Early  Journal  Content  on  JSTOR,  Free  to  Anyone  in  the  World  
This  article  is  one  of  nearly  500,000  scholarly  works  digitized  and  made  freely  available  to  everyone  in  
the  world  by  JSTOR.    

Known  as  the  Early  Journal  Content,  this  set  of  works  include  research  articles,  news,  letters,  and  other  
writings  published  in  more  than  200  of  the  oldest  leading  academic  journals.  The  works  date  from  the  
mid-­‐seventeenth  to  the  early  twentieth  centuries.    

 We  encourage  people  to  read  and  share  the  Early  Journal  Content  openly  and  to  tell  others  that  this  
resource  exists.    People  may  post  this  content  online  or  redistribute  in  any  way  for  non-­‐commercial  
purposes.  

Read  more  about  Early  Journal  Content  at  http://about.jstor.org/participate-­‐jstor/individuals/early-­‐

journal-­‐content.    

JSTOR  is  a  digital  library  of  academic  journals,  books,  and  primary  source  objects.  JSTOR  helps  people  
discover,  use,  and  build  upon  a  wide  range  of  content  through  a  powerful  research  and  teaching  
platform,  and  preserves  this  content  for  future  generations.  JSTOR  is  part  of  ITHAKA,  a  not-­‐for-­‐profit  
organization  that  also  includes  Ithaka  S+R  and  Portico.  For  more  information  about  JSTOR,  please  
contact  support@jstor.org.  
II.-THE OXHMA-IINEYMAOF THE NEO-PLATONISTS
AND THE DE INSOMNIIS OF SYNESIUS
OF CYRENE.
The theory of the XraM-7revEia, as met with in the Neo-
Platonic writers, represents the reconciliation of Plato and
Aristotle on a subject which the former never taught and the
latter was incapable of defining intelligibly. The fusing pro-
cess that sought to combine and harmonize the statements of
these two protagonists of Greek philosophy early manifested
itself owing to the fact that the chief Platonists studied and
taught Aristotle in their schools side by side with Plato. The
desire for making the differences of these thinkers appear less
chasmic was inevitable. The excess to which this tendency was
carried finds a quasi-palliation in the recourse to the allegorical
sense everywhere descried by them. The cultivation of this
deeper meaning produced monstrosities of expository versatility.
The o'Xp7a-7rvwuatheory belongs to the melting-pot of Neo-
Platonism. It centers in the assumption that the soul in its
descent from the sidereal and astral bodies employs a vehicle
to convey it downward through the successive spheres.1 This
vehicle served at the same time to join the incorporeal soul
with the body,2 or as Simplicius S and Proclus4 put it, the
oxrpammade the soul eycKo'rupto. It was conceived to be brought
down from the spheres.6 What is the Platonic and what is the
Aristotelian element that were combined in the theory?
Plato did not invest the pre-existent souls with a sidereal

1Augustine Ep. 1, 13 b (Migne): "Necesse est te meminisse quod

crebro inter nos sermone iactatum est . . .de animae . . . corpore
. . quod . . . dici vehiculum recordaris . . . corpus quo inniti anima
ut de loco ad locum transeat putatur."
' This was a crucial question. Porphyry quizzed his teacher Plotinus
for three days on rvCse Vvx9aVwearit 'Or aw@'art; Cf. Vita Plotini c. 13;
Enn. IV 3, 9; (IV 8. 2); Stob. I 926 (H.); Stob. I 904-906.
Simpl. in Phys. VI 4, p. 966. Simplicius meets the objections of
Alexander of Aphrodisias, p. 964, who charges the Neo-Platonists with
gaining nothing by attaching a corporeal 6X.Lwato the soul.
4 Procl. in Tim. 311 C.
Cf. Porphyry, Sent. c. 32; Procl. in Rem Publ. II, p. 161.
318
 THE OXHMA-IINETMA
AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 319

body,6but in his Timaeushe speaksof a certain oSxrpaassigned

to each of them:7 W.fiaS OU ES3 pa v TOViravros crtv, etc.
The Vxfa here can be nothingelse than the star itself. In two
other passages of the Timaeus 8 the word 6xqa is used with
no referenceto the soul. The Phaedo affordedeven a smaller
handle for foisting an extraneousthought on Plato.9 Yet it
was precisely these Platonic passages into which allegorical
commentatorsimported a mystical meaning10?to make them
comportwith a perverseexposition of the Phaedrus myth."
Consequently, the oxvUawas regarded as something attached to
the soul,12 grown together with the soul."3
This interpretationwas helped by the Aristotelianassump-
tion of the 7vepa. According to Aristotle14 the soul is com-
pletely incorporeal. Accordingto his philosophythis is natural
enough,since the soul is only the formal cause. However,it is
not XopUh4 To) optafroq, but has its seat in a certain substance
transmittedin the act of procreation.
This substancehe designatesboth as Ocpuo'v
and as 7revpa.
The nature of this wevCpa he defines "I as avdXoyov,rw.rv ao'rpov
aTrotXcd,that is, the 7rE.'r-ovr. wa, the aether. Aristotle speaks
of this rv4vpaas 7rvpEVa
o'-#vrov and assigned it to all animals.'8
The harmonizinginterpretationof the commentatorsresulted
in the identification of Plato's gxvpa and the Aristotelian 7rvevpa.
So Philoponus 7 speaks of the veva To Oeplp.ov.It is with him
the seat of movementin the body,as the soul accordingto Aris-

Zeller II 14, p. 820, note 3.

Tim. 41 D.
Tim. 44 E, 69 C.
' Phaedo 113 B.
" Prod. in Tim. 311 C, 312 B, 321 C, D; in Rem Pub. II,
p. 257;
of. also Plato's Rep. 621 B and Prodl. in Tim. 320 D. Proclus in Rem
Pub. II, p. 161 derives the " sowing " of the xia-ra from Tim. 41 A.
Hierocles in Mullach I, p. 478 makes the assertion that Plato took over
the 5xn7gafrom Pythagoras.
tHierocles in Mullach I, pp. 478, 480.
" xnI%aen ot,dvov vs vxvis. e-TeOreaft&recurs frequently.
138aIofvevs
Xn/tAa,frequent.
' Zeller II 23, pp. 483 ff. and notes.
"De Gen. An. 736 b 29.
Zeller II 2, p. 483, long note.
7 On De Anima III 10, p. 588.
320 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

totle was immovable.18 So Hierocles 19 defines the 7rvevUac pre-

cisely in the way that Aristotle defines his vvrev4a. Accordingly
no distinction was made between the oX/iua and the rvevda 20
and both were comprehended under the appellation of the
7rVEVLCTtLKOVoX 2a.20 Various names were employed to desig-
nate it.21 Although Aristotle defines the nature of the 7rvevpua
as avdXoyov,etc. (vide supra), he was far from accepting the
soul's mystical residence in the stars; yet his language lent
itself to emotional interpretations.
From the Aristotelian 7rvevija ao-vvTov the Platonic XVrpa
took on the epithet avpfrve;, and from his definition davXoyov
ro rTv arTpW(vcrTOLXEcthe epithet avyoet3e,22 the "luminosi cor-
poris" amictus of Macrob., Somn. Scip., I 12, 13.
An instructive passage that contributes to bear out the con-
tention advanced is found in Themistius: 23 7rapa IIXdTarwvtL
TO avyoetLe oXrl/a TlaVT7 (EXTaL Ty7 V7rovolas, 7rapa 'ApWTroT07'XEa TO

avaXoyovrw 7rE/7rT) o-WxarTt. Now there is nowhere in Plato an

avyoceSEo'Xqjpxa, but there is in Aristotle, as we have seen, a
7rvevpadowered with the radiance of the fifth element. What
Themistius has in mind with the avdXoyov Tr) 7r17rTz'r ac(o/tar
is the 7rvevdia of De Gen. An. 736 b 29 quoted above.24 Sim-
plicius tells us that the substance of the oX?)pais not the ordi-
nary visible, but the heavenly fire.25
We look in vain in Plato for any elucidation. The learned
Neo-Platonic commentators that carry over Aristotle's doctrine
of the some miscellaneous information.
Trvevvpa, afford
oav'XVTrov
It appears that the oXrlja-7rvev/,a was fundamentally connected

On De Anima III 10, p. 588.

"' Mullach
I, p. 478.
0a Simpl. on De Anima, pp. 213-214; Procl. in Tim. 34 E; Procl. in
)Rem. Pub. I, p. 119.
20b E. g. Procl. in Tim. 311 A.
21
repifX?iLc1a TrveUev/IacKov, oXr/La I/VXLKOV,2VXLKOv TrvevULa, SXILYa avyoe&Les,
etre.
22 Observe quotations that are to follow. On aviyoetss 6X?17acf. Procl.
in Rem Pub. I, p. 119; De Myst. III c. 14: r TrepLKeijeEvOv7.v vX- aiOep0wes
Kal av'yoetis 6Xrl.a.
23On De Anima, p. 19; p. 32, Berlin (1899) ed.
24 Cf. Procl. in Tim. 2 D d TC oVpavy.
6XI)X/a alOpLov avXoyov
2 Simpl. on De Anima, p. 73 ov rb 0pav6tvbevov TroUOTvrpetc.
 THE OXHMA-IINETMA AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 321

with the functions of sense-perception and imagination. Sim-

26 aOttKov
plicius writes yap KaL favrarov
KtaOa TC K 7T aWepW8e3s Trs

iEvXxa
^cfTrepaT ZXrnpa. This twofold functional activity is as-
signed to it also by Priscian.27 In its first activity it is most
intimately related to the sensorium,28 and is the rveviua Tr
7rpYrws aiTcrOTTKovdescribed by Themistius (on De Anima,
pp. 86 sq.): rit ToV 7rvevpuaTro5 /fErBKVL TOV 7rpToaTW5 aiO'rTLKoi.29
In this setting the statement of Syrian 30 becomes invested
with meaning: KCLVOyE ecTLv OvTrK)
aXv0r0e', Ort -7 ILEV T &asaKrTvas Tas

7retu7ro,evaS a7r6 roV avyoaeoovS oX/LuaTroV 7rT Ta opara etc. According

to its second function it is capable of becoming the receptacle
of the imaginative impressions.31 The passage to be quoted
from Simplicius affords additional illumination. Speaking of
the operation of the imagination (avavrara) he says that it
dvw v rw avir Xpywoteva'XX'
employs the same instrument: opyav
Kalt E$wO'VTt 7raQOatvo/eLvw,
oVX US aaTo'/07TtKW c)sg 8e favTaWTtKWKal vro
trj5 etc.
avTao-TatK7SJ Porphyry's statements concerning the
function of the oXr~ma-rvcivta are in the same vein:32 cK'? TrpOS
TO ao'wia 7rporaraOetas . . . evaT7rO/JpyvvraL TVrOS T7rS aVTaCra s etc.33
The difference of the 4 avTaci'a and its operation from the
6Xr,fa-7rvei,ajis set forth by Simplicius: 34 avirr 4 avrTaca etc.
With this agrees the statement of Synesius as illuminated by
Augustine. Synesius says 35 that philosophers called the 7rvevia
ovX'. Now the 7rvevta-
of which he is speaking also 7rvevjuaTLKx
tK/ 1vUX of which Synesius is speaking is the oXrwa-7rv6vpa and
identical with Augustine's "anima spiritalis qua corporalium

'
Simpl. on De Anima, p. 17. Cf. also Beare, Greek Theories of
Elementary Cognition, pp. 333-336.
27
Metaphrasis 7replObavraalasp. 264.
2"Themistius on De Anima, pp. 86, 87.
29,Cf.Procl. in Rem Pub. II, p. 167.
$" In Metaphysica 888 b 17.
1
Simpl. on De Anima, p. 214.
39 Sent. e. 32.

3Porph. 7rposravpov VI 1 is quoted by Mommert, p. 13. It may be

mentioned in passing that Mommert was misled by the external simi-
larity of the quotation from Porphyry in Wolff, p. 160. The rveiJLa
there is something entirely different, as Wolff proceeds to explain, p.
161, and as Porphyry's words show.
34
Simpl. on De Anima, p. 214.
' De Ins. c. 5 1293 A
(Migne).
3
322 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

rerum capiuntur imagines." This Augustine distinguishes from

the "intellectualis anima qua rerum intellegibilium percipitur
veritas."
This then is the nature of the oX,/a-7rvepta. Plotinus has
the evdpa (Enn. II 2, 2 7rap' j1tv TO irvevap TO rCpL;T?]v XrXv),
but Plotinus does not apply the epithet auyoeSECs to it nor the
term 0Xrna. It seems that the identification of Plato's $ovxx
and Aristotle's 7rvdfjpais posterior to Plotinus. Enn. III 4, 6
shows that he did not mystify the Timaeus passage. Cf. Enn.
I 6, 7; IV 3, 10; IV 3, 9, where he speaks of successive uJaUT7a

assumed and laid aside by the descending soul.

Porphyry,36 Iamblichus,37 Syrian,38 Hierocles,89 and Proclus
accept it. In the hands of Proclus,04 it becomes a means of
recognition for posthumous souls. It underlies the words of
Boethius,4l' " Tu causis animas paribus vitasque minores |
Provehis et levibus sublimes curribus aptans | In caelum ter-
ramque seris." Philoponus4lb creates a confusion. He distin-
guishes the avyoeuSEs JXrlmafrom the 7rvevtJrLKOVvZXrtZa(cf. p. 18).
His 7rv?EVJaTtKOV o3xr]a is the &EvTrpov xr7/Xaof Proclus to which
we shall refer subsequently. And yet he, like Themistius, re-
to the sensorium
'
lates the TrvevtmTtLKOvXrp (p. 481): KicoL
aLaOrOr7Ys avrCT) uiv aC/aTo crO-TLV . . v. ev TW TV&v/JTLKW ytVovTaL, The
explanation seems to lie in the assumption that Philoponus was
a late writer who took over Proclus' view of the oevrepovoXrnpa
and ascribed to this the predication made by the Neo-Platonists
(who accepted no e~vTEpov of the irrational soul) of the
Xr]Xpa
avyoeLSes oXVllua.
The destiny of the Xtpiua-7rvevpawas closely bound up with
the destiny of the soul to which it belonged.42 After having
been purified it reascended together with the soul to its astral
seat.43 It was capable of purification through the double pro-

36Procl. in Tim. 311 A; Sent. c. 32.

a7Procl. in Tim. 311 B; 321 A; 324 D.
38Cf. quotations that follow.
3 Comm. in Aur. Carm. Mullach I, p. 478, 483.
40Comm. in Rem Pub. II, p. 174.
a" De Phil. Cons. III 9.
4b
Philoponus on De Anima.
2 Procl. Inst. Theol. 209.
43Procl. in Tim. 333 B; cf. in Rem Pub. II, p. 162.
 THE OXHMA-IINETMA AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 323

cess of a clean life and the religious rites. So Augustine44

writes: "Confiteris (sc. Porphyry) tamen etiam spiritalem
animam sine teletis posse continentiae virtute purgari" and
again45 "Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem per theur-
gian . . . promittit . . . porro autem (sc. dicit) a theurgo
spiritalem purgari." Hierocles also speaks of the purification
of the OXrvjal-rvev,a.46 Proclus makes the same statements con-
cerning his 8EVTrpOV3JXpa in In Tim. 331 B, emphasizing the
lAo'o-o(os ly and the 7TXEc0arU.47 Through such purification it
became adapted to attract good spirits and to obtain the vision
of God.48 Hence Augustine writes "Per quasdam consecra-
tiones theurgicas quas teletas vocant idoneam fieri atque aptam
susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad videndos deos" and
Hierocles 49 7rpo Trqv TWV KaOapWv irvev/Larv 'avvov'Iav etc.
Moreover, the xw-ua-rvev,a was capable in its extra-corporeal
state of being thickened by moisture, of becoming dark and
murky through hylic attraction and thus visible. Thus Pro-
clus o writes TO ojx7 ,aTaT ieSpT7rpUeva avrwiv etc. That the
is
avyoESts o'X71pa meant is discernible from the preceding pas-
sage. Cf. also p. 119 '7rEpL,Xrjpaa . . . ei7t0oXovt,cva V{roTWv vvXOwv.
Porphyry writessl ra's ,tXoo-/jaTrov . . . VEVO-Ca), and again'2

?raxvvOevTos . . . opaTra y7tvwea.-at In it the soul suffered post-

letal punishment.64
Proclus developed the o'Xrja theory and assumed a second
intermediate oxrpa between the 'XCa o svpes and the human
body (EaxaTov a&gtLa,o'aTpE&8Sawcia). This 8&vrepovor wrpoo'4vse

" De Civ. Dei X c. 28, p. 446.

" De Civ. Dei X c. 9, pp. 415 and 416.
" Mullach I, p. 479. The purification of the IX'tsuais an aid to the
soul. The 26th chapter of Hierocles is the best commentary on the
KaOapaos of the tSXVta.
47Cf. Hiero.les in Mullach
I, p. 482 for a defense of TeXeoTKcj.
"De Civ. Dei X c. 9, p. 415.
" Mullach I, p. 481.
"?In Rem Pub. I, p. 119; p. 121; II, p. 156; Porphyry Sent. c. 32,
whole chapter.
,1De Ant.
Nymph. 11.
62See reference in Note 51.
63Cf. In Rem Pub., p. 119.
1 Sent. c. 32;
Philoponus on De Anima I, p. 18.
324 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

oxrVLawas interpreted out of Plato 65 and attached to the irra-

tional soul.56 It was composed of the four elements.57 It was
laid aside by those thoroughly purified through philosophy 58
and was resolved into its elements. In the case of those who
had lived a life of right conduct apart from philosophy it con-
tinued in an illuminated condition, attending their rvpIvEes
oxvrn as comets attend stars.59
The functions of the three oX77ara are summarized by Pro-
lus: 60 TO
T v o'V 0vipve5
oLV )/La Troi aTNvTv (=the soul) EyKo'/.Lov,
T'O 8E 8VTEpOV yEVEMoEWS;roXiLTV, TO E OcTpE&8eS o
XOovav. The second
OxVta was likewise designated as 7rvcvWarLKov and foisted by him
on Aristotle.61 It is this second oxn,ia that is intended by
Philoponus who constantly speaks of it as 7rveVarTtLKOv,the seat of
OvUos'and rtLOv[!Ja. Philoponus recognizes the avyoetus oXrln'aas
S
a higher oxna distinct from it.62 According to Proclus and
Philoponus the Sevrepov
o x7irawas perishable.63
The destructibility of the oxrtIa-7rveatLwas greatly disputed.64
There were those who regarded only the rational soul as im-
mortal, whilst they considered the oXnpla-nrvEvuaand the irra-
tional soul as perishable. Porphyry 65 and his "gentler " fol-
lowers allowed a dissolution of them into their original elements
to be followed by an avaarotXeoTrt.66 Iamblichus and his fol-

6rTim. 42 C, D rpoa0-tvrraIK rvpbs Kal laroms Kal adpos Kat y^S. Procl.
censures the commentators (331 A) who failed to observe the dis-
tinction.
6l Prodl. in Tim. 330 C.
67 See Note 56.
RProcl. in Tim. 330 D.
Cf. in Rem Pub. II, p. 300. Kroll fails to understand the &er7epov
5X-va, as his note, p. 300, evinces.
o0Procl. in Tim. 330 E.
81Procl. in Tim. 312 C.
a2Philoponus on De Anima I, p. 17, rT6reroivv Kal Tbv Ov^6v Kal rhv^it-
Ov,Aiav arorlOeo-Oat etc.; cf. I, p. 12; I, p. 49. This first-named x,/Iua
survives for a while; cf. his argument, p. 17. Like the 6eCrepov ZXrta
of Proclus, it is composed of the elements (p. 17). In this the soul
endures its punishments in Hades, pp. 17-18. The two irvevlctara of
Philoponus differ in nothing from those ascribed to the " Chaldaeans
by Psellus, Expos. Orac. Chald. (Migne), p. 1137.
63
Philoponus on De Anima I, p. 18; also Proclus in Tim. 312 C.
64 Proclus in Tim. 311 A fol.
6 See Note 64.
Procl. in Tim. 311 E, 157 D.
 THE OXHMA-IINETMA AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 325

lowers reinstated the imperishability of all three.67 Simplicius

limits the oX/a-vEi7repato the aerial life of the soul and does
not seem to regard it as necessary to its earthly life.68
The theory of the 5Xrja-7rvevJula was not confined to Neo-
Platonism. The Chaldaic XAyLataught it.69 Proclus writes:70
TOi a7rorcv Xoy[wv ()pAp-EVOL etc. The oracles also maintained
that the soul in its descent gathers particles of the planets and
the elements.7' If we can trust Hierocles, the theory of the
oXVrawas held by the Pythagoreans and promulgated through
the XptfuOl.7o
Besides the oX-vua-7rvdwpof the descending souls the Neo-
Platonists spoke of various garments, XLTrves.72 These garments
were elemental substances and loosely were also called oxi-,ara.
Their laying aside 73 was furthered by a philosophic life and
by religious rites.74 Proclus so interprets the oxXosof Tim. 42
75
C, D. However, this view was held by thinkers before Proclus
and was not universally accepted.76 That Proclus refined the
first or ov?uvEs oX'lpa after the introduction of the second can
be discerned from Inst. Theol. 207-210 where he makes it
aKlvrTov, avXov and &araOs contrary to the views of preceding
Neo-Platonists. He even held that it was "sown" into the
stars together with the soul itself.77
Not only was a rvcvpuaascribed to the soul, but also to the
daemons. The rvdepa of the daemons was a subject of early
dispute. Plotinus refers to it.78 Porphyry ascribes the nrvvupa
a roa7o8'oEto them in his lecture on demonology.79 It deter-

7 See note 66.

e8Simpl. in Physica VI 4, p. 966.
"Kroll, De Orac. Chal., p. 47.
70Prol. in Tim. 184 C.
nProcl. in Tim. 311 B, 331 B.
71aComm. Aur. Carm. Mullach I, p. 478.
72 Prol. Inst. Theol.
209; cf. in Tim. 35 A; in Alcib., p. 502; Macro-
bius, Somn. Sc., I 11, 12.
79 Procl. in Tim. 330 C.
7 Prodl. in Tim. 331 B: els Trv d&TrO-KeV
r'
7Vi TOL0t6rW X-dtrwv... .a-
Trei L'v K6al
Kj fs
LX\60oq5o0S . . . TreXeTTrLKj.
7' See note 72.
76Stob. Ecl. I 926.
77Prodl. in Tim. 333 B, C.
's Enn. III 5, 6 vrcs yap Kal rivos i\X7s /iereXovriv etc.
78 De Abst. II 39 rb 8&Irvevea /Lv t o-w/aTrLK6Vetc.
orL
326 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

mined their character,80was " patibile " and in the end perish-
able.81 Iamblichus accepts the theory of the daemonical 7rvevpa,
but is unable to define its nature except by negative state-
ments.82 So also Proclus.83
In fact, the Neo-Platonists were not chary in assigning
o7jnara. Porphyry 84 made the light of the Republic-myth the
oXVraof the world-soul. Proclus 85 gave an ?X-pato the visible
golds, Hierocles to the ppwes.
Let us now consider how the 3Xrn,a-7rvEvjVaappears in Syne-
sius. He designates it promiscuously as vvevia and oX7/pa with
a preference for the former appellation 1292 B (Migne) raitEL
etc. Here transition is made from one term to the other with-
out change of meaning. That the Neo-Platonic 3X?pa-7rvevp~a
demonstrated above is meant is discernible from his statement 86
that in irrational animals-Aristotle ascribed a 7rvEvpato all
living creatures-it is no longer the vehicle, but becomes itself
the chief function, the animals reason. Compare also 1293 B
(7rv?VuaTLKT rvXY = 7rvEvia)
KELVr?7S ovs 7r3naa.
cTirEp -TKcaOV Hence
also the terms oG/,a 7rpwTrov,rju1a OeacrwoLov. Synesius applies a
variety of names to it: bavTaarTLKOV'rVFia 1292 A, 1309 C, 1313
A, 1293 A, 1300 B, 1309 C--rvEvICart7x trX 1293 A-simply
rvde,a 1289 C, 1292 B, 1296 C D, 1297 D, 1300 A, 1300 B-D,
1312 B, 1313 B, 1316 B, 1316 B; Hymn III 277, 506; Hymn
IV 252- cioAXicK, vuLts1297 B--aowpaTrLK ova'a 1297 D--KqpaTro
a/,ua 1297 C--aLqtova VatLs 1300 A--avraaoTtiK aJtLs 1305 B,
1300 D-,uEar) v'ts 1297 C-uie'aov rZua 1289 C, 1312 B.
This irvfiua is brought down by the souls from the spheres:
yv saveieTrat 87 etc. 1293 B, orep avwOEv -7pavC-avTO 1293 C, o' yap
.Lov-v ? t Tra' aCatupas avayeLV vOLKET?JV KeiOeCV
fKoVaYv fVcLV 1297 B,
Kat Ta'i o'(catpas ivapt
oo'r9jva 1297 D.

80De Abst. II 38.

81See note 79.
82 De Myst. V 12 4s 7y&p a7rXwseiTrel oOre&drb\Xrsetc.
83 Procl. in Tim. 321 E. The demons are called a&c,6vowt 6vXal.
8 Procl. in Rem Pub. II, p. 196.
s5Prodl. in Tim. 301 D, E, 302 B.
=2 12.92 (! KwaTaalaetv Yo
7rot %p
XPL V Ot O KTLdTrdpeaT,LvOVSoiG &aTrtv5XqAa
OeTorTpasgV,XvSetc. The OeorTepaipvx7 is the XoyLKh 'lvxj called also by
him with a terminology differing from that of Aristotle 7rpwrl ,uvXj.
7 saveiteaOat in this application is Platonic and Neo-Platonic. Cf.
Tim. 42 E; Procl. in Tim. 321 B, 337 D.
 THE OXHMA-IINETMA AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 327

On the fact that the different OX6/ara descend from the dif-
ferent spheres Synesius founds his rejection of a general oniro-
critic manual in 1313 A. A science is possible, he says, of the
human body, but ovX oTro)S c=r ro)v /avraTctKo v 7rvev/aTros.
With him as with the Neo-Platonists the 7rvdepa is function-
ally related to the sensorium. This appears from his descrip-
tion of it 1289 C-D TOo]avTaac'TKov7rvCevJua
KOLv'raTOv Eo-tv aleOrl-
rjptov.88 In 1292 B he writes of the 7rvev/la: AXws yap TroO /eCT-
aXoyuagKca Xoyov . . Kat Kotvo9 opo0 ad/loilv.
aLuYxtov ecTL In 1309
C he calls it 7rdvTrOvTWva7roppeovrTOv ciL8)XWoK7'aT07r7povE(aVETraroV.
Because of this function, relating it to the imagination, he speaks
of it as the cfavTractLKov 7rvEvja and qavTaTcrTtKV Vf'CTLv.
The 7rvvIzawas closer to the soul than to the body and inti-
mately connected with it, acting upon the soul and being re-
acted upon by it for better or for worse; cf. 1292 B, 1293 A,
1296 B.89 Consequently soul and 7vfda form excellent gauges
of mutual conditions; cf. 1300 A.90
Synesius nowhere employs the term avyoe&s&& with reference
to it, yet it is indubitable that he means the first rrvvyuaor
oXr,/a-7ervdv,athroughout. 'To Synesius it likewise admits of
purification and nurture through philosophy, a clean life and
the rites: KaOaLpo'LvovSa TEXcTOrv1292 A; ta TE LtXoc-oLs . . .
KaL 8Sa E rTpLarStaiLT77 KatLcrwopovos 1312 A; Kara T?)V E7rLfXr7TLKrV
V SV-
vat.Lv evepyelv 1300 B; &8arTOVKcaTa vcnLvftiovp Tr7p KaOapov 1292 B.
Being purified it is capable of attracting good spirits and of
being brought into relation with God: XaKLTrj o vyyEve4 rvVpVa
OEov1300 B, C; avyylvcTaL yap aVTp Kal OeOS EyKoL'pLoS O'VTo
Xodc'
1309 A; 7rapo-rTLvo ro'ppw6eo' 1301 C; cf. 1305 C.
Moreover, the associations of dryness and moisture with the
and its resultant barometric rising or fall-
extra-corporeal Trvev,a
ing to the earth is Neo-Platonic: oraXwvTra Kal yaLovTra . . . 6XKa

ovv . 1292 B.
. vypoLs 7rvevJLaroL Compare this with Porphyry, De
Ant. Nymph 11 where the saying of Heraclitus is likewise quoted,
and with Porphyry's Sent. ? 32, S&rjKr TO fapv TrvEt/.ja Ka Evvypov

8Comparewith this Themistius on De Anima, p. 87.

8 Cf. Procl. in Rem Pub. II, p. 164.
o0Cf. Prodl. in Rem Pub. II, p. 165. Proclus here makes the JdXJ/ara
a means of posthumous recognition.
328 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

axpt Twv vjroyEdwvTOrro. So Synesius in 1300 A speaks of the

oj,tXXAeE of the 7rvevMa. This suggests what Porphyry says of
the vgeos; cf. also dXXvoOVraSynesius 1297 B.
Furthermore, Synesius' dxua-7rvEipa is inseparable from the
soul and indestructible. In 1293 B he speaks as if the separa-
tion of the soul from its 7rvevpa were possible; but this must
either be understood in the light of other passages or be re-
garded as exceptional, for he writes in 1293 C: ov'tv8e xeL. ..
&7ravo8ov. Cf. also 1297 D. Hence he also calls it au6a acrparov
in 1297 B.
Synesius accepted the imperishability of the 6Xv/a-WrvevOa.
Did he also believe in the imperishability of the irrational soul?
To answer this question the interpretation of the oracle quoted
by him il 1297 B requires a little note. A priori, this view
might be found in Synesius as it appears already in Porphyry 91
and in Iamblichus.92 The question is raised by the commentary
of Psellus.93 Psellus interprets this oracle and understands the
vX,rs(Kv,faXov to be the human body and the Ec8wXovto be the
Xaoyos Hvx7. He writes AEyeLovv T Xoytov . . . aivTrvavayet.
Prima facie the interpretation of Psellus may be correct, though
he is inaccurate, because he generalizes what he calls the 'EXXAv-
Kos AXyos. But since the interpretation given by Synesius is
wholly different, the commentary of Psellus cannot be adduced
to explain Synesius. With Synesius the viAs aKv,3aXov and the
e8owXovare identical. It is neither the oxnua nor the aorpeOv
awuia,but particles of the elements attracted and contracted by
the descending 6XnyLa-7nv'Exa. This was the doctrine of the
Aoyua.94That Synesius means this can be observed from 1297 B.
Still he will not dogmatize; cf. 1297 C. The notion, then, of
the permanence of the irrational soul is found neither here nor
elsewhere in Synesius.
The question of the oXq,pa-7rvevua and the future life deserves
a brief investigation. In 1293 A Synesius writes: 0Ow Kal SaiU/ov
7ravTroa7ros Ka(t eEL(oAovylveTra KaL Tag 7ro&vas Ev TOVT'o TWvEL
fvX.

1 in the sense of
Prodl. in Tim. 311 A. A qualified imperishability
re-elementation.
9IProcl. in Tim. 311 B.
93Cf. pp. 1124 and 1125.
9 Procl. in Tim. 3,11 B, 331 B.
 THE OXHMA-INETMA AND THE DE INSOMNIIS. 329

The TOVTO) must mean the dS8cov. How the rv/evuacan become
a God or a daemon we do not understand, unless it is to denote
somehow the final life of consummation. If the 7rvdevpis here
taken to include the soul as " pars pro toto " the commentary
of Reitzenstein 95 who treats of the Eastern mysticism may
throw light on our text: "Die Seelen der Menschen werden
zunaechst 8a4LoveO. EO' OVTwS ELS TOV TW OEVXvopVXovopevovT. Xopol
8e v'oOev. o /uevr
Tv rXVavwpoevlv,o SErv a7rXavwv."Cf. also Enn.
I 2, 6. So also Synesius writes (1300 A) Travr yap v7rotETrat,etc.
The signification of atpatov is not clear. An old variant reads
rvppoov Quid? What Synesius means when he says that the
atpatov becomes a god or daemon we do not understand. In
1297 B he speaks of the wrvdeaas eiOwXtLKcvcaLs,and in 1309 C
he calls it deAoov. The meaning naturally suggested by the
word etsoAovin relation to the future life is that of " phantom."
So in 1292 D CiSOALKais explained by rois yvwoLuEvot,ufavraa-
to',cva. Porphyry distinguishes even in Hades the wrvevpafrom
the soul's eZW.ov.96 According to him the soul attracts an
e8ZoXov in Hades, because the o'XJa-7rvvF,a, brought down from
the spheres, abides with the soul after its dissolution from the
body. Upon this rvevja the soul imprints its TrroSrT7'cavrTaaas,
and thus fEAKTEraL TrOd8wXov. Porphyry here seems at pains to
explain how the soul is able to attract an eZAXov. In his
Nymphs' Cave 97 the souls desirous of somatic existence attract
a moist arvdv/a,condense it into a cloud, and through excessive
moisture become visible. In this passage of Porphyry also their
appearances result from the action on the 7rvdfua(Kara favTaalav
Xpoovrat 7 rveifvya). These appearances are called Ei8Xwv
Does "
/l,%awt. Porphyry here imply that the rvevmuaa colored
according to the imagination" become eJSXa, or are the appear-
ances of the Trvc,uaralike those of c8&Xa? Neither Porphyry
nor Plotinus 98 defines what he means by eZ&WXov.9

5 Poimandres, p. 81, note 2.

o Sent. c. 32.
7De Ant. Nymph. 11.
wEnn. VI 4, 16.
9 The definition of ei'awov given by Psellus, p. 1124, has no authority.

Nicephoros Gregoras (Migne, p. 622) takes it from Psellus, as he takes

over many suggestions, and develops it to suit his purpose.
330 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

Finally, the rvevieaof the daemons is implied in 1292 D of

Synesius. The aavraorriuxov'qVa at the beginning of this chapter
is not the imagination, but the oX7qLa-7rvev,ua.
We take leave of
this troublesome oXupawith the words of Augustine,00 " Cur
ergo quaeso te non nobis ad hanc quaestiunculam indicimus
ferias ?"
ROBERTCHRISTIANKISSLING.
S. E. MISSOURISTATE TEACHERS COLLEGE,
CAPE GIRARDEAU,MO.

1 Ep. I 13b.