Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Editions of Plotinus/Porphyry's Introduction to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... I didn t notice any boo-boos, but I was reading it rather quickly. I will take another look. ... The quote from Porphyry follows: he describes the sun as
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
      <pronoia@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi, Dennis,
      >
      >
      > I think you are the sixth person to read the article. I
      > just found a typo that the editors missed, if you happen to
      > find any more, please let me know :) That's one great
      > advantage of web versus print.

      I didn't notice any boo-boos, but I was reading it rather quickly. I
      will take another look.

      >
      > The edition of Porphyry's Introduction to the Tetrabiblos
      > is in volume 5.4 of the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
      > Graecorum. *Most* of the work is copy or paraphrase of 2nd
      > century astrologer Antiochus. A few sections are possibly
      > later inclusions (medieval). So there is very little that
      > is actually Porphyry. I'm pretty sure the introduction and
      > a long section on the rulers of the chart is Porphyry. The
      > renaissance editors did not know that most of it is really
      > Antiochus.
      >
      > I'm interested in your quest, esp. since your covering
      > territory in Iamblichus (ch. 8 and 9) of which I've been
      > giving some thought (and recently presented at ISNS).
      >
      > Maybe you could send me the quote in Cumont, and I'll see
      > if it matches anything in the text?
      >
      > By astrological Hermetica do you mean the 'technical'
      > Hermetica (coined by Fowden) that would include fragments
      > of "Petosiris", astrological Hermes, etc, or the
      > astrological references in the so-called philosophical
      > Hermetica?
      > There is one not so modern or convenient edition of
      > fragments and testim. of "Petosiris" and "Nechepso" by
      > Ernest Reiss, Necheponis et Petosiridis Fragmenta Magica,
      > Philologus, Supp. 6, 1892. Most of them (the Greek ones
      > anyway) can be found in various places in the CCAG.
      >
      > There is something I can send you offlist that you might
      > find of interest.
      >
      > Best,
      >
      > Marilynn
      >

      The quote from Porphyry follows: he describes the sun as "kratistos
      tis basileus en tois meteorois astrasi". This is on p.453 of Franz
      Cumont, "La Théologie solaire du paganisme romain", Mémoires
      présentés par divers savants à l'AIBL ( extrait du T.XII, 2 ), 1911.
      This article, though it is old, is still very useful, though on the
      purely astrological side, which is a significant part of it, I am
      sure much has been added and you could add a lot too. I found it
      useful for one thing because he quotes generously from a lot of
      astrological writers, including Vettius Valens, and those texts are
      not that easy to access (I just looked up the CCAG and University of
      Washington doesn't have it. Is it a huge book - 1000 or so pages?
      Probably.) And a large part of my paper is on solar theology, so I
      was lucky - at last - to find it via a bookdealer in Paris. Whatever
      it takes, right?

      From what you are saying and a lot of the other quotes, especially
      from Valens and other writers earlier than Porphyry that Cumont
      cites, I suspect the above quote from Porphyry is also from
      Antiochus, since it reflects what appears to me now to be a standard
      view of the sun by the 2nd century AD. But at least Porphyry isn't
      contradicting it, so I guess that means he is agreeing. It's not a
      huge point for my paper, but another nice bit to add, because it
      comes from Porphyry and my article is on de Mysteriis which is of
      course addressed to Porphyry.

      I'll answer you more offline - it would actually be nice to have a
      little more of the context of that quote from Porphyry. Again, Cumont
      gives only p.181 in the 1559 edition as the location in the text - !
      That probably is not much help.

      Thanks very much - this is all very interesting. Also I am happy to
      say the very last touch on my work, which is now done, after 5 months
      of effort.

      Dennis Clark
    • Marilynn Lawrence
      Dennis, This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are interested in more on the manuscripts,
      Message 2 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dennis,

        This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
        it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are
        interested in more on the manuscripts, Pingree, "Antiochus
        and Rhetorius," Classical Philology, 72:3, 1977).

        The chapter, roughly, is "Concerning signs given from the
        Sun, Moon, and stars in their transits"
        [BTW, I think there are only a few copies of CCAG (12
        volumes). The text I worked from was falling apart in my
        hands. The people at TLG managed to digitalize a good
        portion of it in the past two years. This work is
        available in the online version of TLG. Much CCAG doesn't
        lend itself to digital text, especially the magical symbols
        and drawing and valuable notes. I hope someone at some
        point soon makes an effort to preserve or reprint it.]

        Here's your passage:

        Ho Hêlios toinun kathaper tis kratistos basileus en tois
        meteôrois astrasi tetaktai ta peri ton aera kai tên gên
        sunistamena prophanôs rhuthmizôn kai kosmôn kai diatattôn.


        Associating the Sun with king is standard in astrology.
        But he goes further by saying that the sun proportions out
        (or orchestrates or sets the rhythm) of all other things of
        the air and earth. He likewise assigns the Moon queenly
        duties of bringing things to fruition through her
        effluences, applications to the planets (when it approaches
        the degree of a planet and makes an aspect), and other
        lunar phenomena.



        Marilynn


        On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:42:02 -0000
        "vaeringjar" <vaeringjar@...> wrote:
        > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
        > <pronoia@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi, Dennis,
        > >
        > >
        > > I think you are the sixth person to read the article.
        > I
        > > just found a typo that the editors missed, if you
        > happen to
        > > find any more, please let me know :) That's one great
        > > advantage of web versus print.
        >
        > I didn't notice any boo-boos, but I was reading it rather
        > quickly. I
        > will take another look.
        >
        > >
        > > The edition of Porphyry's Introduction to the
        > Tetrabiblos
        > > is in volume 5.4 of the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
        > > Graecorum. *Most* of the work is copy or paraphrase of
        > 2nd
        > > century astrologer Antiochus. A few sections are
        > possibly
        > > later inclusions (medieval). So there is very little
        > that
        > > is actually Porphyry. I'm pretty sure the introduction
        > and
        > > a long section on the rulers of the chart is Porphyry.
        > The
        > > renaissance editors did not know that most of it is
        > really
        > > Antiochus.
        > >
        > > I'm interested in your quest, esp. since your covering
        > > territory in Iamblichus (ch. 8 and 9) of which I've
        > been
        > > giving some thought (and recently presented at ISNS).
        > >
        > > Maybe you could send me the quote in Cumont, and I'll
        > see
        > > if it matches anything in the text?
        > >
        > > By astrological Hermetica do you mean the 'technical'
        > > Hermetica (coined by Fowden) that would include
        > fragments
        > > of "Petosiris", astrological Hermes, etc, or the
        > > astrological references in the so-called philosophical
        > > Hermetica?
        > > There is one not so modern or convenient edition of
        > > fragments and testim. of "Petosiris" and "Nechepso" by
        > > Ernest Reiss, Necheponis et Petosiridis Fragmenta
        > Magica,
        > > Philologus, Supp. 6, 1892. Most of them (the Greek
        > ones
        > > anyway) can be found in various places in the CCAG.
        > >
        > > There is something I can send you offlist that you
        > might
        > > find of interest.
        > >
        > > Best,
        > >
        > > Marilynn
        > >
        >
        > The quote from Porphyry follows: he describes the sun as
        > "kratistos
        > tis basileus en tois meteorois astrasi". This is on p.453
        > of Franz
        > Cumont, "La Théologie solaire du paganisme romain",
        > Mémoires
        > présentés par divers savants à l'AIBL ( extrait du T.XII,
        > 2 ), 1911.
        > This article, though it is old, is still very useful,
        > though on the
        > purely astrological side, which is a significant part of
        > it, I am
        > sure much has been added and you could add a lot too. I
        > found it
        > useful for one thing because he quotes generously from a
        > lot of
        > astrological writers, including Vettius Valens, and those
        > texts are
        > not that easy to access (I just looked up the CCAG and
        > University of
        > Washington doesn't have it. Is it a huge book - 1000 or
        > so pages?
        > Probably.) And a large part of my paper is on solar
        > theology, so I
        > was lucky - at last - to find it via a bookdealer in
        > Paris. Whatever
        > it takes, right?
        >
        > From what you are saying and a lot of the other quotes,
        > especially
        > from Valens and other writers earlier than Porphyry that
        > Cumont
        > cites, I suspect the above quote from Porphyry is also
        > from
        > Antiochus, since it reflects what appears to me now to be
        > a standard
        > view of the sun by the 2nd century AD. But at least
        > Porphyry isn't
        > contradicting it, so I guess that means he is agreeing.
        > It's not a
        > huge point for my paper, but another nice bit to add,
        > because it
        > comes from Porphyry and my article is on de Mysteriis
        > which is of
        > course addressed to Porphyry.
        >
        > I'll answer you more offline - it would actually be nice
        > to have a
        > little more of the context of that quote from Porphyry.
        > Again, Cumont
        > gives only p.181 in the 1559 edition as the location in
        > the text - !
        > That probably is not much help.
        >
        > Thanks very much - this is all very interesting. Also I
        > am happy to
        > say the very last touch on my work, which is now done,
        > after 5 months
        > of effort.
        >
        > Dennis Clark
        >

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
        http://www.nni.com/
      • vaeringjar
        ... index ... by ... By ... Thanks for the information on the editions, that is very helpful, and thanks to Prof Adamson for your posting also. Does anyone by
        Message 3 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "chrhein71" <chrhein71@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Yes, You are right.
          > The OCT edition has a index at the end of the last tomus. This
          index
          > includes a Index locorum to all cited passages of any author used
          by
          > Plotinus. As I know the 2nd OCT Edition by Schwyzer is still the
          > reference edition to all philologists and students od philosophy.
          By
          > the way the OCT Edition is still the ONLY one with a suitable
          > apparatus criticus.
          >
          > Christoph Rhein

          Thanks for the information on the editions, that is very helpful, and
          thanks to Prof Adamson for your posting also.

          Does anyone by the way have a reading plan for all or most of
          Plotinus? A suggested order for reading the treatises that you might
          have used in teaching a course? I want to get through them all now,
          at least in the Loeb so I can move along in a fairly timely manner
          with some English but have the Greek too as much as possible. I was
          just thinking of starting with V and VI, but not sure where to go
          after that. Thanks.

          Dennis Clark
        • vaeringjar
          ... Oh, thanks, that is so kind of you to find the passage. You can from passages like these how easy it was to include the sun and moon in concepts of the
          Message 4 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
            <pronoia@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dennis,
            >
            > This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
            > it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are
            > interested in more on the manuscripts, Pingree, "Antiochus
            > and Rhetorius," Classical Philology, 72:3, 1977).
            >
            > The chapter, roughly, is "Concerning signs given from the
            > Sun, Moon, and stars in their transits"
            > [BTW, I think there are only a few copies of CCAG (12
            > volumes). The text I worked from was falling apart in my
            > hands. The people at TLG managed to digitalize a good
            > portion of it in the past two years. This work is
            > available in the online version of TLG. Much CCAG doesn't
            > lend itself to digital text, especially the magical symbols
            > and drawing and valuable notes. I hope someone at some
            > point soon makes an effort to preserve or reprint it.]
            >
            > Here's your passage:
            >
            > Ho Hêlios toinun kathaper tis kratistos basileus en tois
            > meteôrois astrasi tetaktai ta peri ton aera kai tên gên
            > sunistamena prophanôs rhuthmizôn kai kosmôn kai diatattôn.
            >
            >
            > Associating the Sun with king is standard in astrology.
            > But he goes further by saying that the sun proportions out
            > (or orchestrates or sets the rhythm) of all other things of
            > the air and earth. He likewise assigns the Moon queenly
            > duties of bringing things to fruition through her
            > effluences, applications to the planets (when it approaches
            > the degree of a planet and makes an aspect), and other
            > lunar phenomena.
            >
            >
            >
            > Marilynn
            >
            >

            Oh, thanks, that is so kind of you to find the passage. You can from
            passages like these how easy it was to include the sun and moon in
            concepts of the demiurgy. One interesting point that Cumont makes is
            that these astrological writers came to see the sun as being
            intelligent (noeros) just because of its governing function for all
            the very rational movements of the other celestial bodies. This was
            actually news to me, as I was very aware of the concept of a noeric
            sun in the Neoplatonists, but not these earlier writers. He also
            adduces a likely Stoic influence of my old friend, noeron pyr, at
            work here. Intelligent fire to intelligent light to the light of the
            sun to an intelligent sun, is I think the progression he sees.

            Then of course it all really takes off in the Chaldaean Oracles, and
            from there into later Neoplatonism with real force. Plotinus seems
            not to have been impressed with any of this, Iamblichus very much
            impressed, but Porphyry is another matter, and that is one reason I
            was curious about this Isagoge of his. I don't think there is
            anything extant of Porphyry where he applies these astrological
            notions to his philosophy, and it sounds like most the Isagoge is not
            interpretative in any philosophical manner, from your description, so
            we are left wondering - ? As so often with Porphyry. If anyone would
            like to correct me on that, please do.

            I have only two books on the history of ancient astrology - Jack
            Lindsay's, which seems very thorough, though I notice he frequently
            quotes authors in translation without giving a citation of the
            source, and a book by as I recall John Tester, a history of western
            astrology. I haven't really looked at the latter all that carefully,
            but I gather it is a serious if briefer work too. Is the Gundel
            history you cite in your bibliography in your online article the main
            survey? And the Nunger and Pingree for Mesopotamian astrology? I know
            that there are essays on certain subjects by Neugebauer also. Thanks!

            Dennis Clark
          • Bruce MacLennan
            Hi Dennis, ... A few years ago I read them in the chronological order because I wanted to get a feel for the development of his thought. I found it
            Message 5 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Dennis,

              On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:21 PM, vaeringjar wrote:

              > Does anyone by the way have a reading plan for all or most of
              > Plotinus? A suggested order for reading the treatises that you might
              > have used in teaching a course?

              A few years ago I read them in the chronological order because I
              wanted to get a feel for the development of his thought. I found it
              enlightening, and I suppose it's the principal alternative to the
              Porphyrean order.

              Bruce
            • Christoph Helmig
              Hello Dennis, a very good guide is O. Meara, An Introduction to the Enneads, Oxford 1993 [with a guide to further reading]. Furthermore, I can recommend the
              Message 6 of 18 , Dec 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Dennis,

                a very good guide is O. Meara, An Introduction to the Enneads, Oxford
                1993 [with a guide to further reading].
                Furthermore, I can recommend the preface (by Prof. Dillon) to the
                translation by MacKenna, published/reprinted by Penguin.
                A nice selection from the Enneads was published by Chr. Tornau
                (Ausgewählte Schriften, Stuttgart 2001, contains I 6, VI 9, V 1, VI 4,
                VI 5, III 8, V 8, V 5, II 9, VI 7, I 1). Another interesting approach
                would be to read the Enneads according to Porphyrius' thematic order, as
                you suggested yourself in a way, or according to his chronological
                order, as was just suggested by Bruce. Maybe Ficino came up with some
                suggestions as to how one should read through Plotinus' works? He
                certainly read everything ... In any case, it is a very interesting
                question. There is also the new Neoplatonic Reader by Gerson/Dillon with
                excerpts from Plotinus. Finally, there is an old compilation by G.H.
                Turnbull called "The Essence of Plotinus", Oxford 1934 [structured
                according to the thematic order of the Enneads, and based on MacKenna's
                translation].

                Best
                Christoph Helmig


                vaeringjar wrote:

                > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>, "chrhein71" <chrhein71@...>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Yes, You are right.
                > > The OCT edition has a index at the end of the last tomus. This
                > index
                > > includes a Index locorum to all cited passages of any author used
                > by
                > > Plotinus. As I know the 2nd OCT Edition by Schwyzer is still the
                > > reference edition to all philologists and students od philosophy.
                > By
                > > the way the OCT Edition is still the ONLY one with a suitable
                > > apparatus criticus.
                > >
                > > Christoph Rhein
                >
                > Thanks for the information on the editions, that is very helpful, and
                > thanks to Prof Adamson for your posting also.
                >
                > Does anyone by the way have a reading plan for all or most of
                > Plotinus? A suggested order for reading the treatises that you might
                > have used in teaching a course? I want to get through them all now,
                > at least in the Loeb so I can move along in a fairly timely manner
                > with some English but have the Greek too as much as possible. I was
                > just thinking of starting with V and VI, but not sure where to go
                > after that. Thanks.
                >
                > Dennis Clark
                >
                >


                --
                dr. Christoph Helmig

                Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte (Institute of Philosophy)
                De Wulf-Mansioncentrum voor Antieke en Middeleeuwse Wijsbegeerte
                Kard. Mercierplein 2
                B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

                tel. 0032/(0)16/326336
                fax 0032/(0)16/326311


                http://www.kuleuven.be/cv/u0040944.htm






                Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
              • Michael Chase
                ... M.C. What strikes me here is the seeming tension in the sun s status : on the one hand he s the greatest king , yet on the other he s been placed
                Message 7 of 18 , Dec 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Dec 8, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Marilynn Lawrence wrote:

                  > Dennis,
                  >
                  > This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
                  > it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are
                  > interested in more on the manuscripts, Pingree, "Antiochus
                  > and Rhetorius," Classical Philology, 72:3, 1977).
                  >
                  > The chapter, roughly, is "Concerning signs given from the
                  > Sun, Moon, and stars in their transits"
                  > [BTW, I think there are only a few copies of CCAG (12
                  > volumes). The text I worked from was falling apart in my
                  > hands. The people at TLG managed to digitalize a good
                  > portion of it in the past two years. This work is
                  > available in the online version of TLG. Much CCAG doesn't
                  > lend itself to digital text, especially the magical symbols
                  > and drawing and valuable notes. I hope someone at some
                  > point soon makes an effort to preserve or reprint it.]
                  >
                  > Here's your passage:
                  >
                  > Ho Hêlios toinun kathaper tis kratistos basileus en tois
                  > meteôrois astrasi tetaktai ta peri ton aera kai tên gên
                  > sunistamena prophanôs rhuthmizôn kai kosmôn kai diatattôn.
                  >
                  > Associating the Sun with king is standard in astrology.
                  > But he goes further by saying that the sun proportions out
                  > (or orchestrates or sets the rhythm) of all other things of
                  > the air and earth.

                  M.C. What strikes me here is the seeming tension in the sun's status :
                  on the one hand he's the "greatest king", yet on the other he's "been
                  placed" (*tetaktai*) in this order, and all he seems to give rhythm,
                  order and arrangement to are the things of the earth and the air. This
                  seems like a rather modest task for a king, and appears to leave large
                  portions of the universe outside of his jurisdiction.

                  Might it be possible to find some support here for the view of Altheim
                  that in the development of Late Antique thought, the sun goes from the
                  position of Supreme Principle to that of a subordinate demiurge ?

                  Best, Mike.

                  >
                  Michael Chase
                  (goya@...)
                  CNRS UPR 76
                  7, rue Guy Moquet
                  Villejuif 94801
                  France
                • vaeringjar
                  ... he s been ... rhythm, ... This ... large ... of Altheim ... the ... Yes, Mike, the examples in Cumont - which is not to say exhaustive but the discussion
                  Message 8 of 18 , Dec 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > On Dec 8, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Marilynn Lawrence wrote:
                    >
                    > > Dennis,
                    > >
                    > > This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
                    > > it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are
                    > > interested in more on the manuscripts, Pingree, "Antiochus
                    > > and Rhetorius," Classical Philology, 72:3, 1977).
                    > >
                    > > The chapter, roughly, is "Concerning signs given from the
                    > > Sun, Moon, and stars in their transits"
                    > > [BTW, I think there are only a few copies of CCAG (12
                    > > volumes). The text I worked from was falling apart in my
                    > > hands. The people at TLG managed to digitalize a good
                    > > portion of it in the past two years. This work is
                    > > available in the online version of TLG. Much CCAG doesn't
                    > > lend itself to digital text, especially the magical symbols
                    > > and drawing and valuable notes. I hope someone at some
                    > > point soon makes an effort to preserve or reprint it.]
                    > >
                    > > Here's your passage:
                    > >
                    > > Ho Hêlios toinun kathaper tis kratistos basileus en tois
                    > > meteôrois astrasi tetaktai ta peri ton aera kai tên gên
                    > > sunistamena prophanôs rhuthmizôn kai kosmôn kai diatattôn.
                    > >
                    > > Associating the Sun with king is standard in astrology.
                    > > But he goes further by saying that the sun proportions out
                    > > (or orchestrates or sets the rhythm) of all other things of
                    > > the air and earth.
                    >
                    > M.C. What strikes me here is the seeming tension in the sun's
                    status :
                    > on the one hand he's the "greatest king", yet on the other
                    he's "been
                    > placed" (*tetaktai*) in this order, and all he seems to give
                    rhythm,
                    > order and arrangement to are the things of the earth and the air.
                    This
                    > seems like a rather modest task for a king, and appears to leave
                    large
                    > portions of the universe outside of his jurisdiction.
                    >
                    > Might it be possible to find some support here for the view
                    of Altheim
                    > that in the development of Late Antique thought, the sun goes from
                    the
                    > position of Supreme Principle to that of a subordinate demiurge ?
                    >
                    > Best, Mike.
                    >
                    > >
                    > Michael Chase
                    > (goya@...)
                    > CNRS UPR 76
                    > 7, rue Guy Moquet
                    > Villejuif 94801
                    > France
                    >

                    Yes, Mike, the examples in Cumont - which is not to say exhaustive
                    but the discussion I am most familiar with on the purely astrological
                    earlier, non-Neoplatonic side - are all very similar to Porphyry here
                    rehearsing apparently Antiochus. King, yes, but later at least not
                    ultimately supreme, and it all comes out in Julian's Hymn to the Sun,
                    where the One or Good is the supreme principle, and, as already in
                    the Republic, the sun is the greatest physical emblem in the material
                    universe for the One, but then we get in between and above the
                    physical sun the noeric sun, or at least apparently before even
                    Porphyry an intelligent sun, again possibly influenced by the Stoic
                    noeron pyr and all that. Then apparently it's an easy step to link
                    that intelligent sun of some astrological writers and others with the
                    Neoplatonic hypostasis of Nous and so you get in Julian - which is
                    most likely also to say Iamblichus - a full blown noeric sun. So I
                    guess you can say that this sun is still a king, but the second king,
                    not the first, to use that Platonic metaphor.

                    David Ulansey wrote about 10 years ago a very interesting article
                    putting forth Mithras also as representing the noeric, or "hidden"
                    sun. I don't know that anyone could actually prove that point
                    absolutely, but his arguments are very strong, and he gives a nice
                    little survey of this concept of the noeric sun, going back to that
                    beautiful passage in the Phaedrus on the hyperouranian place, and
                    also a very suggestive passage in Philo, whom also Cumont cites in
                    his piece sounding rather like the one above from Porphyry/Antiochus.

                    So perhaps Porphyry in that "tetaktai" is already headed in the
                    direction of a higher "king" calling the shots. That is one reason I
                    would like to get my hands on the entire Isagoge, to see if there is
                    any Neoplatonic development going on in his reading of Antiochus. One
                    thing I believe I have learned is to observe very carefully the
                    terminology employed in these writers, especially in Iamblichus,
                    though it's not always easy to know when a hopelessly common word -
                    like "basileus", for instance - means just "king" in the usual sense,
                    or "king" as one of the three kings of the second Letter. Just to
                    take one example. But at times, certainly by Proclus, they are
                    practically writing in their own sub-language, and for the reader who
                    doesn't know the semantics, it's a tough go, something which of
                    course happens with other "technical" writing, if you will.

                    I try personally to be very careful and not to over-interpret too,
                    but sometimes, especially with these later Neoplatonists who
                    apparently loved to live within this very strong semantic network of
                    highly parsed Platonic texts and often overheated, hieratic language
                    valued dearly just as that, pretty much holy writ, a cigar is often
                    definitely NOT a cigar, so to speak!

                    And one reason I rather would like to come back to earth a bit, to
                    the relative clarity of Plotinus. Neat whisky after a bucket of
                    Drambuie.

                    Dennis Clark
                  • vaeringjar
                    ... of Altheim ... the ... Forgot to ask, Mike - could you elaborate a bit on the view of Altheim please? Are you referring to Franz Altheim? I am not
                    Message 9 of 18 , Dec 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Might it be possible to find some support here for the view
                      of Altheim
                      > that in the development of Late Antique thought, the sun goes from
                      the
                      > position of Supreme Principle to that of a subordinate demiurge ?
                      >
                      > Best, Mike.
                      >
                      > >
                      > Michael Chase
                      > (goya@...)
                      > CNRS UPR 76
                      > 7, rue Guy Moquet
                      > Villejuif 94801
                      > France
                      >

                      Forgot to ask, Mike - could you elaborate a bit on "the view of
                      Altheim" please? Are you referring to Franz Altheim? I am not
                      familiar with his work, though it sounds ominously as if I should be.
                      Thanks.

                      Dennis Clark
                    • Marilynn Lawrence
                      ... Oh, thanks, that is so kind of you to find the passage. You can from passages like these how easy it was to include the sun and moon in concepts of the
                      Message 10 of 18 , Dec 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
                        <pronoia@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dennis,
                        >
                        > This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
                        > it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are


                        Oh, thanks, that is so kind of you to find the passage. You can from
                        passages like these how easy it was to include the sun and moon in
                        concepts of the demiurgy. One interesting point that Cumont makes is
                        that these astrological writers came to see the sun as being
                        intelligent (noeros) just because of its governing function for all
                        the very rational movements of the other celestial bodies. This was
                        actually news to me, as I was very aware of the concept of a noeric
                        sun in the Neoplatonists, but not these earlier writers.

                        reply: No doubt he cites Valens as an example, who is late 2nd century.
                        There's even a Middle Platonic streak in Manilius who is typically cited as
                        Stoic through and through.

                        He also
                        adduces a likely Stoic influence of my old friend, noeron pyr, at
                        work here. Intelligent fire to intelligent light to the light of the
                        sun to an intelligent sun, is I think the progression he sees.

                        reply: at work in Porphyry or altogether?


                        I have only two books on the history of ancient astrology - Jack
                        Lindsay's, which seems very thorough, though I notice he frequently
                        quotes authors in translation without giving a citation of the
                        source, and a book by as I recall John Tester, a history of western
                        astrology. I haven't really looked at the latter all that carefully,
                        but I gather it is a serious if briefer work too. Is the Gundel
                        history you cite in your bibliography in your online article the main
                        survey? And the Nunger and Pingree for Mesopotamian astrology? I know
                        that there are essays on certain subjects by Neugebauer also. Thanks!

                        reply: Lindsay is ok, but such a general history that much is lost. Tester
                        is generally good, but too short on the ancient. Gundel and Gundel I like
                        for their summary of all of the sources including the obscure - they have
                        been superceded in some details (such as the identity of "Palchus") but
                        otherwise a good survey of sources. Barton's work is really good for the
                        overall picture, and she includes more on the interaction of astrology with
                        the philosophers. Francesca Rochberg is the person for Babylonian
                        astrology... Erica Reiner did some earlier work figuring out what techniques
                        and practices survived into Hellenistic. Hunger and Pingree worked out the
                        details of the Mesopotamian astronomy, and the transmission to Greek.
                        Pingree's good for just about every aspect of this sort of study.

                        Best,

                        Marilynn
                      • vaeringjar
                        ... century. ... cited as ... I meant altogether. Cumont only cites the Porphyry as an example - he doesn t really discuss Porphyry in detail. ... main ...
                        Message 11 of 18 , Dec 10, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
                          <pronoia@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Marilynn Lawrence"
                          > <pronoia@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Dennis,
                          > >
                          > > This passage is from the beginning of Ch. 2, p. 190-91 and
                          > > it is not one identified as by Antiochus. (If you are
                          >
                          >
                          > Oh, thanks, that is so kind of you to find the passage. You can from
                          > passages like these how easy it was to include the sun and moon in
                          > concepts of the demiurgy. One interesting point that Cumont makes is
                          > that these astrological writers came to see the sun as being
                          > intelligent (noeros) just because of its governing function for all
                          > the very rational movements of the other celestial bodies. This was
                          > actually news to me, as I was very aware of the concept of a noeric
                          > sun in the Neoplatonists, but not these earlier writers.
                          >
                          > reply: No doubt he cites Valens as an example, who is late 2nd
                          century.
                          > There's even a Middle Platonic streak in Manilius who is typically
                          cited as
                          > Stoic through and through.
                          >
                          > He also
                          > adduces a likely Stoic influence of my old friend, noeron pyr, at
                          > work here. Intelligent fire to intelligent light to the light of the
                          > sun to an intelligent sun, is I think the progression he sees.
                          >
                          > reply: at work in Porphyry or altogether?
                          >


                          I meant altogether. Cumont only cites the Porphyry as an example - he
                          doesn't really discuss Porphyry in detail.


                          >
                          > I have only two books on the history of ancient astrology - Jack
                          > Lindsay's, which seems very thorough, though I notice he frequently
                          > quotes authors in translation without giving a citation of the
                          > source, and a book by as I recall John Tester, a history of western
                          > astrology. I haven't really looked at the latter all that carefully,
                          > but I gather it is a serious if briefer work too. Is the Gundel
                          > history you cite in your bibliography in your online article the
                          main
                          > survey? And the Nunger and Pingree for Mesopotamian astrology? I
                          know
                          > that there are essays on certain subjects by Neugebauer also.
                          Thanks!
                          >
                          > reply: Lindsay is ok, but such a general history that much is
                          lost. Tester
                          > is generally good, but too short on the ancient. Gundel and Gundel
                          I like
                          > for their summary of all of the sources including the obscure -
                          they have
                          > been superceded in some details (such as the identity of "Palchus")
                          but
                          > otherwise a good survey of sources. Barton's work is really good
                          for the
                          > overall picture, and she includes more on the interaction of
                          astrology with
                          > the philosophers. Francesca Rochberg is the person for Babylonian
                          > astrology... Erica Reiner did some earlier work figuring out what
                          techniques
                          > and practices survived into Hellenistic. Hunger and Pingree worked
                          out the
                          > details of the Mesopotamian astronomy, and the transmission to
                          Greek.
                          > Pingree's good for just about every aspect of this sort of study.
                          >
                          > Best,
                          >
                          > Marilynn
                          >

                          Thanks for the rundown - it's actually Jim Tester, by the way - I
                          mangled that a bit.

                          Dennis Clark
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.