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

[sdi]

Happy Wednesday to you all, again!

First, a little bit of housekeeping: my copy of Arthur Darby Nock's translation of On the Gods and the World finally arrived in the mail this last week, and I've begun studying it. While I find Murray's translation more generally readable, I appreciate Nock's scholarship—his appears to be a very precise translation. I plan to stick with Murray's translation even into the New Year (when Nock's becomes public domain), though I will be including Nock's notes and any ways in which his translation varies from Murray's and Taylor's. (In fact, I have gone back over the prior six chapters already.)

With that out of the way, let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

VII. On the Nature of the World and its Eternity.

The Cosmos itself must of necessity be indestructible and uncreated. Indestructible because, suppose it destroyed: the only possibility is to make one better than this or worse or the same or a chaos. If worse, the power which out of the better makes the worse must be bad. If better, the maker who did not make the better at first must be imperfect in power. If the same, there will be no use in making it; if a chaos... it is impious even to hear such a thing suggested. These reasons would suffice to show that the World is also uncreated: for if not destroyed, neither is it created. Everything that is created is subject to destruction. And further, since the Cosmos exists by the goodness of God it follows that God must always be good and the world exist. Just as light coexists with the Sun and with fire, and shadow coexists with a body.

Of the bodies in the Cosmos, some imitate Mind and move in orbits; some imitate Soul and move in a straight line, fire and air upward, earth and water downward. Of those that move in orbits the fixed sphere goes from the east, the Seven from the west. (This is so for various causes, especially lest the creation should be imperfect owing to the rapid circuit of the spheres.*)

The movement being different, the nature of the bodies must also be different; hence the celestial body does not burn or freeze what it touches, or do anything else that pertains to the four elements.†‡

And since the Cosmos is a sphere—the zodiac proves that—and in every sphere "down" means "towards the centre," for the centre is farthest distant from every point, and heavy things fall "down" and fall to the earth <it follows that the Earth is in the centre of the Cosmos.>

All these things are made by the Gods, ordered by Mind, moved by Soul. About the Gods we have spoken already.

* Gilbert Murray notes, "i. e. if the Firmament or Fixed Sphere moved in the same direction as the seven Planets, the speed would become too great. On the circular movement cf. Plot. Enn. ii. 2."

† Murray notes, "The fire of which the heavenly bodies are made is the πέμπτον σῶμα ['pempton soma'], matter, but different from earthly matter." He then references a line from a different section of his book, which reads, "The Gods themselves are said by Plato to be made of fire, and the Stars visibly are so. Though perhaps the heavenly Fire is really not our Fire at all, but a πέμπτον σῶμα, a 'Fifth Body,' seeing that it seems not to burn nor the Stars to be consumed."

‡ Thomas Taylor notes, "For the reason of this, see my Introduction to the Timæus of Plato."

Comments

[sdi]

[...] it follows that the Earth is in the centre of the Cosmos.

You know, it's interesting to me... as much as rationalist fuddy-duddies like to poke fun at the traditional worldview that the earth is at the center of the cosmos, it isn't wrong: merely incomplete. The earth is at the local center of the cosmos, just as the sun is at the next-largest local center of the cosmos, and Sagittarius A* is at the next-largest local center of the cosmos, and so on.

[boccaderlupo]

I would agree that the earth is certain the center of our cosmos, insofar as it's our habitation and the focus of our physical activities. Just because it is insignificant when compared to the size and scale of the larger universe doesn't imply, in my view, that it is insignificant to we who dwell on it; there seems to be a confusion on the part of certain segments of physicalist-reductionists that physical scale, in this case, corresponds to meaning, which is perhaps among the greatest spiritual tricks ever played.

[sdi]

there seems to be a confusion on the part of certain segments of physicalist-reductionists that physical scale, in this case, corresponds to meaning, which is perhaps among the greatest spiritual tricks ever played.

Yes, exactly! They say "you're insignificant, grow up, and deal," but they mean, "shut up and get back in line."

You know, Sallustius was writing this stuff to defend a briefly-resurgent Paganism against a newly-rising faith, wasn't he? I imagine we'll see such defenses of a briefly-resurgent materialism against a newly-rising faith sometime in the coming centuries...

[boccaderlupo]

To your point above, and in acknowledgement to the materialists, their philosophy isn't necessarily wrong, but incomplete. Scientific tactics seem to usefully and appropriately describe many if not all aspects of the physical part of the universe, but it's the extrapolation that "because this approach is useful it must be the only approach" and the concomitant dismissal of the spiritual aspect of the universe I find...presumptuous, at best. Funnily, the scientific understanding of the scale of the universe and time and our place in it otherwise act (or should act!) as an effective check on our hubris...but maybe not in all cases. :)

There are indeed some parts of these ancient tracts (Timaeus is another one) where the writers seem to be plainly trying to describe physical phenomena and confounding spiritual things with physical processes that we understand differently today thanks to observation and more rigorous reasoning. But none of these tracts, so far as I understand them, profess to be infallible, and in some cases the conjectures read well if taken in a metaphorical (rather than literal) context.

Axé,
Fra' Lupo

[sdi]

You're correct, of course! You'll please forgive me if I seem a little salty about it :)

To your latter point, I see many footnotes in all three translations noting, helpfully, where other authors agree and disagree with Sallustius, too. A good example is back in ch. IV: Sallustius says that only a madman would treat, for example, corn as literally the material manifestation of Osiris. (I assume he's lashing out at the Christians over the doctrine of transubstantiation?) I frankly quite disagree with Sallustius, and Murray helpfully notes that Julian—a close associate of Sallustius!—disagrees in exactly the same manner as I do.

[boccaderlupo]

The saltiness it completely understandable, given the dismissive way certain physicalist reductionists approach metaphysics and such subjects!

Not sure on the question of transubstantiation. But at least within the sphere of philosophy we can have some spirited debate on these subjects, rather than cast those with whom with disagree into the depths...

[sdi]

I looked up Nock's commentary on that section to see what he thinks. He says that the Greeks generally were of two minds on Egyptian habits; of the Neoplatonists specifically, Iamblichus is mentioned as having a "warm affection" for them, while Julian and Sallustius maintained a "hearty contempt" for them, instead. He says this is because they are trying to defend traditional Greek religion from the Christians and didn't want to spread themselves too thin by also trying to defend Egyptian religion, but notes that their rejection is a little odd given that Julian was an adherent of Egyptian cults.

[sdi]

Of the bodies in the Cosmos, some imitate Mind and move in orbits; some imitate Soul and move in a straight line, [...]

There was some discussion about this point last week!

I'm not entirely certain of the source of the kinds of motion associated with Mind and Soul (Nock merely says that the association is traditional, and refers me to Iamblichus), but it occurs to me... is this why we think nothing of the wind, but are enchanted with dust devils and the like? By swirling in a circle, the dust devil appears to be not merely animate, but imbued with intelligence, as well.

[boccaderlupo]

Interesting that the first part above corresponds in some ways with some of the "common conceptions" that barefootwisdom mentioned early on in this sequence of posts, but in reference to God and the good. This time this kind of reasoning (better/worse, etc.) is applied to the Cosmos itself and the creation, as reflecting on the nature of the maker.

[sdi]

Speaking of common conceptions, there's another axiom here: that every beginning has an end, and every end has a beginning. (Sallustius explicitly mentions the former, but his argument doesn't hold without the latter, as well.) I'm not certain how reasonable that is or not: certainly, the Christians believed otherwise: that the universe had a beginning but no end.

[temporaryreality]

I admit that Murray's "indestructible" makes more sense to me than Taylor's "incorruptible" - though "incorruptible" did lead me along a thought-train that chugged close to (probably popular-level) stoic-ish thought whereby our obviously mixed-bag world might look to be corrupted (by death, decay, disease, ignorance, and what have you) but since such things are part of the world that is itself of divine provenance, these things too are not Uppercase Corruption of divine perfection and just reveal our own prejudices and obscured understandings of "Gods' will."

So, originally I wondered if this was a hint of something hidden... but as Murray's translation doesn't have that same implication, I'm guessing I was just off on a tangent.

[sdi]

For what it's worth, Nock uses "imperishable," here (e.g. "does not die"), and I think that's what Taylor is getting at, too.

[sdi]

Regarding your meditation, I'm reminded that Sallustius gets into the Problem of Evil in ch. XII. For what it's worth, I think I agree: the world is only apparently evil due to our lack of perspective. Certainly in the few glimpses of The Higher Planes™ that I've had, I knew that everything was perfect and good and right, exactly as it is. (But, of course, how difficult it is to retain the memory of it, these many years on...)