We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
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.
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.
