r.c. kissling. the oxhma-pneuma of the neo-platonists and the de insomniis of synesius of cyrene

8/11/2019 R.C. Kissling. the Oxhma-PNEUMA of the Neo-Platonists and the de Insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene

1/14

The Oxhma-PNEUMA of the Neo-Platonists and the De Insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene

Author(s): Robert Christian KisslingSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 43, No. 4 (1922), pp. 318-330Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/288931.

Accessed: 15/09/2014 09:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:12:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/288931?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/288931?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/14


3/14

THE

OXHMA-IINETMA

ND

THE

DE

INSOMNIIS.

body,6

but in

his

Timaeus

he

speaks

of

a

certain

oSxrpa

ssigned

to each of them:7

W.fiaS

ES

U

pa v TOVravros

crtv,

etc.

The

Vxfa

herecan be

nothing

else than

the

star

itself.

In two

other

passages

of

the Timaeus

8

the

word

6xqa

is

used

with

no

reference o

the

soul.

The

Phaedo

affordedeven a

smaller

handle

for

foisting

an

extraneous

hought

on Plato.9 Yet it

was

precisely

these

Platonic

passages

into

which

allegorical

commentators

mported

a

mystical

meaning10?

o make them

comport

with

a

perverse

exposition

of the

Phaedrus

myth."

Consequently, the

oxvUa

was

regarded

as

something

attached to

the

soul,12

grown

together

with

the

soul."3

This

interpretation

was

helped

by

the

Aristotelian

assump-

tion of the

7vepa.

According

to

Aristotle14

the soul

is

com-

pletelyincorporeal.

According

o his

philosophy

his

is natural

enough,

since the soul

is

only

the

formal cause.

However,

t

is

not

XopUh4

To)

optafroq,

but

has its seat in a certain

substance

transmitted n

the

act of

procreation.

This substancehe

designates

both as

Ocpuo'v

nd as

7revpa.

The

nature of this

wevCpa

e

defines

"I

as

avdXoyov

rw.rv

ao'rpov

aTrotXcd,

hat

is,

the

7rE.'r-ov

.

w

a,

the

aether. Aristotle

speaks

of

this

rv4vpa

s

7rvpEVa

'-#vrov

and

assigned

it

to

all animals.'8

The

harmonizing

nterpretation

f the commentators esulted

in the

identification of

Plato's

gxvpa

and

the

Aristotelian

7rvevpa.

So

Philoponus

7

speaks

of

the veva

To

Oeplp.ov.

It

is

with him

the

seat

of

movement n the

body,

as

the

soul

according

o

Aris-

Zeller

II

14,

p.

820,

note 3.

Tim. 41

D.

Tim. 44

E,

69

C.

'

Phaedo

113 B.

"

Prod. in

Tim.

311

C,

312 B, 321

C,

D;

in Rem

Pub. II,

p.

257;

of.

also

Plato's

Rep.

621

B

and

Prodl.

in

Tim. 320 D. Proclus in

Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

161

derives

the

"

sowing

"

of the

xia-ra

from

Tim.

41

A.

Hierocles

in

Mullach

I,

p.

478 makes

the

assertion

that

Plato

took

over

the 5xn7garom Pythagoras.

tHierocles

in

Mullach

I,

pp.

478, 480.

"

xnI%a

en

ot,dvov

vs

vxvis.

e-TeOreaft&

ecurs

frequently.

138

aIofvevs

Xn/tAa,

requent.

'

Zeller

II

23,

pp.

483 ff.

and

notes.

"De

Gen.

An. 736

b 29.

Zeller II

2,

p.

483,

long

note.

7

On

De

Anima III

10,

p.

588.

319

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/14

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

totle was

immovable.18

So Hierocles

19

defines

the

7rvevUac

re-

cisely in the way that Aristotle defines his

vvrev4a.

Accordingly

no

distinction

was made

between the

oX/iua

and the

rvevda

20

and

both were

comprehended

under the

appellation

of

the

7rVEVLCTtLKOV

oX

2a.20

Various

names were

employed

to

desig-

nate

it.21

Although

Aristotle defines

the

nature

of the

7rvevpua

as

avdXoyov,

tc.

(vide

supra),

he

was

far

from

accepting

the

soul's

mystical

residence

in the

stars;

yet

his

language

lent

itself

to emotional

interpretations.

From the Aristotelian 7rvevijaao-vvTov the Platonic

XVrpa

took

on

the

epithet

avpfrve;,

and from his definition

davXoyov

ro

rTv

arTpW(v

rTOLXEc

he

epithet

avyoet3e,22

the

"luminosi cor-

poris"

amictus of

Macrob.,

Somn.

Scip.,

I

12,

13.

An

instructive

passage

that contributes to bear

out the con-

tention

advanced is found

in

Themistius:

23

7rapa

IIXdTarwvtL

TO

avyoetLe

oXrl/a

TlaVT7

(EXTaL

Ty7

V7rovolas,

7rapa

'ApWTroT07'XEa

TO

avaXoyov

w

7rE/7rT)

o-WxarTt.

Now there

is nowhere

in

Plato an

avyoceSE

'Xqjpxa, but there is in Aristotle, as we have seen, a

7rvevpa

dowered

with the

radiance of

the fifth element.

What

Themistius

has in

mind

with

the

avdXoyov

Tr)

7r17rTz'r

ac(o/tar

is the

7rvevdiaof

De

Gen.

An.

736 b 29

quoted

above.24

Sim-

plicius

tells us that the

substance

of

the

oX?)pa

s

not the

ordi-

nary

visible,

but

the

heavenly

fire.25

We look in

vain

in

Plato

for

any

elucidation.

The learned

Neo-Platonic

commentators

that

carry

over

Aristotle's doctrine

of the

oav'XVTrov

rvevvpa, afford some miscellaneous information.

It

appears

that the

oXrlja-7rvev/,a

was

fundamentally

connected

On De Anima

III

10,

p.

588.

"'

Mullach

I,

p.

478.

0a

Simpl.

on

De

Anima,

pp.

213-214;

Procl.

in

Tim.

34

E;

Procl.

in

)Rem.

Pub.

I,

p.

119.

20b

E.

g.

Procl.

in

Tim.

311

A.

21

repifX?iLc1a

TrveUev/IacKov,

oXr/La

I/VXLKOV,

VXLKOv

TrvevULa, SXILYa

avyoe&Les,

etre.

22

Observe

quotations

that are

to

follow.

On

aviyoetss 6X?17a

cf.

Procl.

in

Rem

Pub.

I,

p.

119;

De

Myst.

III c. 14:

r

TrepLKeijeEvOv

.v

vX- aiOep0wes

Kal

av'yoetis

6Xrl.a.

23

On

De

Anima,

p.

19;

p.

32,

Berlin

(1899)

ed.

24

Cf.

Procl.

in

Tim.

2 D

XI)X/a

alOpLov

d

vXoyov

TC

oVpavy.

2

Simpl.

on De

Anima,

p.

73

ov rb

0pav6tvbevov

roUO

Tvrp

etc.

320



5/14

THE OXHMA-IINETMA

AND THE

DE INSOMNIIS.

with the functions of

sense-perception

and

imagination.

Sim-

plicius writes

26

aOttKov

yap

KaL

favrarov

taOa

TC K

7T aWepW8e3s

Trs

^cfTrepaT

EvXxa

ZXrnpa.

This

twofold

functional

activity

is as-

signed

to

it

also

by

Priscian.27

In

its

first

activity

it

is

most

intimately

related to the

sensorium,28

and is

the

rveviua

Tr

7rpYrws

aiTcrOTTKov

escribed

by

Themistius

(on

De

Anima,

pp.

86

sq.):

rit ToV

7rvevpuaTro5

/fErBKVL

TOV

7rpToaTW5

aiO'rTLKoi.29

In

this

setting

the

statement

of

Syrian

30

becomes

invested

with

meaning:

KCLVO E

ecTLv

aXv0r0e',

Ort

-7

ILEV

vT

rK)

T

&as

KrTvas

Tas

7retu7ro,evaS

a7r6

roV avyoaeoovS oX/LuaTroV

7rT Ta

opara

etc. According

to its second function

it

is

capable

of

becoming

the

receptacle

of

the

imaginative

impressions.31

The

passage

to

be

quoted

from

Simplicius

affords

additional

illumination.

Speaking

of

the

operation

of the

imagination

(avavrara)

he

says

that it

employs

the same

instrument:

opyav

vw v rw

avir

Xpywotev

'XX'

oVX

US

aaTo'/07TtKW

alt

E$wO'V

Tt

7raQOatvo/eLvw,

)sg

8e

favTaWTtKW

al

vro

trj5

avTao-TatK7SJ

tc.

Porphyry's

statements

concerning

the

function of the

oXr~ma-

vcivta

are in the same

vein:32 cK

?

TrpOS

TO

ao'wia

7rporaraOetas

. .

.

evaT7rO/JpyvvraL

TVrOS T7rS

aVTaCra

s

etc.33

The

difference

of

the

4

avTaci'a

and

its

operation

from

the

6Xr,fa-7rvei,aj

s set forth

by

Simplicius:

34

avirr

4

avrTaca

etc.

With

this

agrees

the statement

of

Synesius

as

illuminated

by

Augustine.

Synesius

says

35

that

philosophers

called

the

7rvevia

of

which

he is

speaking

also

7rvevjuaTLKx

vX'.

Now

the

7rvevta-

tK/

1vUX

of

which

Synesius

is

speaking

is

the

oXrwa-7rv6vpa

and

identical with Augustine's "anima spiritalis qua corporalium

'

Simpl.

on De

Anima,

p.

17.

Cf.

also

Beare,

Greek

Theories

of

Elementary

Cognition,

pp.

333-336.

27

Metaphrasis

7repl

Obavraalas

.

264.

2"

Themistius

on

De

Anima, pp.

86,

87.

29,Cf.

Procl.

in

Rem Pub.

II,

p.

167.

$"

In

Metaphysica

888

b

17.

1

Simpl.

on De

Anima,

p.

214.

39

Sent. e.

32.

3Porph.

7rpos

ravpov

VI

1 is

quoted

by

Mommert,

p.

13.

It

may

be

mentioned

in

passing

that

Mommert was

misled

by

the external

simi-

larity

of

the

quotation

from

Porphyry

in

Wolff,

p.

160.

The

rveiJLa

there

is

something

entirely

different,

as

Wolff

proceeds

to

explain,

p.

161,

and

as

Porphyry's

words show.

34

Simpl.

on

De

Anima,

p.

214.

'

De Ins.

c.

5 1293

A

(Migne).

3

321



6/14

AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

rerum

capiuntur

imagines."

This

Augustine

distinguishes

from

the "intellectualis anima qua rerum intellegibilium percipitur

veritas."

This

then

is the

nature of the

oX,/a-7rvepta.

Plotinus has

the

evdpa

(Enn.

II

2,

2

7rap'

j1tv

TO

irvevap

TO

rCpL;

T?]v

XrXv),

but

Plotinus

does

not

apply

the

epithet

auyoeSECs

o it nor the

term

0Xrna.

It

seems

that

the

identification

of Plato's

$ovxx

and

Aristotle's

7rvdfjpa

s

posterior

to

Plotinus. Enn.

III

4,

6

shows that

he

did

not

mystify

the

Timaeus

passage.

Cf.

Enn.

I 6, 7; IV 3, 10; IV 3, 9, where he speaks of successive

uJaUT7a

assumed and laid aside

by

the

descending

soul.

Porphyry,36

Iamblichus,37

Syrian,38

Hierocles,89

and

Proclus

accept

it. In the

hands

of

Proclus,04

it becomes

a

means

of

recognition

for

posthumous

souls. It

underlies the

words of

Boethius,4l'

"

Tu

causis

animas

paribus vitasque

minores

|

Provehis et

levibus sublimes

curribus

aptans

|

In caelum

ter-

ramque

seris."

Philoponus4lb

creates

a confusion.

He distin-

guishes the

avyoeuSEs

JXrlmarom the

7rvevtJrLKOVv

ZXrtZa cf. p. 18).

His

7rv?EVJaTtKOV

o3xr]a

is the

&EvTrpov

xr7/Xa

f

Proclus to

which

we

shall

refer

subsequently.

And

yet

he,

like

Themistius,

re-

lates

the

TrvevtmTtLKOv

Xrp

to

the

sensorium

(p.

481):

'

KicoL

aLaOrOr7Ys

avrCT)

uiv

a

C/aTo

crO-TLV

. . v.

ev

TW

TV&v/JTLKW

ytVovTaL,

The

explanation

seems

to

lie in

the

assumption

that

Philoponus

was

a late

writer who

took

over Proclus'

view

of

the

oevrepov

oXrnpa

and

ascribed

to this

the

predication

made

by

the

Neo-Platonists

(who accepted no

e~vTEpov

Xr]Xpaf the irrational soul) of the

avyoeLSes

oXVllua.

The

destiny

of

the

Xtpiua-7rvevpa

was

closely

bound

up

with

the

destiny

of

the soul

to

which

it

belonged.42

After

having

been

purified

it

reascended

together

with the soul to its

astral

seat.43

It was

capable

of

purification

through

the

double

pro-

36Procl.

in Tim.

311

A;

Sent.

c. 32.

a7Procl.

in

Tim.

311

B;

321

A;

324

D.

38

Cf.

quotations

that

follow.

3

Comm.

in Aur. Carm.

Mullach

I,

p.

478,

483.

40

Comm.

in

Rem Pub.

II,

p.

174.

a"

De Phil.

Cons.

III 9.

4b

Philoponus

on De Anima.

2

Procl.

Inst.

Theol. 209.

43Procl.

in

Tim.

333

B;

cf.

in Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

162.

322



7/14

THE

OXHMA-IINETMA

AND

THE

DE

INSOMNIIS.

cess of

a clean

life

and

the

religious

rites. So

Augustine44

writes: "Confiteris (sc. Porphyry) tamen etiam spiritalem

animam

sine

teletis

posse

continentiae virtute

purgari"

and

again45

"Porphyrius

quandam

quasi

purgationem per

theur-

gian

.

.

.

promittit

.

.

.

porro

autem

(sc. dicit)

a

theurgo

spiritalem

purgari."

Hierocles also

speaks

of the

purification

of the

OXrvjal-rvev,a.46

Proclus

makes the same statements con-

cerning

his

8EVTrpOV3JXpa

in

In Tim.

331

B,

emphasizing

the

lAo'o-o(os

ly

and

the

7TXEc0arU

47

Through

such

purification

it

became adapted to attract good spirits and to obtain the vision

of

God.48

Hence

Augustine

writes "Per

quasdam

consecra-

tiones

theurgicas

quas

teletas

vocant idoneam fieri

atque

aptam

susceptioni

spirituum

et

angelorum

et ad

videndos

deos" and

Hierocles

49

7rpo

Trqv

TWV

KaOapWv

irvev/Larv

'avvov'Iav

etc.

Moreover,

the

xw-ua-rvev,a

was

capable

in

its

extra-corporeal

state of

being

thickened

by

moisture,

of

becoming

dark and

murky

through

hylic

attraction and thus visible.

Thus Pro-

clus

o

writes TOojx7 ,aTaT ieSpT7rpUevavrwiv etc. That the

avyoESts

o'X71pa

s

meant is

discernible

from the

preceding pas-

sage.

Cf. also

p.

119

'7rEpL,Xrjpaa

.

.

ei7t0oXovt,cva

V{roTWv

vvXOwv.

Porphyry

writessl

ra's

,tXoo-/jaTrov

. .

.

VEVO-Ca),

and

again'2

?raxvvOevTos

.

. .

opaTra

y7tvwea.-at

In

it the

soul

suffered

post-

letal

punishment.64

Proclus

developed

the

o'Xrja

theory

and

assumed

a

second

intermediate

oxrpa

between the

'XCa

o

svpes

and the

human

body (EaxaTova&gtLa,

'aTpE&8S

awcia). This 8&vrepovr

wrpoo'4vse

"

De

Civ.

Dei

X

c.

28,

p.

446.

"

De

Civ.

Dei

X

c.

9,

pp.

415

and

416.

"

Mullach

I,

p.

479.

The

purification

of the

IX'tsua

s an aid

to the

soul. The 26th

chapter

of Hierocles is the best

commentary

on

the

KaOapaos

of the

tSXVta.

47

Cf.

Hiero.les

in

Mullach

I,

p.

482

for

a

defense

of

TeXeoTKcj.

"De

Civ.

Dei

X

c.

9,

p.

415.

"

Mullach

I,

p.

481.

"?In

Rem

Pub.

I,

p.

119;

p.

121; II,

p.

156;

Porphyry

Sent. c.

32,

whole

chapter.

,1

De Ant.

Nymph.

11.

62

See reference

in

Note

51.

63Cf.

In

Rem

Pub.,

p.

119.

1

Sent.

c.

32;

Philoponus

on

De

Anima

I,

p.

18.

323



8/14

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF PHILOLOGY.

oxrVLa

was

interpreted

out

of

Plato

65

and attached

to

the

irra-

tional soul.56 It was composed of the four elements.57 It was

laid

aside

by

those

thoroughly

purified

through

philosophy

58

and was resolved into

its elements.

In

the

case

of

those who

had

lived a life of

right

conduct

apart

from

philosophy

it

con-

tinued

in

an

illuminated

condition,

attending

their

rvpIvEes

oxvrn

as comets attend

stars.59

The

functions

of

the

three

oX77ara

are

summarized

by

Pro-

lus:

60

TO

v

LV o'V

0vipve5

)/La

Tro

aTNvTv

(=the

soul)

EyKo'/.Lov,

T'O 8E 8VTEpOV yEVEMoEWS;oXiLTV, TO E OcTpE&8eS

oXOovav.

The second

OxVta

was likewise

designated

as

7rvcvWarLKov

and

foisted

by

him

on

Aristotle.61

It

is this second

oxn,ia

that

is

intended

by

Philoponus

who

constantly speaks

of

it

as

7rveVarTtLKOv,

he seat

of

OvUos'

and

rtLOv[ Ja.

Philoponus

recognizes

the

avyoetus

oXrln'a

s

a

higher

o

xna

S

istinct

from

it.62

According

to

Proclus and

Philoponus

the

Sevrepov

x7ira

was

perishable.63

The

destructibility

of the

oxrtIa-7rveatL

was

greatly

disputed.64

There were those who regarded only the rational soul as im-

mortal,

whilst

they

considered

the

oXnpla-nrvEvua

and

the irra-

tional

soul

as

perishable.

Porphyry

65

and

his

"gentler

"

fol-

lowers

allowed

a

dissolution

of

them into

their

original

elements

to be

followed

by

an

avaarotXeoTrt.66

Iamblichus

and his

fol-

6r

Tim.

42

C,

D

rpoa0-tvrra

K

rvpbs

Kal

laroms

Kal

adpos

Kat

y^S.

Procl.

censures

the

commentators

(331

A)

who

failed

to observe

the

dis-

tinction.

6l

Prodl.

in

Tim.

330

C.

67

See

Note

56.

R

Procl.

in

Tim.

330

D.

Cf.

in

Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

300.

Kroll

fails to

understand

the

&er7epov

5X-va,

as his

note,

p.

300,

evinces.

o0

Procl.

in Tim.

330

E.

81Procl.

in Tim.

312

C.

a2

Philoponus

on

De Anima

I, p. 17,

rT6re

roivv

Kal

Tbv

Ov^6v

Kal

rhv

^it-

Ov,Aiav

arorlOeo-Oat

etc.;

cf.

I,

p.

12;

I,

p.

49.

This

first-named

x,/Iua

survives for a while; cf. his argument, p. 17. Like the

6eCrepov ZXrta

of

Proclus,

it

is

composed

of

the elements

(p.

17).

In this

the

soul

endures

its

punishments

in

Hades,

pp.

17-18.

The two

irvevlctara

of

Philoponus

differ

in

nothing

from

those

ascribed

to the

"

Chaldaeans

by

Psellus,

Expos.

Orac.

Chald.

(Migne),

p.

1137.

63

Philoponus

on

De Anima

I,

p.

18;

also Proclus

in

Tim.

312 C.

64

Proclus

in Tim. 311

A fol.

6

See

Note

64.

Procl.

in

Tim.

311

E,

157

D.

324



9/14

THE

OXHMA-IINETMA

AND THE DE

INSOMNIIS.

lowers

reinstated the

imperishability

of

all

three.67

Simplicius

limits the

oX/a-vEi7repa

to the aerial life of the soul and does

not

seem to

regard

it as

necessary

to its

earthly

life.68

The

theory

of

the

5Xrja-7rvevJula

as

not confined

to

Neo-

Platonism.

The

Chaldaic

XAyLa

aught

it.69 Proclus

writes:70

TOi

a7ro

cv

Xoy[wv

()pAp-EVOL

etc.

The

oracles

also

maintained

that

the

soul

in

its descent

gathers particles

of

the

planets

and

the elements.7'

If we can trust

Hierocles,

the

theory

of the

oXVra

was

held

by

the

Pythagoreans

and

promulgated

through

the

XptfuOl.7o

Besides

the

oX-vua-7rvdwp

f the

descending

souls

the Neo-

Platonists

spoke

of various

garments,

XLTrves.72

These

garments

were

elemental

substances and

loosely

were

also

called

oxi-,ara.

Their

laying

aside

73

was

furthered

by

a

philosophic

life and

by

religious

rites.74

Proclus

so

interprets

the

oxXos

of

Tim.

42

C,

D.

However,

this view

was

held

by

thinkers

before

Proclus

75

and

was

not

universally

accepted.76

That

Proclus

refined the

first or

ov?uvEs

oX'lpa after the introduction of the second can

be discerned

from Inst.

Theol.

207-210

where he

makes

it

aKlvrTov,

avXov

and &araOs

contrary

to the

views of

preceding

Neo-Platonists.

He

even

held

that

it was

"sown"

into

the

stars

together

with the

soul

itself.77

Not

only

was a

rvcvpua

scribed

to

the

soul,

but also

to

the

daemons.

The

rvdepa

of

the

daemons

was

a

subject

of

early

dispute.

Plotinus

refers to

it.78

Porphyry

ascribes

the

nrvvupa

a

roa7o8'oE

to them in his lecture on demonology.79 It deter-

7

See

note 66.

e8

Simpl.

in

Physica

VI

4,

p.

966.

"Kroll,

De

Orac.

Chal.,

p.

47.

70

Prol.

in

Tim. 184

C.

nProcl.

in

Tim. 311

B,

331

B.

71a

Comm.

Aur.

Carm.

Mullach

I,

p.

478.

72

Prol.

Inst.

Theol.

209;

cf. in Tim.

35

A;

in

Alcib.,

p.

502;

Macro-

bius,

Somn.

Sc.,

I

11,

12.

79

Procl. in Tim.

330

C.

7

Prodl.

in Tim.

331

B:

els

Trv

d&TrO-KeV

Vi

'

TOL0t6rW

X-dtrwv...

.a-

Trei

L'v

K6al

j

LX\60oq5o0S

s

.

. .

TreXeTTrLKj.

7'

See

note

72.

76

Stob.

Ecl.

I

926.

77

Prodl.

in

Tim.

333

B,

C.

's

Enn. III

5,

6 vrcs

yap

Kal

rivos

i\X7s

/iereXovriv

etc.

78

De

Abst.

II 39

rb

8&Irvevea

/Lv

orL

o-w/aTrLK6V

etc.

325



10/14

AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF

PHILOLOGY.

mined their

character,80

was

"

patibile

"

and in the end

perish-

able.81 Iamblichus accepts the theory of the daemonical

7rvevpa,

but is unable to

define

its

nature

except

by negative

state-

ments.82

So

also

Proclus.83

In

fact,

the

Neo-Platonists

were not

chary

in

assigning

o7jnara.

Porphyry

84

made the

light

of

the

Republic-myth

the

oXVra

f the

world-soul. Proclus

85

gave

an

?X-pa

o

the visible

golds,

Hierocles to

the

ppwes.

Let us

now

consider

how

the

3Xrn,a-7rvEvjVa

ppears

in

Syne-

sius. He designates it promiscuously as

vvevia

and

oX7/pa

with

a

preference

for the

former

appellation

1292 B

(Migne)

raitEL

etc.

Here

transition is

made

from

one

term to

the

other with-

out

change

of

meaning.

That

the Neo-Platonic

3X?pa-7rvevp~a

demonstrated above

is meant is discernible

from his statement

86

that in

irrational animals-Aristotle

ascribed a

7rvEvpa

o all

living

creatures-it is no

longer

the

vehicle,

but

becomes

itself

the chief

function,

the

animals reason.

Compare

also

1293

B

KELVr?7S7rv?VuaTLKT

rvXY

= 7rvEvia) cTirEp

-TKcaOVvs 7r3naa.

Hence

also the

terms

oG/,a

7rpwTrov,

ju1a

OeacrwoLov.

Synesius applies

a

variety

of

names

to it:

bavTaarTLKOV

rVFia

1292

A,

1309

C,

1313

A,

1293

A,

1300

B,

1309

C--rvEvICart7x

trX

1293

A-simply

rvde,a

1289

C,

1292

B,

1296 C

D,

1297

D,

1300

A,

1300

B-D,

1312

B,

1313

B,

1316

B,

1316

B;

Hymn

III

277,

506;

Hymn

IV 252-

cioAXicK,

vuLts

1297

B--aowpaTrLK

ova'a

1297

D--KqpaTro

a/,ua

1297

C--aLqtova

VatLs

1300

A--avraaoTtiK

aJtLs

1305

B,

1300 D-,uEar)

v'ts

1297 C-uie'aov rZua 1289 C, 1312 B.

This

irvfiua

is

brought

down

by

the souls

from

the

spheres:

yv

saveieTrat

87

etc.

1293

B,

orep

avwOEv

-7pavC-avTO

1293

C,

o'

yap

.Lov-v

?

t

Tra'

aCatupas

avayeLV

vOLKE

?JV

KeiOeCVKoVaYv

fVcLV

1297

B,

Kat

Ta'i

o'(catpas

ivapto'r9jva

1297 D.

80De

Abst.

II 38.

81

See

note

79.

82

De

Myst.

V

12

4s

7y&p

7rXws

iTreloOre

&drb

Xrs

etc.

83

Procl.

in

Tim.

321

E.

The demons are

called

a&c,6vowt

vXal.

8

Procl.

in Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

196.

s5Prodl.

in Tim.

301

D,

E,

302

B.

=2

12.92

(

KwaTaala

tv

Yo

rot

XPL

p

V Ot

O

KTLd

TrdpeaT,L

vOVS

oiG

&aTrtv

5XqAa

OeTorTpas

V,XvS

tc.

The

OeorTepa

pvx7

is the

XoyLKh

'lvxj

called

also

by

him

with

a

terminology

differing

from that

of

Aristotle

7rpwrl

,uvXj.

7

saveiteaOat

in

this

application

is Platonic and

Neo-Platonic.

Cf.

Tim.

42

E;

Procl.

in Tim.

321

B,

337

D.

326



11/14

THE

OXHMA-IINETMA

AND

THE

DE

INSOMNIIS.

327

On

the fact

that the

different

OX6/ara

descend from the dif-

ferent spheres Synesius founds his rejection of a general oniro-

critic

manual

in

1313

A.

A

science

is

possible,

he

says,

of the

human

body,

but

ovX

oTro)S

c=r

ro)v

/avraTctKo v

7rvev/aTros.

With him

as with

the

Neo-Platonists the

7rvdepa

is function-

ally

related to

the

sensorium.

This

appears

from his

descrip-

tion

of

it

1289

C-D

TO

o]avTaac'TKov

rvCevJua

OLv'raTOv

E

-tv

aleOrl-

rjptov.88

In 1292 B

he

writes

of

the

7rvev/la:

AXws

yap

TroO

/eCT-

aLuYxtov

ecTL

aXoyuag

ca

Xoyov

. . Kat

Kotvo9

opo0

ad/loilv.

In

1309

C

he calls

it

7rdvTrOv

TWv

a7roppeovrTOvc L8)XWoK7'aT07r7pov (aVETraroV.

Because of

this

function,

relating

it

to

the

imagination,

he

speaks

of it

as the

cfavTractLKov 7rvEvja

and

qavTaTcrTtKV

Vf'CTLv.

The

7rvvIza

was closer

to the soul

than

to

the

body

and inti-

mately

connected with

it,

acting upon

the

soul

and

being

re-

acted

upon

by

it

for better

or

for

worse;

cf.

1292

B,

1293

A,

1296 B.89

Consequently

soul

and 7vfda form excellent

gauges

of

mutual

conditions;

cf.

1300

A.90

Synesius nowhere employs the term

avyoe&s&&

ith reference

to

it,

yet

it is

indubitable

that

he means the

first

rrvvyua

or

oXr,/a-7ervdv,a

hroughout.

'To

Synesius

it likewise admits

of

purification

and nurture

through

philosophy,

a

clean life and

the rites:

KaOaLpo'Lvov

a

TEXcTOrv

1292

A;

ta

TE

LtXoc-oLs

. .

.

KaL

8Sa

E

rTpLarStaiLT77

KatL

crwopovos

1312

A;

Kara T?)V

E7rLfXr7TLKrV

SV-

vat.Lv

evepyelv

1300

B;

&8aTOV

KcaTa

vcnLv

tiovp

Tr7p KaOapov

1292 B.

Being purified

it

is

capable

of

attracting good spirits

and of

being brought into relation with God:

XaKL

Trj o

vyyEve4 rvVpVa

OEov

1300

B,

C;

avyylvcTaL yap

aVTp

Kal

OeOS

EyKoL'pLoS

O'VTo

odc'

1309

A;

7rapo-rTLv

ro'ppw

eo'

1301

C;

cf.

1305

C.

Moreover,

the

associations

of

dryness

and

moisture with

the

extra-corporeal

Trvev,a

nd its resultant

barometric

rising

or

fall-

ing

to the earth

is Neo-Platonic:

oraXwvTra

Kal

yaLovTra

. .

.

6XKa

ovv

. .

vypoLs

7rvevJLaroL

292

B.

Compare

this with

Porphyry,

De

Ant.

Nymph

11

where the

saying

of

Heraclitus is likewise

quoted,

and with Porphyry's Sent.

?

32,

S&rjKr TO

fapv

TrvEt/.ja

Ka

Evvypov

8

Compare

with this Themistius

on

De

Anima,

p.

87.

8

Cf.

Procl.

in

Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

164.

o0

Cf. Prodl.

in

Rem

Pub.

II,

p.

165.

Proclus

here

makes the

JdXJ/ara

a means

of

posthumous recognition.



12/14


13/14

THE

OXHMA-INETMA

AND THE DE

INSOMNIIS.

329

The TOVTO)

must mean the

dS8cov.

How the

rv/evua

an

become

a God or a daemon we do not understand, unless it is to denote

somehow

the

final

life

of

consummation.

If

the

7rvdevp

s

here

taken to

include

the

soul

as

"

pars pro

toto

"

the

commentary

of

Reitzenstein

95

who treats

of the

Eastern

mysticism may

throw

light

on our text:

"Die Seelen

der Menschen werden

zunaechst

8a4LoveO.

EO'

OVTwS

ELS

TOV

TW

OEV

XvopV

ovopevovT. Xopol

8e

v'oOev. o

/uevr

v

rXVavwpoevlv,

SE v a7rXavwv."

Cf.

also

Enn.

I

2,

6.

So

also

Synesius

writes

(1300

A)

Travr

yap

v7rotETrat,

etc.

The signification of

atpatov

is not clear. An old variant reads

rvppoov

Quid?

What

Synesius

means

when

he

says

that

the

atpatov

becomes

a

god

or

daemon

we

do not

understand.

In

1297

B

he

speaks

of

the

wrvdeaas

eiOwXtLK

vcaLs,

nd

in 1309

C

he

calls

it

deAoov.

The

meaning naturally suggested by

the

word

etsoAov

n

relation to

the

future

life

is that

of

"

phantom."

So in

1292 D

CiSOALKa

s

explained

by

rois

yvwoLuEvot

ufavraa-

to',cva.

Porphyry distinguishes

even

in

Hades

the

wrvevpa

rom

the soul's

eZW ov.96

According to him the soul attracts an

e8ZoXov

in

Hades,

because

the

o'XJa-7rvvF,a,

brought

down

from

the

spheres,

abides

with the soul after its dissolution

from the

body. Upon

this

rvevja

the

soul

imprints

its

TrroS

rT7'cavrTaaas,

and thus

fEAKTEraL

TrO

8wXov.

Porphyry

here seems at

pains

to

explain

how

the

soul is

able

to attract an

eZAXov.

In

his

Nymphs'

Cave

97

the

souls

desirous

of

somatic

existence

attract

a moist

arvdv/a,

ondense it

into

a

cloud,

and

through

excessive

moisture become visible. In this passage of Porphyry also their

appearances

result

from

the

action

on the

7rvdfua

(Kara

favTaalav

Xpoovrat

7

rveifvya).

These

appearances

are called

Ei8Xwv

/l,%awt.

Does

Porphyry

here

imply

that the

rvevmuaa

"

colored

according

to the

imagination"

become

eJSXa,

or are

the

appear-

ances

of the

Trvc,uara

ike

those

of

c8&Xa?

Neither

Porphyry

nor Plotinus

98

defines

what he

means

by

eZ&WXov.9

5 Poimandres, p. 81, note 2.

o

Sent. c.

32.

7De Ant.

Nymph.

11.

wEnn. VI

4,

16.

9

The

definition

of

ei'awov

given by

Psellus,

p.

1124,

has

no

authority.

Nicephoros

Gregoras

(Migne,

p.

622)

takes

it from

Psellus,

as

he takes

over

many

suggestions,

and

develops

it

to suit his

purpose.



14/14

r.c. kissling. the oxhma-pneuma of the neo-platonists and the de insomniis of synesius of cyrene

Documents