Plotinus and Posidonius

R. E. Witt

doi:10.1017/S0009838800004316

Plotinus and Posidonius

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

R. E. Witt

Show author details

R. E. Witt: Affiliation:
The Grammar School, Uckfield

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Probably no philosopher of antiquity has occasioned more daring speculations and the expression of graver doubts than Posidonius. On the one hand it has been argued that he was purely a man of science and hardly a Stoic philosopher at all. On the other hand he has been called the first and greatest Stoic mystic who under Oriental influence spurned the body as vile and earthly. Reinhardt has of late years resolutely maintained that the importance of Posidonius in the history of thought lies in his having originated a completely new Vitalism, and that his conception of the world is one in which ‘Subjekt und Objekt, Geist und Wissen, Mensch und Gott, νος und ζω durch eine im Bewusstsein neu erwachte Kraft sich einen und durchdringen: durch die “Sympathie.”’ Among other German scholars Geffcken holds that Plotinus borrowed much from Posidonius, and Jaeger roundly declares that if Posidonius had but found a place for the Platonic Ideas, there would have been nothing left for Plotinus to find. Schmekel and Bréhier have both stated that modifying the Platonic Theory of Ideas Posidonius established an identification between the Ideas and the Spermatic Logoi of Stoicism.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 3-4 , July 1930 , pp. 198 - 207

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800004316 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 198 note 1} ProfessorDobson, , C.Q. XII. 179 sqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 198 note 2} In the Platonist this view is natural. Cf. Phaedo 81c, etc.; Plot. Enn. VI. 7, 31. For Posid. Schmekel, Ph. d. mittl. St. 402, n. 8; Sen. ep. 92, and perhaps Phil. op. mund. 135; Soph. Sal. 9, 15. The Posidonian view was clearly dualistic (Plut. lib. et aeg. 6).

^{page 198 note 3} Kosm. u. Symp. 120.

^{page 198 note 4} Nem. v. Emesa 70.

^{page 198 note 5} Bréhier, , Idées phil. de Philon 97Google Scholar; Schmekel, , op. cit, 430Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 6} Sen. ep. 65, 7.

^{page 198 note 7} Albinus, , didasc. 9Google Scholar. Cf. Phil. op. mun. 20; Atticus ap. Eus. Prep. Ev. XV. 815d; Clem. Al. Strom. VI. 17, 156, 5–6 .

^{page 198 note 8} VI. 4, 16.

^{page 199 note 1} Rep. 508a; Tim. 45b

^{page 199 note 2} Cf. Schroeder, , Diss. πθεν τ κα, 121–2Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 3} VI. 9, 4.

^{page 199 note 4} IV. 3, 24.

^{page 199 note 5} N. Qu. VII. 30.

^{page 199 note 6} Ep. 90, 28.

^{page 199 note 7} II. 122–3. Cf. also Max. Tyr. XVII. 10; XVI. 2–3.

^{page 199 note 8} Cf. ProfessorDodds, , C.Q., 1929, 141, note 1Google Scholar. Philo (det.pot. 90) has the phrase πσπασμα οὐ διαιρετν, where according to Apelt, and Heinemann, I., there is Posidonian influence. Vide Sen. N.Qu., Praef. 14Google Scholar, and ep. 92, 27: Macr. Aur. 1.2, 21.

^{page 199 note 9} Schmekel, fr. 29.

^{page 199 note 10} In spite of Macrob, . in Somn. Scrip. I. 14Google Scholar, On which cf. Heinemann, I., Pos. Metaphys. d. Seins, I. IIIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 199 note 11} Vide Schmekel, 248; Jaeger, , op. cit. 130Google Scholar; Schroeder, , op. cit. 160, note 1Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 12} Vide Schroeder, , op. cit. 73Google Scholar, note 3, and Philo. de gig. 31.

^{page 199 note 13} III. 2, 8.

^{page 200 note 1} III. 4, 3E.

^{page 200 note 2} VI. 2, 22.

^{page 200 note 3} IV. 8, 4E.

^{page 200 note 4} II. 3, 15.

^{page 200 note 5} VI. 9, 8. Cf. alos Nemesius, , Nat, Hom., p. 44Google Scholar. Matth.

^{page 200 note 6} Ep. 65, 20.

^{page 200 note 7} Vide Heinemann, I., op. cit. I. 136 sqqGoogle Scholar. The blending of Stoic and Platonic doctrine in this pseud-epigraphic work is exactly what a writer under the influence of Posidonius would adopt. Cf. Ueberweg-Praechter, 570.

^{page 200 note 8} Soph. Sal. 18, 16. Zeller rightly saw here an Homeric foundation (Δ 443), which. I think, strengthens the probability of Posidonian influence.

^{page 200 note 9} III. 6, 2.

^{page 200 note 10} Tim. 40C. It is originally Pythagorean (Diels, , Dox. Gr. 337b, 5). Cf. also Epin. 982e and Arn. St. u. fr. II. 1010Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 11} Simp. in Ar. Phys., p. 292, I. 27 γκκλιον ο ὖσαν τν χορεαν ἇπντων (sc. τν ἄστρων), and Sex. Emp. IX. 27.

^{page 200 note 12} IV. 3, 33.

^{page 200 note 13} IV. 4, 35.

^{page 200 note 14} VI. 7, 7.

^{page 200 note 15} VI. 9, 8. I borrow the translation of professor Dodds, Cf. also I. 8, 2E.

^{page 200 note 16} Phaedr. 247a, 250b, to which latter passage Plotinus refers in VI. 9, 9B, and IV. 7. 15.

^{page 201 note 1} 391, 6, 16.

^{page 201 note 2} Cf. Enn. III. 3, 2; III. 4, 3E.

^{page 201 note 3} Migr. Abr. 104. Philo uses the same phrase (Sp. Leg. IV. 134) as the Plotinian ‘Choir Virtues’ (Enn. VI. 9, 11); but no Stoic passage, I believe, justifies Bouillet's saying that phrase ‘a été souvent employée par les Stoïciens.’

^{page 201 note 4} After Plato, , Euthy. 277dGoogle Scholar.

^{page 201 note 5} Posidonian: Sext. Emp. IX. 27; Cic. N.D. II. 87; Manil. I. 669; Dio Prus. 12, 34, etc.; Phil, de Chev. 36; Sen. ep. 65, 7. The Numenian Second God pilots the Cosmos by the Ideas (cf. Enn. III. 4, 6; IV. 3, 17; Clem. Paed. I. vii. 54, 2).

^{page 201 note 6} 12, 35.

^{page 201 note 7} Middle Stoics?

^{page 201 note 8} Ep. 84, 9.

^{page 201 note 9} Max. Tyr. XIX. 3.

^{page 201 note 10} Protr. IX. 88, 2–3.

^{page 202 note 1} E.g. Geffcken, , Ausgang d. Griech.-Roem. Heidentiims, 263, n. 54 (p. 54)Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 2} Arn. St. v. fr. I. 538; II. 1008.

^{page 202 note 3} Disc. III. 21, 17, and cf. IV. 1, 106.

^{page 202 note 4} Plut. adv. Col. 17, 4, of Metrodorus. Cf. also Marc. Aur. III. 4 (cited by Inge, Phil. of Plot. II. 165), other quotations in Heinemann, I., op. cit. I. 186Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 5} Disc. III. 21, 13.

^{page 202 note 6} 36, 35.

^{page 202 note 7} De Cher. 48.

^{page 202 note 8} Strom. V. 4, 19, 2, and cf. I. 12.

^{page 202 note 9} Sen. et. 90, 28. Reitz. Hellenist. Mysterienrel. 134.

^{page 202 note 10} Vide Reitz. op. cit. 243.

^{page 202 note 11} IV. 4, 35, 38.

^{page 202 note 12} III. 2, 16: III. 3.5: II. 3, 5.

^{page 202 note 13} Heracl. 51, Diels. Jaeger (Nem. v. Em. 109) shows that H. borrowed the idea from the Pythagoreans.

^{page 202 note 14} Cf. Enn. II. 9, 7; Philo, De Prov. II. 31, 82. More generally, Philo, Qu. Rer. 311; Sen. N. Qu. VII. 23, 6; ep. 107, 8; Soph. Sal. 19, 18; ps.-Phil. incorr. mund. 487, Bern. Orig. de Princ. II. i. 2; Novat. de Trin. II.

^{page 203 note 1} Cf. Enn. III. 2, 11.

^{page 203 note 2} II. 4, 9.

^{page 203 note 3} III. 2, 13.

^{page 203 note 4} III. 2, 15.

^{page 203 note 5} III. 8, 2.

^{page 203 note 6} IV. 4, 40.

^{page 203 note 7} Strabo, 810. But cf. Chrysippus, fr. II. 1163.

^{page 203 note 8} Sext. Emp. XI. 34.

^{page 203 note 9} N. Qu. VII. 27.

^{page 203 note 10} Arn. II. 1013. Vide ps.-Phil. incorr. mund. 249, Bern.; Arn. II. 391; Sext. Emp. VII. 102, and citations in Reinhardt, K. u. Symp. 34–54.

^{page 203 note 11} VI. 9, i. Vide also V. 5, 4; VI. 2, 11; VI. 6, 13, 16; VI. 5, 10.

^{page 203 note 12} Arn. III. 98.

^{page 203 note 13} Arn. III. 160.

^{page 203 note 14} 14 Op. cit. 43.

^{page 203 note 15} Nemes, . Nat. Horn., p. 70Google Scholar, Matth.

^{page 203 note 16} De An. 411b.

^{page 203 note 17} Achill, . Tat. Isag. in Arat. Phaen. 131Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 18} IV. 3, 20.

^{page 204 note 1} IV. 4, 37.

^{page 204 note 2} Sen. N.Q. VII. i (and Cic. N.D. II. 38, 96). Posid. had paid special attention to the study of lunar phenomena.

^{page 204 note 3} II. I, 6.

^{page 204 note 4} III. 5, 6.

^{page 204 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 204 note 6} Kirchner compares the deiteis in VI. 5, 12; cf. Albin. Didasc. XV.

^{page 204 note 7} IV. 3, 18. Cf. Epin. 984e.

^{page 204 note 8} IV. 8, 5. Cf. Hermet. I. 23.

^{page 204 note 9} Vide Heinemann, I., op. cit. I. 60–63Google Scholar; Plut. def. or. 12; Max. Tyr. 15, 6; Diog, L. VII. 151.

^{page 204 note 10} Cir. Div. I. 30, and cf. Macr. Sat. I. 23.

^{page 204 note 11} Schmekel, fr. 27b.

^{page 204 note 12} V. 8, 11.

^{page 204 note 13} V. 8, 7.

^{page 204 note 14} VI. 2, 21.

^{page 204 note 15} IV. 3, 4.

^{page 204 note 16} IV. 4, 45.

^{page 204 note 17} III. 8, 4, 6; III. 2, 16.

^{page 204 note 18} Ibid.

^{page 204 note 19} IV. 4, 40.

^{page 204 note 20} Tim. 37b.

^{page 204 note 21} II. 60–61, connected by Breiter with Posid.

^{page 204 note 22} I. 247 sqq.

^{page 204 note 23} Ep. 90, 42.

^{page 205 note 1} De Somn. 1.148, connected by Apelt with Pos.

^{page 205 note 2} Cf. Arn. III. 456; Enn. I. 1, 9; Schmekel, , mittl. St. 263 nGoogle Scholar.

^{page 205 note 3} IV. 6, 2. Cf. VI. 4, 6.

^{page 205 note 4} Nat. Horn. 175. Vide Jaeger, , op. cit. 15 sqqGoogle Scholar. Heinemann, I., op. cit. II. 457Google Scholar.

^{page 205 note 5} Enn. I. 1, 5; Schmekel, 262, n. 1.

^{page 205 note 6} IV. 3, 9.

^{page 205 note 7} III. 4, 6.

^{page 205 note 8} Cic. Tusc. I. 29.

^{page 205 note 9} Schm. fr. 43.

^{page 205 note 10} III. 4, 3.

^{page 205 note 11} Gal. Hist. Phil. 469.

^{page 205 note 12} IV. 4, 36. Cf. Sen. N.Q. VI. 16; Cic. N.D. II. 15, 40.

^{page 205 note 13} III. 2, 3.

^{page 205 note 14} IV. 4, 22.

^{page 205 note 15} De gig.7. Cf. migr. Abr. 220, and Reinh, . K. u. Symp. 108, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 205 note 16} IV. 4, 40. Cf. also the telepathy in IV. 3, 18, with Cic. de Div. 129, probably Posidonian.

^{page 205 note 17} IV. 4, 32, 40; III. 1, 6, 8.

^{page 205 note 18} E.g. Arn. II. 429.

^{page 205 note 19} IV. 5, 2E.

^{page 205 note 20} IV. 3, 10, and cf. IV. 3, 22, where ‘air is in the light, rather than light in the air.’

^{page 205 note 21} Sen. N.Q. II. 10. Cf. Plut. fac.in orb. 922, 35.

^{page 205 note 22} Arn. II. 432.

^{page 205 note 23} Plin. N.H. II. 23; Enn. II. 1, 7.

^{page 205 note 24} Doubtless Posid. Cleom. II. 4, 102.

^{page 205 note 25} IV. 8. 4; III. 5. 2; V. 1, 6.

^{page 206 note 1} V. 3, 9.

^{page 206 note 2} VI. 4, 7.

^{page 206 note 3} V. 6, 4 (cf. Cleom. II. 4, 105). Vide further IV. 3, 4; IV. 3, 17; V. 3, 12; VI. 8, 18; IV. 3, 10B; IV. 4, 29; IV 8, 3; VI. 4, 10; VI. 9, 9; I. 7, IE; I. 1. 8.

^{page 206 note 4} Rep. V., Tim. 42e, and cf. Enn. V. 4, 2, Procl. Theol. Plat. 283.

^{page 206 note 5} Ep. VII. 341c. Cf. Enn. VI. 9, 4; V. 3, 17 Plut. Is. et Os. 77. Notice also Clem. Al. Strom. V. 11, 77, 1. With Strom. V. 11, 71; 12, 81–2 compare Enn. VI. 2, 9; V. 2, 1; Albin, . Didasc. X.Google Scholar; Max. Tyr. VIII. 10.

^{page 206 note 6} 7, 10, 27, 29.

^{page 206 note 7} Leg. all. I. 5; de gig. 25.

^{page 206 note 8} Sp. leg. I. 40. Cf. qu. d. imm. 79; qu. rer. 222.

^{page 206 note 9} Ep. 41, 5, taken by Gronau, Pos. u. iüdischchristl. Genesisex. 245) as Posidonian. Cf. Ep. 92, 17–18Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 10} VIII. 57; Dio Pr. 40, 35.

^{page 206 note 11} Eus. Ev. Prep. 538d. Cf. Max. Tyr. VIII. 7, 1.

^{page 206 note 12} XII. 1 sqq. Reitzenst, , op. cit. 408Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 13} Tert. Ad. Prax. 13; Just. Mart. Dial. 66, 128; Clem. Al. Strom. VII. 5, 24; 3, 21.

^{page 207 note 1} Gal. de plac. Hipp. 616, 637; Plut. 922e; Sen. N. Qu. II. 8.

^{page 207 note 2} Reinhardt, , op. tit., p. 368Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. VIII. 27. Here it may be mentioned that the illustration used by Plotinus (V. 8, 4) of Lynceus, though perhaps connected with Plat. Ep. 344a, has also a Posidonian parallel (Cleom. Propr. Mot. Cad. II. i. 68). Cf. also Phil. Qu. in Gen. II. 72, p. 158.

Article contents

Plotinus and Posidonius

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests