in M u m b a i on s u c h an o c c a s i o n I lie s i a l n s of fire-temples in I r a n is s l i g l i l K d i l l e i c n l i n d i a l some1 of t h e m do allow n o n - / o i o a s

trians résine led a c c e s s , see S t a i i s h e i g 2004, pp. 175-77. I I See Staiisherg 2001 lor an impressive- survey.

12 See the h i s t o r i c a l essays in Moore 1984.

13 This is not a critique of Bok's i n s i s t e n c e on keeping the d i s t i n c t i o n between secrecy and privacy, s i n c e - hers is a woi k on c t l n c s, not a soc iologic al inquiry. 14 One can also add "arc am-," "ex c uit." and s i m i l a r lei i n s to t i n s inventory. 15 The names mosl c om mon I y at l a c heel l o t h i s i c - m a i kahle- e - p i sodé1 .ne- those- of

A n t o i n e Faivre (e.g. Faivre 1994) .nid W o n i c i l l a n c - g i a a l ) (e.g. l l a n c g i a a i f 1996).

Id A n o v c i v i c w is given in Faivre 1999.

17 The Nag l l . m m i . n l i t e x t s bave- all been published in the scries I'll,' Cn/ilii

(,nmlir Library. A (ini/i/ili'li' I'dilinn n/ l/ii' Nn/r I l/innniidi Coiling, I.eiden 2000

(5 vols).

18 For Irenaeus and P l o t m u s , se-e- Bioe-k 1996, pp. 57-06, 4-7 i e s p e e l i v e - l y , a n d . espec i a l l y , I ardieu 1996.

19 These c l i s t i n c - f i o n s c anno! bc c | u a n t i l i e d because the beginning and end of loo m a n y l e x i s have been lost

20 flic reasons for these problems an- set out clearly in Shakcd 2002. pp. 21)6-71. 21 For Sirnmel's life and ,m ovci view of his works, see ( ,osci 1971, pp. 177-215;

St'i >rh und \irnr\ ni Ihr \//«/v o/ irligion 55

22 The inosi h e l p f u l .malvsis ol Sinunel's importance in this respect is Kippenberg l991. pp. Il9-20.

23 Hok 1982. t l i . H, which discusses accountability. 24 This p.u i öl t h e paper is partly based on De |ong 2005.

25 In general, temples were not places ol c o m m u n a l w o i s l u p . hut (he d w e l l i n g -places (homes) ol the gods. In d i l l e i e n t t i a d i t i o n s . t h c \ c o u l d l i i l l l l l dillerent fune 1101 is .UK! t i n - v i h e ' i d 01 r show diflerciue-s in the degree to which the) lei in the common people. In Mesopotamia, l i t e common people as a rule' did nol enter I he temple (Hot I cm 2001, p. I IS), where-,is ( . i c c k temples appeal to have been more easily accessible.

26 Most famouslv t h e - r i t u a l of the New Year in Babvlon in t h e f u s t m i l l e n n i u m BCF: loom 1989.

27 I he Mesopotamia!! c\ i d c n c c is disc usscd in Boi gcr 1957-71.

28 The c o r p u s ol site's, m o n u m e n t s , and i n s c r i p t i o n s ol V e i m a s c i c n I95(>-60 is seriously out ol date, but has not been iepl.iteel. Kor a g c n c i a l introduction, sec (.l.inss 2000; loi a bibliogiaphv liom 1984 to 2001. sec Mai tens, and de Boe 2004.

29 Apuleiiis, Mtttanorphosn (a.k.a ï'ltr C.oWc// , - l \ s ) I 1.23, describes how the mam character in t h e - novel. Lucius, had to borrow inonev in orde-i to a c c j u u e all t h a t was necessary for his final i n i t i a t i o n . Sec- Grilfiths 1975 toi l i n - u-xt.

'M) An excellent study of this pioee-ss is Hicmmci 1995.1

31 See Smith 2003, lor a p o u c i l u l p i c s c - n t a l i o n ol the l a s t i n g import.mee ol d o n i e - s l K i c l i g i o n in the- Ane ic-nl World. A w idc-i a n g i n g e a s e - si IK I \ is g i v e n b\

l o o m 199().

32 The variety ol pi ie-sllioods is so e - i i o i m o i i s t h a t it is v n t n a l l v impossible to make- gciie-ial slalemenls e>n the subjc-c I l l i e e-ss.ivs in Heard and North 1990 will provide t h e - ne-c e-ssai v c or re-c lions to I he- image- skclc he-cl he-1 c

33 Some se hol. u s i h e - i e l o i e K-Ici to most i c l i g i o i i s ol t h e - âne le-nl woi I c i (signili-i anlly w(signili-ith the- except(signili-ion ol Iran) as be(signili-ing p a î t ol a "Ne-aï-Kaste(signili-i n-Med(signili-ite(signili-i ï.mcan

koine" ( " c o m m o n speech oi c o m m o n c u l t u r e1" ) Se-e. most r e t e n l h . B m k e - i l

2001, pp. 1-15.

I 01 I ' v i h a g o i a s . se-c- B i i i k e - i t 1972. loi Kmpedocles. Kingslcv 1995.

The w n i i n g s ol Kmgslc-v 1999 (on l'armene-idc-s) and 2003 (on Kmpedoeles .nid l'ai meneides) a i e - e x t i e-nu-lv use-lui to gam a se-iisc ol w h a t il mm ni lo people in anli(|iiity to be t h u s induced into important t r u t h s , but alongside ihc o b v i o u s l u s t o i i c a l s e h o l a i l v m e - i i l s ol t h c - s e - x \ o t k s , l l i e - v also e oiisc louslv a t t e m p t I o open ways of appropriating these- H m lis loi modem se-c-kei s. 36 W u l l l 1991, pp. 61-88. is a good o v e - t v i c u ol i h c - "dclihci .île lac i l i t a l i o n of

i c h g i o i i s c x p c i i e n c e , " but only tells h a l l t h e story. K o r a v e i v s e n s i t i v e -i .-isc s l u d v . toe us-ing e>u I l-ie- ( one e-pt ol "app-iop-i lal-ion," sec1 1 li|\ve-e-ge- 200 I

•17 Se-c. loi i n s t a l l é e1, t h e - d i s c u s s i o n of Kmpedoc Ic-s' promise lo Ins p u p i l P.ms.i

mas t h a t he would leach him to control t h e wcalhci and l o b u n g t h e h i e Ion c of a dead man b a c k bom l l a d e - s (Kmpcdoe les. l i a g m c n l 1 1 1 ) in Kingsle-v

1995, pp. 217-27.

'M Lambe-iion 1995; Stroumsa I99(). pp. 11-26. An instructive- modem parallel

56 Albert de Jong

'M For i n t r o d u c t i o n s lo ( l u s l i t e r a t u r e and to the Hermetic movement, see

Copenhaver 1992 and Broek 1990, pp. 1-21.

40 Recent studies of the most likcK M » i.il and ritual backgrounds of these texts are Södergard 2003 and IVstc 2002.

41 Porphyrius, De Antro Nymphanirn.

VI S c c c s p e - e i a l l v Fowdcn 1980, pp. 120-26, and Slol/cnbci g 1999.

43 The phrase was famously found in the Armem.in l>i'/iii/liini\ <>/ Ilcinii'\ I ;v\»;<;t,rM/HA In Awli'jHiH 9.4 (lor w h i c h , sec Mahe 2000).

I I Sec Ilioek 2000 lor .1 good analysis.

15 Stioums.i 1990, pp. 147-08, w i t h references. 40 For the text, see Meyer 1987, pp. 51-59. 47 For this typology, see Burkerl 1987, pp. 30-5:1

48 Tertullian, I)e nmirni militia 15; see Merkelbach 1984, pp. 95-90 loi .1 discussion ol t h e i i l n . i l

19 1 lie s u b j e c t is ( i i t u . i l l v discussed by Williams 1999, sec also Williams 1990. pp. 90-i 15.

Reallfxikon fin .\^\i /n/ii^/i' I I I , i ni Anrn'iil ,\li'\iijinl<iii/iii. Clue ago: University of (Chicago

References

He-aid. M. and | \ o i l h (e-els) (1990), 1'ii^nii /V/cs/v lieligio» n ml I'mivt in llir Am ii'iil

Winltl. I t h a c a . ( .ornell University Press

Beaulieu, P.A. (1992), "New Light on Secret Knowledge in Late Babylonian C u l t u r e . " /,1'ihilni// /i/i A^IIII/O^II' 82, pp. 98-1 I 1.

Bok, S. (1982), .SiY/v/v On the Ethi<\ <>/ Conctaltiuni tun/ liiTi'lii/iitn. New Y o i k : Pantheon.

Bolle, K.W. (ed.)(1987), SfCTWjmÄffifcUm (Studies in the History of Religions 19) Leiden: Brill.

Borger, R. (1957-71), "(leheimwissen. pp. 188-91.

Botléro, J. (2001), Itrl Press.

B remmer, J . N . (1995a), "The Family and ( »her ( i e n l i e s ol Religious Learning in Antiquity," in |.W. Drijvers and A.A. Mac Donald (eels), (>»//n «/ Isurniug:

Isfirwriff rind l./iin/inn in I'li'-Mixlfm I'.innjn' inul III/' \i-nr l:ti\l ( H u l l ' s Slndic's i n

Intellectual History 61). Leiden: Brill, pp. 29-38.

Bremmer, J . N . (I995b). "Religious S c c i c - l s and S e c i c - c y in ( . lassie al dccee," in

H.C. Kippenberg and (•.(.. Stroumsa (eels). .Scr mi "'"/ ConCtalmtltt: Stnilh"* in llii' ///s/wy n/ Mtditerranea/n and Ni'in l:d\lrrn Ki'lifriori'i (Studies in the- History of

Religions 05). Leiden: Brill, pp. 01-78.

Bioek, R. van den (1996), Studie* in (.mniiciMii and Alexandrian (',lin*liiiiiii\ ( N a g Hammadi and M a n i c liac-au Studies 39). Leiden: Brill.

Broek, R. van den (2000), "Religious Pi ac tic cs in the' 1 lermelic 'Lodge': New Light hom Nag Hammadi," in R. van den Brock and C. van H c c i t u i n (eels), 1'iinii POMMMJrn /» Jin ah Itiilinii': (f//e«/.s, Hermetwn anil Ihr (.lni\linii I niililiini (Pinianclei . l e x i s .UK! Slndics p i i b l i s h e e l by the Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica 4). Amsterelam: In de Pelikaan, |)|). 77-1 13.

Burkert, W. ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Utrr mill Si ii-iitc in Annrnl Pythogortanim. Cambridge-, MA: Harvard I ' n i v e r s i t y Press.

Burkert, W. ( 1 983), llnn/ii \i'ia>i\: ilii' Anthropology u/ Am /nil dirrk Sm n/iruil Rilnnl

Sei reis und vrm v in //"' '•/"'/V "/ religion 57 B n r k c i t , W. (1987). Ancient M\\lm ('.uil*. Cambridge. MA: Harvard I m v e i s i i x

Pi ess.

BurktTt, W. (1996), Creation oj tlie Sacred: Trucks u/ Hinlogi ni l-'.nrl\ Religions.

Cambridge, MA: H a i v a n l l ' i m c i s i u Pi ess.

B u i k e n . W. (2004). ltah\/on. Mem/ihis. 1'eise/nili.s: i.uslern (.oule\ls uf (,ieek ('.allure.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard U n i v c i s i u l'icss.

Clauss, M. (2000), TIn' Human ('.uil u/ Mi/Inas: The Huil umi hls M\slenes. Ldinbnrgb: l ' d m b u i g l i l ;i m c i s i l \ l'icss

Copcnhavci, B.I'. (1992). Heimetiiu: l'he (.reel; d»/nis Heriiielicinii and the hil/n

Ascle/iiii.s in u \r,i' l ng/is/i translation .i'itli \ules and Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge l n i v c i s i i v Press,

('.«sei, L.A. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Mnsleis n/ Sociological Thought' Ideas in Historical and Social

C.on/e\/. New York: H a n o u r t .

Donigcr, W. (2000), "I'oM-modcrn and -colonial - s t n u t i i r . i l (.oiii|>.u isons." in I ' a i t o n and Ra\ 2000, pp. ()S-74.

Dougbo, M. (2002). l'ui'il\ and Danger: .\u .-\nahsis of the ('iinee/il.s of I'ulliiliun and liihoo. London: Roullcdi^c.

l'"aivic, A. (199-1). At i ess lo Western l-soli'iicisin. Alb.inv: S l ' N Y 1'icss.

I'aivrc, A. (1999). "The Notions öl Coixcalmenl and Sei rc< \ in Modern Ksoteric ( i i i r r c n t s S I I H c t h e Renaissance (A Mctliodologu .1! .\ppro.u li)," in K.R. Wollsoii (ed.), Rending the l 'eil: (,0111 i-aln/enl anil \ei >ei\ in Ihe Hislur\ oj Religious. New N'oi k &: London: Se\cn Miidi;es 1'iess. pp. l.r)5-7().

Fowden, ('•. (!9Sr>). Ihe l:g\/iliau Heimes: .1 Historical A/i/nnai/i lo l/ie l tile I'agan .Mind. Princeton: Princeton 1 m v c i s i t v Press.

( • u l l i l l i s , ].(.',. (1975). A/nilenis of Mutltiiiros: Ihe Isis-Koak (Melmiiorfilioses. Hook .\7) (I Hides pré liminaire! aux u-li^ions « n e n t a l e s d a n s r i - i n | > n e R o m a i n !W). Leiden: l i n l l

nanegraaff, \V. (199I>). \ew Age Hehg/on nnil H'eslein ('nlline. i salent isi/i ni thé Mirror o/ Sei niai Thought (Studies in ( h e I l i s t o n «I Religions 72). Leiden: Brill.

H a i l m . m . S.S. (I9.SO). l'aisisin: l'he Religion o/ /.aruasler ( l i onograpln ol Religions XIV, 4). Leiden: Brill.

Hijweege, N.M. (200 I). Itehenng in hevintleli/k geie/oiiin'i'ii/i' Innig: een psychologische studie. K a m p e n : Kok.

H n t t o n , R. (l'.)99). l'he Triumph o/ the Moon: A l liston o/ Modern l'agan Witchcra/l. O x f o r d : O x t o i d l i n v e i s i u Pi ess.

Johntton, S.L (2004a). "Divin.mon and Piopbecv. (Ireeie," in S.L (ohnston (ed.). Religions oj Ihe Ancient World: A (initie. Cambridge. MA: I I . m a i d I niversily

Pi ess. pp. MI-M.

. l o l i n s l o n , S . I . (200-11)), "Mysteries," m S.L [olinsloii (ed.). Religions o/ the Ancient

\\iuld: I C.uide. ( „imbridge, MA: M a i V.IK I I i m c i s i u Press, pp. 98-1 1 1.

De Jong, A. (2005). " S c c i e i y 1. Antujnity." in VV. Hanegraall (ed.). Dictionary of

(iiiusis and Western l^siiterii'isin. Leiden: Brill, |)|). 1050-54.

K e l l v . A . K . (2002), '/'/(/• rs\tln>ltig\ o/ Se/re/s. New ^'«l k: K l u w e i A i . u l e i n u P l e n u m . King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion l'oslcolunitil Ihcon. ludiu. and "the M\s/i<

I'.nst". London: Ronlledge.

Kingsley, P. (1995). Ancient l'/nloso/i//\. M\s-/er\, and Magic: Km/iciloi/es and

l'\lhugoreun 1'iaililioii. Oxloid: Oxford l)niversit\ Press.

58 Albert de Jong

Kippenberg, H.(i. (1991), fhe vordmtutiidun Erläntngsnligiontn in ihrem

Zusammenhang mit der antiken Slodthtmchaft. F r a n k f u r t am Main: Suhl kamp.

Kippenberg, H.(i. (2002), Discovering Religions History in the Modern Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kippenberg, H.G. and G.G. Strouinsa (eds) (1995), StcrtCjand Concealment: Stntlies

in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Studies in the History

of Religions 65). Leiden: Brill.

Lambeiton, R. (1995), "The AnOPPHTOI0F.£iPIAand the roles ol Secrecy in t i n -History of'Platonism," in H.G. Kippenberg and G.G. Stroumsa (cds). Secrecy rind

Concealment: Studies in the History of Medi/cmnii'ai/ rind Near Eastern Religions

(Studies in the History of Religions 65). Leiden: Brill, pp. 139-52.

Long, P.O. (2001), Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of

Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Baltimore and London: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

l . i i h r m a n n , T.M. (1989), "The Magic of Secrecy." Ethos 17. pp. 131 -65.

Mähe, J.P. (2000), "The Definitions of Hermes Trismegistns to Asclcpius," in C. Salaman, D. van Oyen, W.I). Wharton and J.P. Malie (eds). The Win of

Hermes: New Translations o/ /lie Corpus I leiiiie/iinm and the Definitions of Hermes Tnsmegistiis to Asclejiins. Rochester: Inner Traditions, pp. 99-122.

Martens, M. and G. de Boe (2004), "Bibliography of Mithraic Studies," in M. Martens and G. de Boe (eds), Roman Mithraism: The Evidence oj the Small Eintls (Archeologie in Vlaanderen. Monografie 4). Brussel: I n s t i t u u t voor het Arche-ologisch P a t r i m o n i u m , pp. 363-85.

Merkelbach, R. (1984), Mithras, Königstein: Hain.

Meyer, M.W. (1987), The Ancient Mysteries: A Soincebooh. Suited Te\ls oj the Mystery

Religions a/ the Ancient Mediterranean World. San Francisco: Harper.

Moore, B. (1984), Privacy: Sin/lies in Social rind C.ultural History. Armon, New York: Sharpe.

Nedelmann, B. (1995), "Geheimhaltung, Verheimlichung, Geheimnis - einige so/iologis( he VorübciIcgmigcn," in H.G. Kippenberg and ( i . ( i . Stroumsa (eds), Secrecy and ('.micealmenl: Studies in the Hisloif <>/ Meili/erranean and Near

/•.astern Religions (Studies in the History ol Religions 65). Leiden: B i i l l , pp. 1-16.

Patton, K.G. and B.C. Ray (eds) (2000), A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in

the Postmodern Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peste, J. (2002), The I'oniiandres (iron/) in ('.or/ins Heimeln uni: Myth. Mysticism and

(•no.si.s in l/iti' Antitjinty (Skrifter utgivna vid Institutionen for

Religionsveten-skap, Göteborgs Universitet 26). Göteborg: Department ol Religious Studies, University of Göteborg.

Platvoet, J. G. (1982), Comparing Religions, a Limitative Approach: An Analysis of Aktin,

Para-Creole, and l/o-Sananda Riles nnd I'r/iyers (Religion and Reason 24). The

Hague: Mouton.

Shaked, S. (2002), "The Science of Religion in Israel with Notes on I n t e r l o c k i n g Gin les of Traditions," in G. Wiegers and J. Platvoet (cds). Modern So/ lelies Ü" the

Science of Religions: Studies in Iliinoin of l/ii/nneil I.eei/onwer (Studies in the History

of Religions 95). Leiden: Brill, pp. 258-71.

Sharpe, E.J. (1986), Comparative Religion: I History, l^a Salle: Open Court. Simmel, G. (1906), "The Sociology of'Secrecy and of Secret Societies." Amerimn

Journal of Sociology I I , pp. 441-98.

Sc< rets and secrecy in the s/n/l\ of religion 59

S m i t h , J.Z. (1993). Map is not Territory: Studies in the History /if Religions. ( :hicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

S m i t h , )./.. (2003), "Heir, There, and Anywhere." in S. Noegel, J. Walker and B. Wheeler (eds), I'rayer, Magic, and the Stars ni the Aticient mid /////• Antique World. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 21-30. Sodcigard, J.I'. (2003), The Hermetic i'icl\ <>/ the Muni: A Si-nnolic innl Cognitive Slinly

of the DIM-HUM of Hermes Trismegistos (( loniei lanc.i Bihlica. New Testament Series

41). Stockholm: Almqvisl & Wiksell.

Stausberg, M. (2004), Die Religion /.arathiishtras: C.eschichte (,egeir,riirt Rituale.

Hand I I I . S t u l l g a r t : Kohlhammer.

Stolzenberg, D. (1999), "Unpropitious Tinctures: Alchemy, Astrology and Gnosis

according lo /osimos of Panopolis." Archives Internationales d'Histoire tic*. Sciences 49, pp. 3-31.

Stroum.sa, ( ' . . ( , . (199(>), Hidden l\'ivlnm: l-^nlenc Ti'inlitnnis and the Roots of Cliristi/in

Mysticism (Studies in the History of Religions 70). Leiden: Brill.

I ai dieu, M. (1990), Reellen lies sur lu formation de I'ApOCatfpM dc /«stnen el les si ni ries

île M/irnis \'i(ionnus (Res Orientales IX). Bures-sur-Yvette: Peeters.

Teilt, S.K. (cd.) (1980), \eciec\: A Cross-Ciillurnl l'ers/ieclive. New York: Human Sciences Press,

l 001 n, K. van der (1989), "The Babylonian New Year Festival: New I n s i g h t s from t h e ('.iiiieiform l e x i s and their Bearing on Old Testament Study." in J.A. K m e i l o n (ed.). Congress I'oluiiie. Innren /'AV9 (Supplements lo Vetus

I eslamenlum 43). Leiden: Brill, pp. 331-44.

I oorn, K. van der (199(5), Family Religion in H/i/i\liniiii. S\nn. /in/I Israel: ('.ontiniut\

anil ('.liante in the Forms of Religious Life (Studies in t h e History and Cultures of

the Ancient Near Last 7). Leiden: Brill.

I romp, |. ( 1993), The Assumption of Moses: A Critical F.dilion with C./iniiiienlni'y (Studia in Veteris Testament! Pseudepigrapha 10). Leiden: Brill.

\ c r m a s c i e n , M.J. (195(>-00), Corpus Inscnptionum et Monument/mini Hchginnis

Mithn/ic/ie. The Hague: M a r t i m i s N i j h o l l .

Williams, M.A. (199(>), Rethinking "Cnos/ieisni": An Argument for Dismantling n Dubious (',/itegory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Williams, M.A. (1999), "Secrecy, Revelation, and Laic A n t i q u e Dcmiurgkal Myths," in Wolfson 1999. pp. 31-58.

Wolfson. F..R. (ed.) (1999), Ren/i/iig the \'eil: Concealment an/1 Secree\ in the History of

Religions. New York Ü- London: Seven Bridges Press.

Wulff, D.M. (1991), Psychology oj Religion: Classic and Con/em/>nr/iry \'ieu>s. New