[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. I

[sdi]

Once upon a time, boccaderlupo recommended Sallustius' On the Gods and the World to me as a short introduction to Neoplatonism. But where he found it clear, I found it obscure! (I believe I described it to him as "a puzzle-box"—it seems to me that all the pieces fit together elegantly, but one needs to know the trick to open it up and get at the candy inside, and not knowing the trick all I could do was to play with it for a while before setting it down again.) Yesterday, I suggested perhaps starting up some discussion on the topic in the hopes that, with the help of other blind men, I might discover that this rope I'm touching is actually an elephant.

Therefore, I plan to post a chapter of the text each week (on Wednesday, in honor of the lord of dialogue), and perhaps we can unpack it together. I will only be posting the text in the subject post, and placing whatever thoughts and questions I may have down in the comments: after all, I am a student here rather than a lecturer, and anyway it might be helpful to break up discussion into parallel threads to keep things organized. Anyone is welcome to lurk, comment, ask their own questions, etc. I'll be transcribing from Gilbert Murray's 1925 translation, though I also have Thomas Taylor's 1793 translation handy and will call it out when there's something interesting. (Our good Br'er Wolf recommended Arthur Nock's 1926 translation, but I don't have a copy. It'll be in the public domain in a couple months, though, so perhaps we can revisit it then.)

Let's pick the puzzle-box up, shall we?

I. What the Disciple should be; and concerning Common Conceptions.

Those who wish to hear about the Gods should have been well guided from childhood, and not habituated to foolish beliefs. They should also be in disposition good and sensible, that they may properly attend to the teaching.

They ought also to know the Common Conceptions. Common Conceptions are those to which all men agree as soon as they are asked; for instance, that all God is good, free from passion,* free from change. For whatever suffers change does so for the worse or the better; if for the worse, it is made bad; if for the better, it must have been bad at first.

* Thomas Taylor's translation gives "without passivity." Arthur Darby Nock's gives "impassive."

Comments

Re: the nature of change

[sdi]

Incidentally, every time I write "Neoplatonic", I think "Neapolitanic," and then I dream of not being allergic to ice cream...

Re: the nature of change

[boccaderlupo]

I now fear "Neapolitanic" will wind its way into the astral currents... :)

Note that later in this same tract, Sallustius will emphasize that (in his view) the celestial bodies are not themselves gods per se, but rather, if I remember right, vehicles for the gods' activities. He contrasts this with, if memory serves, the Egyptian view, in which (according to him) the "planets" are equated with the gods themselves.

For myself, I tend to regard the heavenly bodies as massive sunthemata (tokens) that serve as the most potent and visible conduits for the gods' expression, thus their outsized (literally and figuratively) impact on the events here in the sublunar world. This is just my person opinion, however.

On how divination and various rites impact (or rather, fail to impact) the gods, who are immutable, I would consult Iamblichus, though I think Sallustius touches on it briefly, as well.

Axé

Re: the nature of change

[sdi]

I'm not sure where I sit on that one! On the one hand, I've spoken with most of the planets (and this is the source of some of my relatively unorthodox planetary assignments), so I tend to regard them as people; but on the other hand, they have effects so constant as to be un-people-ish. Perhaps this is why I tend to like Apuleius' middle-of-the-road explanation...