Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Plotinus - Περὶ Τῶν Τριῶν Ἀρχικῶν Ὑποστάσεων (Eneadas v.1)

    Uploaded by

    José Manuel Redondo
    Plotino V, 1 tratado herenéutico en griego e inglés

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Plotinus - Περὶ Τῶν Τριῶν Ἀρχικῶν Ὑποστάσεων (Eneadas v.1)

    Uploaded by

    José Manuel Redondo
    18 views22 pages
    Plotino V, 1 tratado herenéutico en griego e inglés

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Plotino V, 1 tratado herenéutico en griego e inglés

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views22 pages

    Plotinus - Περὶ Τῶν Τριῶν Ἀρχικῶν Ὑποστάσεων (Eneadas v.1)

    Uploaded by

    José Manuel Redondo
    Plotino V, 1 tratado herenéutico en griego e inglés

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 22
    V. 1. (10) ITEP] TON TPIQN APXIKON YIOETAZEQN 1. Té more doa cork 73 memouneds ras Yoyds marpis fod EmdabZotac, rai potpus éxcider oiivas Kal Sus éxelvov dyvoqoa Kai dards Kat excivov; dpyty wav 0B) adraty 700 xaxod 1 rdAo ral 4 yéreas Kal sj updrq érepdrys wal 13 BovdyBivar 82 philosophy is prayer in this sense). Preyer ‘0 lester dsitios for matocial nocd i For him a magicel activity: sec IV. 4. 80-89, 29 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD V. 1 plrerat, emarpapleros de exelvov pds atrd druycatéy gore yeyovévan. exmodcsr 82 ruiy Zoro 20 yeveuws if ev xpdvyp vbv Adyor wept ray del Srrwr mrovoupévors: rq 38 Mye rip yéreowr mpoodarov- tras abrots Kal 73 yevrcipevov dmb Kpetrrovos voi; voiw elvat, Kal xpelrruy dadvrew vois, br 45 7dMa per’ abrdv> oloy Kai 1} yuxi Adyos vod Kai evipyerd vs, Gonep airs éxetvov. GAAd duxijs per dprdpés 6 ASyos—cbs pap eldwhov voi—rasry kal els vobv Brérew Set vis 58 choatrws mpds exetvov, va j vole. dpi 82 addy ot, ywpiatleis, GN Sr per’ abriv wad peragd obd&, cis obBé 50 uyiis Kai vod. robct 82 aay rd yerrijoay Kal robro dyand, «ai uddora Stay Goi pdver 73 yervzar Kab 76 yeyerrnucvor’ bray 82 xal 73 dpicroy # 76 yaricw, é& dvdynys otveotw atta, ds Th érepérnrt udvor xeywpiobai. 7. Rikdun 8¢ éxelvou Myoper elva: Tov voy Bet yap cadgorepor Myen mpéorov rev, re BE mews lant ereivn 5 yeudpevov wal dmoaptew oddé atrod nal clrae Spoudryra mpos adré, omp Ka! 3rd fas rod Nov. EN of wis eeetvo. ade ctv vot pert; 4 bre th emorpodi mpés abro 1 A otrilsing exemple of tho often misunderstood metaphor of “emanation”, on which see my contribution to The 32 ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPOSTASES existence And all things when they come to per- fection produce; the One is always perfect and ‘therefore produces everlastingly; and its product is Tess than itself. What then must we say about the most perfect? Nothing can come from it except that which is nest greatest afler il, Intellect is next to it in greatness ard second to it: for Intellect sees it and needs it alone; but it has no need of Intellect; and thet which derives from something ater than Intellees is intellee:, which is greater than all things, beeause the other things come after it: as Soul ivan expression and a kind of activity of Intellect, just as Intellect is of the One. But soul's expression is obscure—for it is a ghost of Intellect— and for this reason it hes to look to Intellect; but Intellect in the same way has to look to that god, in order to be Intellect. Bus it sees him, not as separated from him, Lut beeause it comes next after him, ard there is nothing between, as also there is not anything between sou) and Intellect. Rvery- thing Iongs Zor its parent and loves it, especially when parent and offspring ere alone; but when the parent is the highest good, the offspring is necessarily with him und separate from him only in othemess, » 7, But we say that Intellee: is an image of that Gond; for we must speak more plainly; frst of all we must say that what has come into being must be in a way that Good, and retain much of it and be a likeness of it, as light is of the sun, But Intellect. is mot that Good. How then does it generat= Intellect? Becbuse by its return to it it sces: and Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Mediaevel Phile- eophy Pact ILL, Chapter 15, 239-41. 33 10 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD Y. 1. Edpa: % 88 Spacis atlry vols. 73 ydp xaradap> Bivov io F alotyos 4 ods: afoDnow ypape phy wal 7a GMa: aX 6 adchog Towires ofos pepifeofaui: rotro 5¢ oby obras. # eal erad8a & pv, GMa 7 fv Sivapus meivrow. dy oby éore Bévayus, radra dard rs Buuljtecas olov ayilondry 4 vénars kalopi: # odk dy Ww vots. éwel wal rap” abrod tye 939 olor cwalebgaw ris Sundpecos, br Bivartat odotay. adris vob BY abcby wal épiben 18 chat abrG 7h aap’ erelvov Suvdper wad brt ofov pipos Ev re 7ébu exeivon nai e€ éxetvou 4 oboia, Kal pédvwrae rap’ éxeivov wai Tehewiira els oboiay + Soveral scholars have thought that the subject of fda in thie sentence is the, Ono er Goudy which is corteinly the subject of yeg in the preceding’ sentence. Henry and Schixyzer now ascoot this view (see their Addenda ad Pesture Ju Plotint Opera LLL p. 307). Phe ventense would then moon “The One by its return to itself sees: and this seeing is Intellect.” But this simplo(identifeation of Intellect with ‘the self-vision of the One does nob ayreo wilh auy thing eles which is said about the relationship of the twe hypostases in Ure Bunculs, aul ib seems to mo meat unlisely that Plotinas would ever have sooken of che One us “returning” upon itself and sering itself as the unity-in-multipicity which is Intellect: for in his thought there can be absolutely no 34 ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPOSTASES this cecing is Intellect For thet whieh apprchonds something ¢ls> is either sense-peresption or intellects (sense-perception is a line etc.)? but the circle is of a kind which can be divided; “but this [intellee:ual apprehension] is not so. ‘There is One here also, but the One’is the prodactive power of all chings. The things, then, of which it is the productive power are those which Intellect observes, in a way entting itself off from the power; otherwise it would not be Intellect. For Intellest also has of itself a kind of intimate perception of its power, that it has power to produce substantial reality. Intellect, certainly, by its own means cvon defines its being for itself by the power which comes from the One, and because its substance is a kind of single part of what belongs to the One and comes from the One, it is strengthened soparation from itself or multiplicity im the One. ‘The de. yelopmen: of one side of his thought about this ultimate and Mysterious ralationshlp, on th2 line which appears to have been followed by Porphyry, migh’ lead to a conclusion some: thing liko thie, But I'do no: think: it should be road kaolt into Potinus himsel? without better evidence than the present ambigiows passage supplies. 1 therstore, witk Cilonto, Lge! ‘and others, suppose an abrupt chango of mbject (by no means unprecedented in Plotinus) and take obrd as non-reflexive (Cit, not “itself ”) and urdarstand that Plotious is ex- pounding his normal doctrine that Tntellect constitutes itself by returning in vision or contemplation upon the One (op. eh. 52.1). 2 Wo nood not suppose any corrurtion of tho text here if, with Igal, we assume that Plotinus is briedy reminding hi readers of an anelozy which would be familiar to them, in which sense perception is sompared to a line, intallest to a irele, anc the Une to the centre of the circle. (These early ‘treatises were written for circalation only to a few intimate asiciates, for whom thio cori of eummary reminder weuld be suflieient: ep. Porphyry Life ch. 4.) 35 20 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD V. 1. rap’ exetvou wat ef exctvov. Sp@ 58 abr exciBev, olor pepor® & ducplovev, nai to Cr wal 7d vocy wat ndvra, Sr exeives pnSey rov wdvrww ratry yap rdvra && exetvov, drt ph ra popbi caretyero éxetvos: pdvov yap &v excivor at el? Hey mdvra, ev robs odow av Fr. Bid oro dxcivo obdev pay tov év 7H vp, &€ cbrob 88 advra [ev rots ofow dv Ayl2 Bid Kat odola: rare Bpiorae yap 3 Kat ofov popdiiv Exacrov yet. 73-52 by 5 Bef otix ev doplorp oloy ctupetatia, aN Sp memfydar wal ordca- ordots 8% rois voxreis Speopeds nut wopyi, ofs wud-vy duduiuvw Noppdtver. tabr as To: yeveds 6 voiis otros dgias * vob 708 raBapwrdrov pay dAdober i} 2x ris mpdrys dpyjs got, yerdpevoy 82 Bn 7a Bvra adrra civ ab7@ yevvijoa, wav pev To rev edv KaMos, ravras Se Bens voqrais: mAjon 82 dura dy eyemae Kai Sorep xaramévra rédw 7G ev abrd Eyow unde cemeody ely Gh pySi tpudivae mapa TH ‘Pep, ds 4 puoripea kai of pio of epi Gedy aivir- rovrar Kpdvov mar fedy cogcirarey mpd tov Ala yerdafar & yeng add ev care Fyew, f nad 3 Harder: 6 vel é Enn. 2 seb ich, Volkan, esdor(guindira quoguedsh), teratum e lin. 21. xsi (Bmerite 39, 1971, 157): dfioe Einn.: fiw 84 Harder, 36 ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPOSTASES py the One and made perfect in substantial existence by and from it. But Intellect sees, by means of itelf, like something divided preceeding from the undivided, that life and thought, and all things come from the One, because that God is not one of all things; for this is how all things come from him, because he is not confined by eny shapes thet One ig one alone: if he was all things, he would he numbered among beings. For this reason thet One is none of the things in Intelleet, but «ll things come from him. ‘Ihis is why they arc substances; for they are already defined and each hi kind of shape. Being must not flustuate, so to speak, in the indefinite, but must he fixed by limit and sta- ;_ and stability in the intelligible world limitetion and shape, and itis by these that i: receives existenee. Of this lineage "+ is this Intellect of which we are specking, a lineage worthy of the purest Intellect, that it should spring from’ nowhere clsc but the first principle, and when it has eome into existence should generate all realities along with itsclf, all the beauty of the Ideas and all the intelli- gible gods; and it is full of the beings which it has generated and as it were swallows them up again, by Keoping them in iteclf and beceuse they do not fall on: into matter and are not brought up in the house of Rhea; as the mysteries and the myths about the gods say riddlingly that Kronos, the wisest god, beiore the birih of Zeus took back and kept within himself all that he begat, and in this way is full and fi Riese fem, Wiad «231, appli by Bravo (Repitic ‘VILL 647A4-5) to the birth of civil sive in hie ideal state— sncthoe ourioas eacc of Pletinus romombering Plato's words bat, apparently, Sorgetting theic eontext (ep. ch. 3, 1.2, p. 19). 37 0 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD Y. 1. mdifons real vods dy képa pera 82 cadrd pace Ala yey wépov ¥8x Sure sluyiy yap yerv8 ved, vos dv rélaos. Kal vip réde.ov dura yavav eet, Kal jo} Svvayuy ofoay rocadrmy cyovor dvat. xpeirrov 3é ody cfdy re jw elvar 088? evrada 76 yerrdpevor, a aarroy by eldwhov elvas aiizod, ddpioroy per choadrws, dpeldperoy 8¢ Ind 100 yer vicavros xa! olov eidomoiosjuevor. vod 8é yévrmpa Doyos v1 Kai indoranis, 76 dlavoolperov" ToUro 5 dori 73. regi voy «uodpevov Kal vod Pde Kab Tyros ekyprypdiey exeivov, ward Odrepa piv 5 curnypévor exetvy Kal rasirg dmompmAdpevov Kat dzohafoy wal peradaupver aBro8 Kai voods, kare. Dkreper 88 eharrénerov rv per’ abr, wédov 52 peniy wal ied, & yuyfs dvdyen evar yefpova- epi dv barepov deeréov. ad peyp: rovrwv 7h Ocha. 8. Kat bed tofco wel ni TM Adrwvey tporid vb advra epi tov mdvrwy Bacrdéa—dnot yap mpiro—kai Sedzepoy mepi td BevTepa Kat epi ta tpira rpirov. Age & Kal rod aizlov evar maréps alzov pay 7dv vodv Myer Sypuoupyds yap 6 voos adeip- ratrov SC dyue viv duxiy routy év 7G xoariipe exci, 705 airlov 8¢ 1 For thie interpretstion of the myth and play on Kpéves— kipos op.ch. 4 and n. | there. ® Plotinus’s invariable assumption thet the product 0: off- spring musl be inferior to the Producer or perent, vhich ko Tether strangely asseris here, is borne out Uy our experience inthis worlé. Did he consider himself inferior to his parents? 2 Op. ch. Ly me 2, ps 13. 38 ON THE THRE PRIMARY HY POSTASES: js Intellect in satiety; and after this they say he begat Zeus who is then his Koros [thet is, boy and gaticty] 15 far Intellect generates son], sinoe perfect Intellect, Por since it was perfoct it hed to generate, ard not be without offspring when it vag so reat a power. But its offtpring could not be better then it (this is nol su even ere below) but had to be a lesser image of it and in the same way indefinite, but defined by its parent and, so te speak, given a form. And the offspring of Intellect is a rational form and an existing being, that which thinks discursively; it is this which moves round Intellect and is light and trace of Intellect and dependent on it, united to it on one side and so filled with it and enjoying it end sharing in it and thinking, but, on Ute Gther side, im touch with the Uhings which came after it, or rather iise'f generating what must nec sarily be worse than soul; zbout these we must speak Jater.® ‘This is as far xs the divine realities extend 8, This is the resson why Plato says that all things are threefold “ ahont the ising of all he mears the primary realities—and “‘ the second about the second and the third about the third". But he also says that there is a “ father of the cause ", meaning Lutelleet by © the cause”: for Intellect is his crafts- man} and he says thatit makes Soul in that“ mixing- 39 10 15 20 25 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD Y. 1. v08 Svros mardpa dyot réyaBey Kad 76 excxcrs vob Kal emékewa odelas. wolAayod B27 dv seal rdw wots ways Baw Ader ore TAdrema af Bp dic pdx réyyabod roy vor, de Be 708 vod Ty yoy. real cya rods Myous robode ji} xawods p82 vor, ENA riédos per elpiiaBas pi) Evamewrapdrers, rods Be viv Adyous Eaynrds cwetvwow yeyordvae papre- piois morwoapdvous ras BéEas ravras maaeds cra rots adrod rod [Adrwres ypdypact. farcro piv ob) wal Lapar’Bys mpdzcpov rAs rowatrns Eqs Kaddcov cls raked ovrfyer dv Kal vod, ual 7d dy ob« ev rots alaQyrots éribero “ed dp ated wots dart re cat elvos" Méyeow. kat dulyntoy 83 Réyce roGro—Kakror mpooriels 78 vocty—cwparucly mécav xivgaw ealpov da! airo3, va péry doadrws, wal Syeq opalpas dreindfev, Srv mdvra Eyer mepecednppdva nad Sr 70 voety ude tw, GAN bv davrgi. &v 82 Adywr ey rots Eavt0d avyypdppuow uiriaw elyev dy rod dis rotrov moAd eBproxopévev. 5 Be apa LAd- rev Tappenidys éxpBéorepov Meywv Biaipet der? Totinus begins his demonstration dab hiv duowine of Use ‘Three Hypostases is the true dactrine of Plato with a favourite text from the Platonic Letter II 312E1—4, which he also cites in, §. 2 and VI. 7. 42 and alludes 20 in IIL, 5. 8 He gocs om to refer to supporting texis ftom Latter VI 323D3-5 and Pinucis J4DI. aud 41D43. Plctinas elweys identifies Plato's oraftiman with his on Tntellect, never with Soul, whose function in making the physical universe he sees as subordinate end instrumental: op. V. 8.7. 40 ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPOSTASES bowl” he speaks of And the fazher of Intellect whieh is the eause he calls the Gaod and that whieh is beyond Intellect and “beyond being”? And he also often calls Being and Intellect Idea: so Plato knew that Intellect comes from ihe Good and Soul from Intellect. And [it follows] that these statements of ours are not new; they do aot belong to the present time, hut were made long ago, not explicitly, and what we have said in this discussion has been en interpretation of them, relying on Plato's ‘own writings for evidence that these views are ancient® And Parmenides also, before Plato, touched on a view like this, in that he identified Being end Inteliect and that it-was not among things perceived by the senses that he placed Being, when he said “ Thinking and Being are the same. And he says that this Being is unmoved—though he does attach thinking to it—taking all bodily movement from it that it may remain always in the same state, and likening it to “the mase of a sphere ”, ‘Deeause it holds all things in its eireumference and because its thinking is not external, but in itself But when he said it was one, in his own works, he was open to eriticism because this one of his wes discovered to be many. But Parmenides in Plato speaks more accuretely, and distinguishes from each * Auusier very Cavourile yasmaye from Pla Repubtic VI 50ORS-10, 2 The belief shat the truc doctrines are present, but often. not explicit, in the writings regarded as tradit.onsily authori- tative is, for obvious reasons, essential for pagan aad Christian Uadisionslists of the firs, centuries a.. (and for Christian tradisionalists later): op. Origen De Princepiie I 3. 4 The references are to Parmenices Diels B 3 (eited also st 1.4, 10. 6and ILL 8. 8.8) and B 8, 26 and 43. 0 19 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD V. 1 GAdiAww 10 mparor Ev, & kuptdrepor Ev, wai Sedre pov &y moAAa Adyev, nad zplrov bv ai woAAd. seat coiphones aftrms wai ade éare rats duiacan vais spioly, 9. Avagayspas 52 voor xuBapdy kat dmeyh Neyer Gadodv «ai abrés rerae 73 rpa@rov Kai yuipecroy 70 &, 76 8 dxpipes BV dpyadryra cupiae. wut “Hpdidevros 8¢ 76 Ev older didiov cai vonrév: te yap sdépara yiyveras del Kal plovra. 1 Be “Hyre~ Boxe? 76 verteos uy diaupel, 3é PtAla 73 O— Gacsparov 8¢ Kal ab7ds TodTo—7d BE oroeyeta obs Edy. ‘Apto7ordys 83 forepov ywpectdy wey 7d mpdrov Kol von7év, vocty St aire davrd Aye dd oS ob 7d mpeGrov moet rola 84 wal CMa verre nosdy «ai rovaiira, éndqat 8» odpard cdaipau, 1 Exacrov éxdormy kur}, dMAew zpdmow Aéyer 7% ev rots voqreis 4} [Mdrwr, 76 eBdoyor of Exov di dyenv riéuaros, émorioce 8 dv ms, kat ed Nbyws* eDoyssrepoy yap ndaus rpds plav ovvragw awrshoboas apis & Kai 78 mpdrov Bréraw. Cprfocic & dv vis 74 TOAd voyrd ef e£ évds eorw Gbr 100 npdicov, 7) roMai al év rois vonrois 1 Plato Parmenides 1870-1424, 144E5 and 155E5. The interpretation of the Parmentaes Acopted here umy be New- Pythagorean: coo E.R. Dodde “The Parmenides of Plato ard the Origin of the Neoplatonic “One ?”, 0.G. 22 (1928) 129-42. Note the sharp distinction made between the his- torical Parmenides ond Plato's Parmonides. Plotinus always cites, the PreSocratics (Including Pythagoras) to provide supplementary corroberation of the dostrines which he finds in Plato, He doos not rogord thom as traditionsl anthovities on the same level as Plato, and often thinks they are wrong 4a ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPOSTASES other the first One, which is more properly called One, and the second which he cells “ One-Mary ” and the third, “One end Many "2 In this way he too agrees with the doctrine of the three natures. 9, And Anaxagoras also, when he says that In- tellect is pure and uamined, posits Unal Uke first principle is simple and chat the One is separate, but he neglecis to give an accurate account because of his antiquity aclitus also knows that the One is eternal and intelligible: for bodies are always coming into being and flowing away. And for Empedocles Strife divides, but Love is the One—he too makes it ineorporeal_ end the elements serve asmatter? Later, Aristotle mskes the first prineiple sesarate and intelligible, but when he says that it knows itself, he goes back again and does not make it the first principle; and by meking many other intelligible realities, as many as she heavenly spheres, that cach particular intelligible may move one par ticuler sphere, The deceriles the intelligible world i a different way from Plato, making a probable assumption which has no philosophical necessity. But one might doubt whether it is even probable for It would be more probable thet all the spheres contributing their severe] movements to = single system, should look to one prineip'e, the first. And one might engnire whether Aristotle thinks that the many intelligibles derive from one, the first, or whether there are many primary principles in the (as Parmonides hers), confused or cbscuro (cp. the remark about Anaxagoras at the beginning of the next chepter). © ‘The references are to Anaxagoras Diels B 12, Kmpedocles B 26, 5-6, ond che eort of goneral ooeount of the toachngs of Heraclitus given in Diogenes Laertius TX 8 (=Diels A 1). 43 Br 20 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD V. 1. épyal: Kal el pov & ads, dvdduyov Sydovdrs Bea chs &y ois aloByrois af ofatpar Eqs aNqw meprexovons, pits 8€ AS efw Kpuvuduyy Gore epiéyor dv Kdxed 16 apirov Kai xdoyos voqris Zora rat Gonep evraita af ofaipar ot xevel, EAM. peor} dorpuw 4 npdmy, al 8é Zyovew dezpa, obrw xdxel ré xwoivra roa ev adrots eer Kal 7a @yBkorepa éxet. eb BE Exacrov apy}, Kard ovrrvyiay a! dpxad éaovrarr wal 8:6. 76 ovvécovrar kal mpis bv epyov ri rod ravrds otpavod oyuguowl- av duovofon; mis 8 toa mpds 7 vonra Kat ruvobvra 7a év obpaxd aianrd ; mds 88 ral moda obrue doar dura Hays ob xwplovons: core zu dpyainw of pddvora owracedpevor ob reis Tledaydpov xal caw pier’ adrév ral DepexiBous 88 rep radrqy pcr Zoyor rip fleur AM’ of per abriav Adyow, of Se ode eepydoarrs by ade ey Myors, AN & dypddors Belvo ovvowsloie us dfetoww. 10. "Ore 88 obrw xpr) vopdlew exe, ds Zon piv 16 dnéxewa Soros 16 cp, ofor *Dedev 6 ASyos Beue- révuc ds oldv te Hv wept rotrew a8etaucac, dor Bt edekifs 73 dv nut vods, xplry 88 ris yuxs * "This erticiam of the decixine of the Unmoved Mever(s) expounded by Aristotlo in Aetephysics A looks rather like & Platonio developmen of that made by Thesphrastas Meta- pliyvics TL 7-9 Those—Tobes; but tho rsemblanes is not close enough for us to assume that Plotirus had read Thecphrasbus. 44 ON THE THREE PRIMARY HYPUSLASES intelligible world; and if they derive from one, the situation will clearly be analogous to that of the heavenly spheres in the sense-world, where each conLains he other and onc, the outermost, dominates s so thst there too the first would contain the others and there will be an intelligible universe; and, just as here in the sense-world she spheres are not empty, but the first is full of heavenly bodics and the others have heavenly bodies in them, so there also the moving principles will have many cealities tn them, and the realities there will be truer. But if each is, srimary principle, the primary principles will be a candom assembly; and why will they be acommunity and in agreement on one work, the harmony of the wholeuniverse? And bow ean the pereeptible beings in heeven be equal in number to the intelligible movers? And how can the intclligibles cven be many, when they are inecrporeal, as they.are, and matter does not divide them’? For these reasons those of the ancient philosophers who took up posi- tions closest to those of Pythagoras and his suecessers (and Phereeydes)® held closely vo this nature; but come of them worked out the idca fully in their own writings, others did not do so ir written works but in unwritten group discussions,? or left it altogether lone. 1). [thas been shown that we ought to think that this is how things are, that there is the One beyond, being, of such a {kind as our argument wanted to show, s0 far as demonstration was possible in these matters, and next in order there is Being and * Op. Phorecydes Diele A 29. 3 This may possibly be n reference to. Plotinns’s master Ammonius: op. Longinus in Porphyry Lije ch. 20. 45 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD Y. 1. 6 déuis, H8n Serxrar. Sorep 82 dv 74 dibcer sper. ratrd éore 7a elpyucra, ofres xo} vopilen Kab crap? jute rabie elva. Nyw BF ode ev rots aiodyrots—yupiora yap tadra—ddN eal rots aioIgrav Ew, wat tov adzov cpénov 73 “Ew” Guuep ndneiva red warrds obpavod eu obre wal 10 rd 703 dulpdiov, ofor Meyer TlAdraw roy clow dOpwmov. gor soiny aif Huerépa poh Beidy 1 cai ddacws GAdys, nota néou 4 ipuxtis dbcis- redeia 82 4 voov Exoueas yobs 82 6 pev Ropitdperos, § 88 Roytteatar mapéxwr. 73 Bip RepeSdperor rota ris Innis olBerds zie 7d 18 JoplZerDar Sedpevow omparixod dppdvov, Thy BE evépyetan avro6 ev nallape éxor, va nab doyibeobae xabapiis oléw re, xwpiarby kai od Kexpupevov cdpan &v 7B mpebres vor Ts TO¢wevos ode Sy oddddorro. ob ydp rézov Syrqrécv 0b lSpdooper, aX Eu rérov mavrds movréoy. oir yap 73 20 kal? abrd cat 76 ew Kat 76 dvdov, Sra pdvov F Bev Eyov map ris ocbparos giocws. bid rotro wal ere ZEwlé gnaw éni rod tavrds Thy foxy aepBodev ABeuerdpevos ris duyiis 76 & 28 voqr® prov: eal 82 spin emnptaraw) x? 3 Hota apnd Hasder: ér. «ovary (-rey K) Tn. + Tho phrase comes from Plato Republic TX 587N7. Ploti- us uses'it again ot T. 1. 10, 15 [see my note there). This 46 ON “LHE THREE PRIMARY HY PUSLASES Intellect, and the nature of Soul in the third place. ‘And just as in neture there are these three of which we have spoken, so we ought to think that they are present also m ourselves. I do not mean in [our- selves as] beings of the sense-warld—for these three are separate [from the things of sense}—but in [ourselves as] beings outside the realm of sense- perception; “ outside” acre is used in the same sense as those realities are also said to be “outside ' the whole universe: so the corresponding realities jn man zre said to be “ outside”, as Plato speaks of the “inner man”! Our soul then also is a divine thing ard of-a nature different [from the things of sense], like the universal nature of soul; and the human soul is perfect when it has intellect; and intellect is of two kinds, the one which reesons and ‘the one which makes it possible to reason, Now this svasoning par; of the soul, which needs no bodily instrument for its reasoning, but preserves its activity in purity in onde: that it may be able to engage in pure reasoning, one could without mistake place, as separate and unmixed with body, in the primary intelligible realm. For we should not look for @ plece in which to pat it, bul make il, exist. oulside all place. For this is how it is by itself and outside and immaterial, when it is alone ard retains nothing from the nature of body. This is the reason why Pleto says of the universe also that the craftsman ‘wrapped the scul soundit ” from outside ”, indicating the part of the soul which ccaains in Ube intelligible and he said obscurely ebout us thet the soul is“ on whole chapter shows clearly Plotinus's sense of she inade- auscy of spatial metaghors and the need of using them conscicusly and critivally. 47 3 0 PLOTINUS: ENNEAD V. 1. diepe

    You might also like