6069RE: Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Calling all astrologers!
- Oct 11, 2013
> Mike, this is all really fascinating. I am still trying to catch up here,M.C. This kind of stuff was in the air at the time. There was a basic
> but one question I had.
> The decans are a feature originally of Egyptian astrology, correct?
> Obviously both he and Iamblichus were familiar with them, though I guess
> I didn't know really till now that Porphyry was. I am just wondering now
> about the means by which Porphyry got his familiarity with Egyptian
> astrology. I touched upon possible channels in my article on Book VIII of
> the Response to Porphyry, but I couldn't really nail anything down
onflict between Ptolemaic astronomy - and remember Porphyry wrote a
commentary on the Tetrabiblos - and the Egyptianizing/Her,etic version
that went back to Teucros and Nechepso-Petosiris. In the Letter to Anebo
(fr. 2.12 Sodano) Porphyry quotes Chairemon and the Salmeskhiniaka, who
talk about "the so-called planets and those that constitute the Zodiac
and the ones that rise alongside it (*paranatellontOn*), and the divisions
into decnas and the horoscopes and the so-called mighty lords (*krataious
>M.C.The latter, I suspect.
> Is Porphyry just being the polymath here, trying to incorporate these
> Egyptian ideas into the Platonic system?
Though again, to me, that sort
> of synthetic goal seems more likely of Iamblichus, whom I personally atM.C. I suspect if we had more of Porphyry's works we'd see he was just as
> least see as very much driven in that direction.
synthetic-minded as Iamblichus. He mentions Egyptian astrology favoaably
in the De antro nympharum 24 and the De imaginibus (fr. 360 Smith been
conjecturally attributed to Chairemon), while the Ad Gaurum 16.5 ff.
contains an exposition of Chaldaean astrology that would be quite
compatible with phil-Egyptian thought.
>M.C. Doesn't seem odd to me. What's odd, or rather difficult, is the
> I guess there seems something a (tiny?) bit odd to me here that Porphyry
> is pursuing this approach, though obviously he is.
question of whether Porphy was always "superstitious", or became more
rationalistic after studying under Plotinus. This latter is the
traditional view, but I have my doubts.
>M.C. I think it's safe to say there's no fragment of Porphyry that hasn't
> Just some thoughts - I think you have something really important here.
> Has no one much looked at these particular fragments of Porphyry before?
> Or am I just showing (yet another) Bildungsloch of my own?!?
been studied. But an overall survey of Porphyry's position on astrology
remains a scholarly desideratum which I may try to fulfill one day. One
might start by translating the Introduction to Ptolemy, unless someone's
already done so.
All best, Mike
CNRS UPR 76
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>