On the Chaldean Oracles

2

...indicating this, but placing too much faith in the interpretations of the Neoplatonists original: "Platonicorum" (On the Empyrean Heaven I. II. III. Halle 1839/40; commentary on Synesius' Hymn II 1–24 and II 22–24, Halle 1843). Subsequently, the study of the Oracles, like that of the Neoplatonists, lay dormant. Since I saw these matters were worthy of accurate investigation, I resolved to inquire into their teachings, origin, and age. I intended to attach a new edition of the remains; but I realized more and more that I was leaning on a weak foundation, as the editions of most Neoplatonic books are neglected. ^1) Nevertheless, I intend to insert all fragments into my argument—whether they are rightly or wrongly attributed to this collection—adding a critical apparatus A system of notations used by scholars to show variations in historical manuscripts. that would seem necessary. But first, it seems necessary to briefly explain the sources.

Chapter One.

Concerning the sources of the Chaldean Oracles.

Besides the vast books of the Neoplatonists which display scattered members of the poem here and there, there remain, as far as I know, five small books from the Byzantine period pertaining to the teachings of the Chaldeans.
Proclus' Five Chapters from the Chaldean Philosophy from the Vatican manuscript 1026 (cotton paper, 14th century), which seems to be the only one in existence, was first edited by Pitra in Sacred and Classical Analecta V 2 (1888) 192 ff.; after him, A. Jahn published it in Halle in 1891, thinking he was publishing an unpublished work original: "anecdoton" (cf. New Philological Review 1892, 100 f.). The excerptor has mutilated Proclus' speech either not at all or not much; it is very likely that these go back to the commentaries on the Oracles (p. 7 f.). Complete verses are nowhere cited, but it is usually clear which ones the interpretation refers to.
We have three works original: "πονήματα" (ponēmata) by Psellus pertaining to the oracles. The first of these, which was edited after Opsopoeus ^2) and Gallaeus...

^1) It is most regrettable that Proclus' commentaries on the Timaeus Plato's famous dialogue on the origin of the universe. lack a diligent revision. A. Jordan (Hermes XIV 263) says that only recent manuscripts were known to him, but for books I and II there is a manuscript from the 11th or 12th century, as Heiberg writes to me, Coislin. 322.

^2) I have seen this edition: The Magical Oracles of Zoroaster with the scholia of Pletho and Psellus now published for the first time. From the Royal Library by the study of Johannes Opsopoeus, Paris 1599. Gallaeus included this in the appendix of the Sibylline Oracles, Amsterdam 1689; from this, Magnius, whom I use, took it. I have neglected Pletho, as he merely copies the notes of Psellus.