Talk:Porphyry of Tyre Translation Project

From HellenisticWiki

Attribution of the work

Stephen Weinstock and Emile Boer do not think it was written by Porphyry (CCAG 5.4, p.187) and was following an opinion I think is still prevalent in academia which considers that philosophers could not be seriously interested in such works (see for example, Polymnia Athanassiadi, "Dreams, Theurgy and Freelance Divination," Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993), p.118, n. 21). There is truth to that but I think this is an idea that should be reconsidered.

Hephaiston of Thebes (Apotelesmatica p.112, line 16 Pingree), writing c. 380 AD (see the New Pauly article), cites a passage of Porphyry "the polymath" concerning planetary conjunctions: Λέγει δὲ τούτου ὑπόδειγμα ὁ πολυμαθὴς Πορφύριος. ἔστω, φησίν, ἐν Καρκίνῳ ὁ Ζεύς, Σελήνη δὲ ἀπορρεύσασα ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (φερέσθω ἐπὶ ηʹ μοῖραν τοῦ Λέοντος), ὁ δὲ Ἄρης ἔστω ἐπαναφερόμενος τῇ Σελήνῃ ἐν Παρθένου μοίρᾳ ηʹ. κτλ.

From this we can at least say that Porphyry was already considered the author of works of astrology before Proclus was even born. A paraphrase of the Tetrabiblos is also attributed to the later. cf. Mark Riley, "Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues," Transactions of the American Philological Association 117 (1987), p. 235- 256.

Moreover, Plotinus' Ennead 2.3 Whether the Stars are Causes shows on ch. 12 that he was not completely against an exegesis of the stars as long as it eschewed the notion that planets can be emotionally distressed, or the cause of evil. Considering that Porphyry commented an oracle of Apollo by saying that "the gods are, if we may say so, the greatest genethlialogists and magi" (ὥστ’ εἶναι αὐτούς, εἰ χρὴ οὕτω φάναι, ἄκρους τε μάγους καὶ ἄκρους γενεθλιαλόγους, quoted in Eusebius, Evangelical Preparation 5.14), it seems that, like Plotinus, he saw some good principles behind the work of those who into astral configurations only to answer to their materialistic concerns.

From the preceding I assume that there is no reason to dismiss Porphyry's authorship of this introduction to Ptolemy considering his well-known curiosity in all sorts of topics and that Prolemy's Tetrabiblos was concerned about theoretical astrology above all.

--Olivier Dufault 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Olivier. Welcome.

Are you sure that Weinstock and Boer rejected the attribution to Porphyry? It seems to me that in the Latin introduction they say that other scholars have rejected the attribution, because Porphyry was a Neoplatonist, but then they seem to counter this argument, saying that it is not very good for a couple of reasons. They end this section with the statement "Quae cum ita sint, vix est quod dubitemus, quin Porphyrius philosophus ipse Introductionem in astrologiam composuerit." I may be misunderstanding this statement though.

Aside from that, I am in agreement with your conclusion. I would also like to add that Porphyry mentions the 'lord of the chart' in his Letter to Anebo, which is a topic that comes up in the Introduction. He says in the Letter how difficult the astrologers say it is to determine the lord of the chart, and he makes the interesting statement that from it can be determined the native’s daimon, or guardian spirit. If this was Porphyry's view, then it might have provided some philosophical justification for his astrological studies. --ChrisBrennan 12:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

My error, I read it too fast. Although I would translate the sentence you quoted ("quae cum ita sint...") by something like "Whatever that may be, we should hardly doubt that Porphyry did not compose himself the introduction." That is, he is not the true author of the introduction but abridged it.

Thanks for starting this wonderful website. I hope to bring more useful contribution in the future.

--Olivier Dufault 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)