Search

(The ancient tradition concerning Pythagoras of Samos’ role as the founder of physiognomy): This paper collects and analyzes ancient sources that refer to Pythagoras of Samos as the founder of physiognomy. Interest in physiognomy, which deals with the relationship between the body and the spirit, has become more popular over the last few years; however, many aspects of research into the topic are still obscure and worthy of further study. Physiognomy was assumed by ancient authors to be the method by which candidates were selected to enter the Pythagorean community, used by the Greek philosopher and his followers. Information about Pythagoras, who – by simply looking at somebody – could recognize their character appears, in the works of Aulus Gellius, Hippolytus, Porphyry, Iamblichos, Proclos and Olympiodorus. Apart from discussing testimonia about Pythagoras and his physiognomic examinations, the text explores the role of physiognomy during the selection process for the Pythagorean community in order to provide a better understanding of elite traditions within society. The paper also supplies further insight with regards to the methodology behind physiognomical surveys, which were popular during antiquity.

I return here, for certain points, to the distinction between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and λόγος προφορικός often rendered by the opposition between inner and outer speech. If, as an important testimony of Sextus Empiricus shows, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is, for the Stoics, related to the μετάβασις which allows one to grasp the logical connections pertaining to a given situation, is it appropriate to translate ἐνδιάθετος by ‘inner’ and προφορικός by ‘outer’? I examine Porphyry’s testimony in the De abstinentia, as well as a passage of Galen, in which he passes on to us an extract from Chrysippus’ treatise On the Soul. I depart from Jean-Baptiste Gourinat’s rhetorical interpretation of the ἐνδιάθετος λόγος by stressing that the dominant part of the soul located in the heart is the seat of a fundamental operation that operates the transmutation of thought into language. Finally, I take into account an occurrence, never before examined in this debate, of the adjective ἐνδιάθετος in the grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does Proclus’ transcendent intellect have parts? Modern editors of the Elements of Theology disagree on a crucial proposition where Proclus reveals the mereological nature of intellect. In his seminal critical edition, E.R. Dodds emended proposition 180 of the work by adding a negation, in order to form πᾶς νοῦς ὅλος ἐστίν, ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὑποστάς (Dodds 1963, 158.11). This emendation, Dodds claimed, was necessary in order to avoid a contradiction with proposition 171 of the same work. Yet some translators and editors have chosen to ignore Dodds’s emendation, suggesting that the contradiction feared by Dodds is not as problematic as it seems – for example, E.O. Onnasch and B. Schomakers render the Greek as πᾶς νοῦς ὅλος ἐστίν, ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὑποστάς ἕκαστος (Onnasch and Schomakers 2015, 196.3-4). This paper deals with two related topics. Firstly, I argue that Dodds’s emendation is to be avoided, not merely because his contradiction could be weakened, as others have claimed, but also because the insertion of a negative creates a philological issue of its own, namely a contradiction with propositions 67 through 69 of the Elements. Secondly, I discuss how, based on this reading, Proclus ascribes to intellect a wholeness that is relative, similar to the way Porphyry describes the mereology of intellect. Although Proclus seemingly rejects Porphyry’s mereological ideas in his other writings, I argue that this ultimately comes down to a difference in terminology.

Copyright of Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena is the property of Societa dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Book 10 of the City of God is the main source about Porphyry’s On the return of the soul, but it can also be read as an Augustinian treatise On the return of the soul in which discussing with Porphyry gives Augustine the opportunity to take hold on the Platonic pattern of the return of the soul to give of it a new conception, enlarged and compatible with Christian thought.

In only one context does Numenius tackle the return of soul to its divine origin: the description of the migration of souls after death. His thought is transmitted to us through Porphyry’s and Proclus’(s) testimonies (De antro nympharum, §10, §§ 21-23 and In Remp. II p. 129. 4-130. 2 Kroll). The analysis of these texts shows that even though Numenius seems to conceive incarnation as bad for Soul, he also views its descent here below as the effect of an attraction for the intellect that governs the world and penetrates it. In this case, the soul concerned is not irrational soul or the irrational part of soul. It is the intellect that comes into this world to fill it up in its turn with its rational and divine presence. Soul then would not find again its spiritual source and its fellow from a superior order only when it leaves this world; Soul would find it again also when it descends into it. Hence its pleasure to become incarnate, a rational pleasure this time. In this specific context, such a view may have led Numenius to read both passages from Heraclites (22 B 77a et b DK = 102 Pradeau) that oppose the life of soul and our own in a different manner from what we usually do.

This essay will address how Origen, an early Christian writer, theologian, and pastor, referred to plagues, epidemics, and misfortunes, and how he construed these phenomena in his theology, literary works, and pastoral practice. A comparison with Porphyry will be offered, who likely drew part of his daemonology from Origen. Those responsible for plagues in both Origen’s philosophical theology and in Porphyry’s philosophy are δαίμονες (demons or fallen angels for Origen, daemons for Porphyry; Origen knew and referred to the two views). Porphyry’s attribution of his daemonology to “certain Platonists” who “divulged” these theories probably alludes to Origen and situates Origen within the Platonic school. I suspect that Porphyry was influenced by Origen’s demonology in general and possibly by On Daemons, if his. Porphyry’s terminology of “divulging” corresponds to that used in his anecdote about Origen who, notwithstanding the oath not to divulge Ammonius’ esoteric doctrines, nevertheless did so in On Daemons and The King Is the Only Creator. This indirectly confirms that Porphyry was speaking of the same Origen. Porphyry’s conviction that evil daemons are responsible for plagues, epidemics, and natural disasters is the same as Origen’s in Contra Celsum, which Porphyry knew. Origen was aware that spiritual plagues are worse than physical ones, that misfortunes mostly befall the just, and took over Jesus’ criticism of the ancient view of misfortunes as divine punishments for an individual or his parents or ancestors.

In the commentaries on Porphyry Boethius on the one hand explains the properties of predication relation at abstract level, from another hand he supplies some ontological options about what can instantiate the terms of the relation, at the end he seems to prefer the similarities as objects of abstract thought. Other options are anyway present, in the commentary on Categories and in the Theological Treatises. One cannot say that the catalogues are complementary or that the same things are catalogued once only, under the same label. On the contrary, objects such as forms, essences and material components can be considered from points of view that are different and not easily comparable. In the present article I will deal with Boethius’ ontological approach not strictly concerned with the Porphyrian text and riddle.

Copyright of Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni is the property of Editrice Morcelliana S.p.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Two fragments of a red porphyry sculpture, which were discovered in 1998/1999 in the castrum Caetani, are now in the Via Appia Museum in Rome and are still unpublished. On the basis of a reconstructive analysis a monumental statue of Dacian Prisoner could be detected in a broad segment in the lower zone. This newly identified statue needs to be added to the four already known, intact statues of Dacian Prisoner (two in the Boboli Cardens in Florence and two in the Louvre in Paris) and one fifth, fragmentary exemplary (Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence). Thus the number of currently existing statues pertaining to the statuary decoration of the Trajan Forum has been extended to six. Through the analysis of post-ancient historical events related to the Forum of Trajan and of the castrum Caetani conclusions could be drawn about the general circumstances and motivations that led to the transfer of the statue to the castrum Caetani at the Via Appia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni is the property of Editrice Morcelliana S.p.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Critical and exegetical notes on five prose passages: Ps.Plat. Epinom. 975a 1-5; Sen. Epist. 90.20 and 45; Epict. Diss. 2.11.3-5; Porph. Abst. 3.26.4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]