Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo (245-529 dC) > Plotino (204-270 dC) – Tratados Enéadas > Plotino - Tratado 52,3 (II, 3, 3) — Os astros não influenciados pelos (...)

ENÉADAS

Plotino - Tratado 52,3 (II, 3, 3) — Os astros não influenciados pelos lugares

Enéada II, 3, 3

quarta-feira 1º de junho de 2022, por Cardoso de Castro

3-4. Os astros não são influenciados pelos lugares ou pelas configurações.

Míguez

3. Dícese acaso que no actúan por su libre designio, sino forzados por las regiones donde asientan y por su propia condición. Pero si así fuese, sería necesario que todos los planetas produjesen los mismos efectos atendiendo a una región y condición determinadas. Ahora bien ¿en qué se modifica un planeta cuando pasa de una sección del zodíaco a otra? Porque es claro que no se encuentra en el zodíaco mismo, sino a una gran distancia por debajo de él, y sea cual sea el signo que le corresponda, estará en todo tiempo de cara al cielo. Extraño resulta atribuirle cambios y efectos distintos cuando pasa al lado de cada una de las secciones del zodíaco, y ello según se halle al oriente, en el centro o al lado del occidente. Pues no es motivo de alegría para un planeta el encontrarse en un centro, o de disgusto o indolencia su propia situación de declive, o de calera la del punto de su nacimiento, o de calma la de su mismo declinar, hasta el extremo de hacerse mejor en esta última situación. Porque siempre para unos un planeta se encontrará en un centro, y para otros se hallará en su declive, de tal modo que el que se aparece a unos en su declinar, a otros se aparecerá en su centro. Ahora bien, es indudable que, al mismo tiempo, no podrá sentirse alegre y entristecerse, o mostrarse encolerizado y pacifico. Para unos, también, el momento de alegría de los planetas corresponde a su ocultación; para otros, a su salida; pero, ¿es esto lógico? Con ello ocurriría que, simultáneamente, estarían tristes y alegres; más, ¿por qué habrá de admitirse, además, que su tristeza podría dañarnos? En general, no deberá concederse que se muestren alegres o tristes según las circunstancias; sino que estarán siempre alegres en razón de los bienes de que disfrutan y de su misma contemplación. Porque cada uno de los planetas tiene su vida propia y encuentra su bien en la actividad que desarrolla; nada de esto, ciertamente, guarda relación con nosotros. Y, especialmente, en lo que a nosotros concierne, que no tenemos nada en común con ellos, la acción de los planetas resulta meramente accidental y no esencial, hasta el punto de que no es una acción en su exacto sentido el hecho de anunciar el porvenir como lo hacen los pájaros.

Bouillet

[III] Mais ce n’est pas volontairement, dira-t-on peut-être, que les astres nous nuisent: ils y sont contraints par les lieux et par les aspects.[10] S’il en est ainsi, ils devraient tous produire les mêmes effets quand ils se trouvent dans les mêmes lieux et les mêmes aspects. Qu’éprouve de différent une planète selon qu’elle est dans telle ou telle, partie du zodiaque? Qu’éprouve le zodiaque lui-même? En effet, les planètes ne se trouvent pas dans le zodiaque même, elles sont au-dessous et très loin de lui, et d’ailleurs, quelque lieu qu’elles parcourent, elles sont également dans le ciel. Il serait ridicule de prétendre qu’elles changent de nature et qu’elles produisent des effets différents selon qu’elles sont dans telle ou telle partie du ciel, qu’elles ont une action différente selon qu’elles se lèvent, qu’elles sont sur un point ou qu’elles déclinent.[11] Comment croire que telle planète éprouve tour à tour de la joie quand elle est sur un point, de la tristesse ou de la langueur quand elle décline, de la colère quand une autre se lève, puis de la bienveillance quand celle-ci décline? Un astre peut-il être meilleur quand il décline? Chaque astre est sur un point pour les uns, décline pour les autres, et vice versa;[12] cependant il ne saurait éprouver à la fois de la joie et de la tristesse, de la colère et de la bienveillance. Prétendre qu’un astre éprouve de la joie à son lever, un autre à son déclin, c’est avancer une assertion absurde: il en résulterait que les astres éprouveraient à la fois de la joie et de la tristesse. Pourquoi d’ailleurs leur tristesse nous nuirait-elle? Nous ne devons pas admettre qu’ils puissent être tantôt joyeux, tantôt tristes ils restent toujours tranquilles, contents des biens dont ils jouissent et des choses qu’ils contemplent. Chacun d’eux vit pour lui-même, trouve son bien dans son acte (ἐνεργείᾳ), sans se mettre en relation avec nous. N’ayant pas de commerce avec nous, les astres ne nous font sentir leur action que par accident, sans que ce soit leur but principal, ou plutôt ils n’ont aucune relation avec nous: ils nous annoncent l’avenir par accident (κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς σημαίνειν), comme les oiseaux l’annoncent aux augures.

Guthrie

COULD "CARDINAL POINTS" OR "DECLINATIONS" POSSESS ANY INFLUENCE?

3. In case, however, that the stars injure us only involuntarily, they are constrained thereunto by the aspects, and their localities. If so, they should, all of them, produce the same effects when they find themselves in the same localities or aspects. But what difference can occur in a planet according to its location in the zodiac? What does the zodiac itself experience? In fact, the planets are not located in the zodiac itself, but above or below it, at great distances. Besides, in whatever location they are, they all are ever in the heaven. Now it would be ridiculous to pretend that their effects differed according to their location in the heaven, and that they have an action differing according as they rise, culminate, or decline. It would be incredible that such a planet would feel joy when it culminates, sadness or feebleness when declining, anger at the rising of some other planet, or satisfaction at the latter’s setting. Can a star be better when it declines? Now a star culminates for some simultaneously with a brother, a son, or a wife of such or such characteristics, or to make us successful, or make of us generals or kings?

ARE STARS ANIMATED?

On the contrary hypothesis, that the stars are animated, and act with reflection, what have we done to them that they should desire to harm us? Are they not dwellers of a divine region? Are they not themselves divine? Nor are they subjected to the influences that make men good or evil, nor could they experience good or evil as a result of our prosperity or our misfortunes, its declination for others; and it could not at the same time experience joy and sadness, anger and benevolence. It is sheer absurdity to assert that a star feels joy at its rising, while another feels the same at its setting; for this would really mean that the stars felt simultaneous joy and sadness. Besides, why should their sadness injure us? Nor can we admit that they are in turn joyous and sad, for they ever remain tranquil, content with the goods they enjoy, and the objects of their contemplation. Each of them lives for itself, finding its welfare in its own activity, without entering into relations with us. As they have no dealing with us, the stars exert their influence on us only incidentally, not as their chief purpose; rather, they bear no relation whatever to us; they announce the future only by coincidence, as birds announce it to the augurs.

MacKenna

3. Possibly, however, they act not by choice but under stress of their several positions and collective figures?

But if position and figure determined their action each several one would necessarily cause identical effects with every other on entering any given place or pattern.

And that raises the question what effect for good or bad can be produced upon any one of them by its transit in the parallel of this or that section of the Zodiac circle - for they are not in the Zodiacal figure itself but considerably beneath it especially since, whatever point they touch, they are always in the heavens.

It is absurd to think that the particular grouping under which a star passes can modify either its character or its earthward influences. And can we imagine it altered by its own progression as it rises, stands at centre, declines? Exultant when at centre; dejected or enfeebled in declension; some raging as they rise and growing benignant as they set, while declension brings out the best in one among them; surely this cannot be?

We must not forget that invariably every star, considered in itself, is at centre with regard to some one given group and in decline with regard to another and vice versa; and, very certainly, it is not at once happy and sad, angry and kindly. There is no reasonable escape in representing some of them as glad in their setting, others in their rising: they would still be grieving and glad at one and the same time.

Further, why should any distress of theirs work harm to us?

No: we cannot think of them as grieving at all or as being cheerful upon occasions: they must be continuously serene, happy in the good they enjoy and the Vision before them. Each lives its own free life; each finds its Good in its own Act; and this Act is not directed towards us.

Like the birds of augury, the living beings of the heavens, having no lot or part with us, may serve incidentally to foreshow the future, but they have absolutely no main function in our regard.