Notes on the ΠΕΡΙ ΨΥΧΗΣ ΑΠΟΡΙΑΙ of Plotinus (Ennead IV. III-IV)

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Notes on the of Plotinus (Ennead IV. III-IV) Author(s): E. R. Dodds Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 1934), pp. 47-53Published by: on behalf of Cambridge University Press The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/636848Accessed: 26-02-2015 19:58 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:58:41 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES ON THE HEPI PTXHI AIIOPIAI OF PLOTINUS (ENNEAD IV. III-Iv).

IV. iii. I. 1. io Br6hier (Volkmann vol. II. p. 9. 1. 12). (Reasons for studying psychology.) CTEVY rTE &A rdX& A Ka Ep K pcEV /ovX0(EvoL &sKalo

aiv 'Tb C0Ov Tt71 EOr' CTr'L "

70OO7 rTO't7EVt do 'E EpaOr-b 2TOrOVoVTES 13 E GEV C

oLl'Tpt.v rav y'p

K(L& EV 7T TaV7Tt V TB OLTTdV -(7 TE EUYW EV TOL KGT/a (EOS T UEV OCTS (XXOV, T6 S OV'TWR.

The clause obelized above has been much solicited by critics, but to little purpose. Failing (apparently) to realize that roo00vTE is parallel to povX4LEvo&, Vitringa proposed OEq'LE'

av for 0EGlJrwYv,

Miiller omitted rE, and Volkmann altered roo00vrvTE to ro000ov. The first of these conjectures is as inacceptable in sense as it is palaeographically improbable. The others leave untouched the real difficulties, viz. (i) the odd partitive genitive

0Ea,/-=Lv (which ought at least to have the article);

(ii) the obscure connection of thought between this sentence and the next. Gollwitzer saw that the last syllable of OEaudacTvY represents the remains of a dependent genitive; he proposed to read OEaE/a 1Tv , and accounted for the obscurity by positing a lacuna. I believe that nothing is lost, and that the true

reading is rd TTE Epao-rbb IroOVvrES X aperv 8 0 aa ro ' v o ,.

Written GEalaa av it would very easily be read as

0EaLri10Jv. And the connection of thought now becomes clearer.

Study of the cognitive subject is desirable not only in other kinds of cognition but even in the contemplation of vov^s (by the soul which has become vov^, and might therefore be thought to be completely merged in its object). For even in universal voGs there is a duality of subject and object; and the same will be true of the soul in contemplation.

IV. iii. 6. 1. 21 Br. (Volk. II. 16. 13). (The higher grades of soul have more creative power.) aWovaoa y7p

aruas ,r'

WrcakXoGV E-K 70'T p?UTOV TOLOVL-SvvCL/eW?a ydp IEL'ovos /tq 7rCGAXEL iv oEVs roTOLE^-- 8 E'

Eva-L K 'K TOy CLv) lEVE. /IEVOvoaC o Ev v aV'rT VoLE

r 7rpoo'Tv1rJv, aC &

aCraC rrpojX~ov (Brehier: rpooa-XAov codd.). Sa6va/c EK 70 Toe VWO E

is taken by Miiller and M. Brehier to mean ' the power from on high abides,' which sounds very well. But (i) the Greek for 'the power from on high' is - q"&vapv- q avwe&v, or possibly

'

Svavls 1 ,K r70v^ &vw: (ii) what is

meant by saying that this power 'abides'? According to Plotinus it is the higher soul itself, not its Uvapes, which abides (i.e. does not descend into Matter). Read M E v E V : ' their power arises from abiding on high.' In the next sentence the subject of IrotEd is the world-soul.

IV. iii. io. 1. 30o Br. (Volk. II. 22. 32). (The

v~Epy.cta of soul contrasted with those of 'inanimate' matter). rvppb p~v

yap OEppd /rotLEV, KaL Tb 1V'XEv daov - c vLX s 82 7? r phv E$ iE'S ZT dn LXIo, rb 8? T v aECrj. TOLS LEV yap a #Xors b v Lv i a,7'v o0ov EL E&L KEdEvov aVVTO&Is, b &a ElS (XXO /opoL&rat rp~s a'rb b

raeOLiv vvcLfvov L Ka KOLVbV a1 TO'70 r av'7T 7T 7, ES O(LV a'7T 8yEV.

The general drift of this passage (which I have repunctuated) is quite clear. /vX has two activities, an extrinsic (4$ ai;7s -ls &XXo 1. 31 Br., Etls &AXXo 1. 36) and an


48 E. R. DODDS

intrinsic (iv ai-r 11. 32 and 35-6). The extrinsic activity is found also in tvyX (Ed aiXXo 1. 33), as a tendency to produce specific modifications (e.g. of temperature) in their environment; but the intrinsic activity is 'asleep' (1. 33) in tvXa, whereas it is ' awake' (1. 36) in lvXx'. As read, however, in the MSS. and editions, the sentence about the &tvXa contrasts Trb E' a-3i-Gv and T ELS aXXoo as if they were two different activities. It seems certain that E' acT iW^v is not in place. After the copyist had written Tb p/v in 1. 32 his eye was presumably caught by

-b 6/v i~

a;-?is in the

previous line, and he repeated i$ aVr--which a subsequent copyist would inevitably alter to E a;vTv.

IV. iii. 16. 1. 8 Br. (Volk. II. 28. 21). (Examples of accidents which may happen to men irrespective of their deserts.)

olov r 7rTroVO- TY rvOLKOSO/AUlS TrV rOroTERoVT

TOa aO TVETV OO T970 P, 7, K l TLOVW SVO KaT. 'r6$Wv 4Epopivov

" Ka''1'1 9 T 6I7E rvv Tpo)Rjvcu a T "

/7a)Tvcu. Every reader must have been struck by the extraordinary vagueness and

ineptitude of the second illustration. 'Si deux choses s'avancent (ou meme une seule) d'un mouvement r6gulier, elles brisent ou ecrasent ce qu'elles rencontrent': so M. Brehier, and so also Miller and Mr. MacKenna. ' Deux choses' should be ' deux personnes':

:raTdE and its compounds are never, so far as I know, used of inanimate

agents. But whether persons or things, why should these unspecified moving objects inflict injury rather than receive it? and why such emphasis on their number? Miiller suggested his usual remedy: ' 860 et q' KaiU v fortasse del.' But as a comment on 7T-OV KRTa7 T *ri$ /Ep1poov the words seem too fatuous even for a mediaeval scribe. I am pretty sure that Kaar& 7i$t V EpOlfEVOV is used in the military sense, and I suspect that rTLvV conceals a military collective noun (the only sort of noun with which Sio would have any point here). Plotinus may have written T) KGL I iV 80 : ' when two squadrons of horse are charging (each other) in line, what falls in their way is wounded or trampled under foot.' Conceivably he added )q KaE ~vi as an after- thought; but I should rather attribute these words to a reader who had watched troops of horse galloping through the narrow streets of a mediaeval town. Later IAi2N may have been read as NUN, and so corrupted to r-vwv. The word is common in Hellenistic Greek as an equivalent of either turma or ala.

IV. iii. 26. 1. 24 Br. (Volk. II. 40. 23). (Does memory belong to the soul or the body ?) rt osv, Ed av-T v (sc. - vX,)

JLVA-LOVYVCEC, TO E 6fL ELV CU T9 tT) KaclA)pa ELVaL, ciXX' Oxrtrk p rotwo lacrc, vavcpx-rerOO

&wL TOV3OWS TrV cl1OrOT(^V TV5rroV9 KTX.

Vitringa's insertion of up before vq1wovEo

is rightly rejected by M. Br6hier: this theory asserts not that memory is corporeal, but that it has a corporeal basis. But as the sentence stands

divairTTE-caS 8SvR'cTc KTX. is not a satisfactory antithesis to

av-rq LVLOVEvEL, and the two unlinked causal datives are very awkward. Read rt o0v, El avT'q fev r Ty cOVEVEL, T y iv wirt dvcu (sc. I/Avq,/mOvEUcE')- T) ) KacapL dyat KT-X. After Etvat, Kat would readily fall out.

IV. iii. 27 init. (Volk. II. 41. 27). (Memory belongs to the soul, not to the body.) diXX& rivos ivx~s (sc. lTo-nv

ro{^ b'Xov ; Plotinus here distinguishes the empirical individual from the higher self which is

the indwelling presence of the world-soul. But I do not know what is meant by the assertion that we call the former'more divine.' To call the individual soul more divine than the world-soul would be blasphemy to any Greek thinker. To call it more divine than the organic consciousness or (ov would be possible in another


NOTES ON PLOTINUS 49

context; but it is clear from the sequel that it is here (as often) conceived as in- cluding the iqov. I suggest that Plotinus wrote not

oELov-paT but oI K

oL pa Cf. IV. viii. 3. 1. 23 Br. (Volk. II. 146. 29) 1rpo Aapoir y7p (sc. W tvvX) r4 voEph CVcaL Ka& EXXO, K0' 8 Tv oV 0 K C v EYXEv VrWTrWLV, voO OVK ILELVEV.

Ibid. 1. 7 Br. (Volk. II. 42. I). (Evidence from the Homeric Nekyia about the survival of memory after death.)

'r yo v d&wXov e v (ov 'HpaKXovUs - TOTO7 yP KaL TK t eioXov, o'aE, XP) volUEwV tLaXs IUVoLAOVEeX V

w rv rrepay7pv(ov

rrVTWV Karad TV p to, LroqTO ap

.XVV Kv O yV. a

a cXXat T6b

o-va,/EpoTEp

oraat o68v 'rov Xov s eXov Xy ev 7 & a Vro iov TOVTOV Ka OTaLL (at_.rcz C) T6 OVVa/46'TEPOV YEVOIAEVat TaDVra -aV. i--q EL L" rT &KaLO0`V'lg

5 ~~oVOV A 8 . 'HpaoKX~jS

a vEV r cE&utioul deyv, l oe K dOPrVL. Buo"

Ti OVV V Gr70 , qotina svXy 'ti7rakeayCT s sposve); n' yap EEXKOtlEyVt 0rt KCLl' ?7VTa, orda ErptoEv l EraOEv 0 (hvOput7rO" Xpovov

& 7nrpOa E OVTO E73 rt ToVcT Ko bmXXw ivskth/Lat ainv iavEEv CK T(OW 7pooEv /3Piwv. There are several difficulties here. (i) Kal in 1. 1 is meaningless. Kirchhoff

thought something was lost after sqatis. Miiller deleted the whole phrase mTOTO

y7p Ka Tb dLoXov. Volkmann, more cautiously, deleted Kat. But what is it that

Plotinus 'thinks we must suppose' (o'a, Xpt voltvi w as)? According to Volk- mann (who puts a colon after pua^s) the supposition to be made is that the infernal Heracles is the EL&oXOV of Heracles (as Homer says, Od. xi. 602). According to Miiller and M. Brehier, it is that the infernal Heracles remembers his outward life on earth. Neither view is quite satisfactory: would Plotinus say 'I think we must suppose' something for which we have the explicit evidence of Homer ? Read K 0

5

for Kl o6: Plotinus thinks we must suppose that if a departed spirit remembers its outward earth-life, it does so qu aEl&oXov, and he gives his reason-' for the earthly life belonged mainly to the Ett&8Xov.'

(ii) Something is wrong with the syntax of the sentence beginning at & &XXat. Kirchhoff altered & TE (1. 3) to Td, put a colon after T0o0ov (1. 4), and continued KQt a~)Ta. Miiller, more suo, deleted the entire sentence down to iX6MEvov (1. 5). But I think only one change is needed. Read at' 8 aXXat . .. E'txov XTyEw.

7) 1 E 7 70TOt)1V TOVTOV Kai aV rT 76 rvva14OTCpOV yEv/pevaL Tca7 eVTa V, Vte TL 3LKaLOo-VV7) EXOMEvov. This gives yEv7&Evat

its proper meaning (contrast oio-as 1. 3). The first sentence states an 71bropia : the other souls in Homer, which were not mere E*&La but o-vaq46TEpa (higher plus lower soul), had nothing deeper to say than the EL&oXov had. The second sentence offers a tentative XAo-ts: having lived the life of the ovvaL(r0TEpov on earth, these souls too retained the outward memories appropriate to the lower element in the compound; in addition, they perhaps had ideas of justice (which the d~oXov has not). This latter suggestion (which Plotinus puts forward doubtfully) is based, I think, on Od. xi. 570, ot 8' p8Lv (V/ LKaS 'EIpOVTO avaKTa-a passage in which Platonizing commentators may have seen an admission that the ethical life of the soul persists in Hades.

(iii) OST in line 6 cannot be construed. Read T: 'the soul which is still dragged earthward.' This provides the right antithesis to Xpovov 7rpo"vrtO s in the next sentence. Cf. I. i. Iz2 fin., where Plotinus says of Heracles &vo 7T (0TL Ka0 i T EOYTL TL 1T0V K,,L

KcLT(O

IV. iv. 3. 1. 9 Br. (Volk. II. 50. I). (The soul identifies itself with what it contemplates.) OTt yap EXEL trdva 6evripo KaG O; OU o)

TEXo SR , 7rVTr YETCRL,

Ka, (LEOpLOV Oi'O KCL EV lTOLOVT(

KMv? V tr' dljfo

Kirchhoff omitted the Kai before oix oT7m rEXEl'o, and took these words with

rivra 7yverat. In this he has been blindly followed by subsequent editors. But the D


50 E. R. DODDS

resultant sense is unsatisfactory. ' Soul does not become all things so perfectly '-as what ? As vo^s, I suppose. But there is no becoming in vovs. For the Neo- platonist, vo^s contains all things as part of its essence (7rpoTws), and

is and knows all things in a single intuition; the soul contains all things by derivation (EvrTpws), and becomes all things successively (cf. V. i. 4). The manuscript reading is sound: ' because the soul possesses all things by derivation, and less perfectly (than vovs), soul becomes all things.' Cf. supra, 1. 6 Br., oC //vr3ovElE/ 3j vXij, KE&d T K Y7EvraL, where Plot. adds yt'vera, to correct the inexactitude of ErT.

IV. iv. 13. 1. 13 Br. (Volk. II. 6o. 6). (Distinction of

as, 4avract'a, vlcs.) Oyuv y~p (sc. ki%'sV) oVSvEas VroL Lt

OV;E cY'vecrtv eXEL' Xe - ySaveaff(a EYtvYtcTLv rcv LKToaKTOV, ^1L 8Yap Tp 4p)aaVTGrVT E'SEVCU (

'ra0ev "

S e (sc. vdo'y-s) yevvj ai~ir- (Kirchhoff: y1vva avrry codd.) Kal t& vpyEa E 6 aLVTOJ) rTO0 VEpp)YoavroS.

For iv7pyta,

which can hardly be right, Volkmann reads evpyd,

and is followed in this by M. Brehier. But ieVpydEt EK TO V^ EpoaVT70S

is an odd expression. A better sense would be obtained by the still easier change to

v,7 p ye : ' v? r ,9 generates (its object), without external stimulus (contrast rraKTroi) and by an activity (contrast rraOev), out of the very stuff of the active consciousness.'

IV. iv. 18. 1. 13 Br. (Volk. II. 64. 23). (Relation of the ego to the o-KLta "vX^ [organic consciousness] which the body

possesses.) O7TE yap TroTro 'ILV

yltg OiVr Ka Oapo0 TOV'TOV 771Ft , aXXa r$prrL Ka&

The last clause is clearly corrupt, though Miiller attempts to translate it. For O/oAos, o~/PU is apparently found as a correction in our oldest MS., Mediceus A, and as a supra-linear variant in F (in neither case are we told to what hand it is due); in several later MSS. it appears in the text, and it is accepted by M. Brehier. But is not 6 wov ) 1'w , ' equivocally,' the word required as an antithesis to KaTa 7b KvPLOV ? Cf. VI. iii. I (Volk. II. 327. I1), where the sensible world is said to be

o0 o-vvivvyov, 6~yvvov 3a Kac EIK;OV of the intelligible; and Arist. Meteor. 389b 31 0 VCKpaS avOpwrOs roov/Wos. Being a technical term, and rare in Plotinus, w/ovr ws

might well be glossed by iAXXwR. And for the same reason it would be easily misread, if written compendiously, as bpolws (or Jpos, if this be more than the conjecture of a renaissance scholar).

IV. iv. 22. 1. 43 Br. (Volk. II. 70. 10). (Has the earth perceptions? If so, how and what does it perceive? This

raises the question whether perception is valuable as an end or only as a means. Plotinus continues) TroVro MIV O)V & KEirTTOV VoTEPOV' VYV B rtveaX at, a alTO Vr OL3 T r

y Ka& io rVWV T'lvv ataOcTkrjEL, Kat rrw.

Ncowv T&vov at a0j(O-e&

has been taken in three ways : (i) by Mtiller as a subjec- tive genitive,' what organisms have perceptions ?'; (ii) by M. Br6hier (if I rightly understand his rather loose version) as an objective genitive, ' what organisms does the earth perceive ?'; (iii) by Mr. MacKenna as 'through what vital members does the earth perceive?' None of these renderings appears satisfactory. (iii) cannot be got from the Greek: even if ca could mean 'vital members,' we should still require &d, the organ being regularly Tb &' 0o: e.g. c. 22 1. 35 Br. T&vOv ov av a alcdor- 6EL Kat ba Trv(Jv ; c. 24 1. 21

rb T v EV' o', Tb 8& 05 7 atOe7~cTLS. These passages also tell against

version (i) : for in both the dependent genitive expresses the object, not the subject, of perception. In view of rda'wv, it seems almost certain that in the sentence under discussion ri'vwv at aleo-lOrs has the same meaning as at 1. 35. But to ask 'what organisms does the earth perceive ?' (version ii) is a new question, and a senseless one.


NOTES ON PLOTINUS 51 Read el [al] alcr0cres - y^, Ka 0o v,

? vwv a ai0 joS, Ka& ,7ra ' If the earth has perceptions and is a (4ov (as provisionally suggested at 1. i6 above), what does it perceive (cf. 1. 33), and how (cf. 1. 28) ?' The corruption came about through failure to apprehend the very characteristic ellipse of q y' iyr- .

IV. iv. 24. 1. 6 Br. (Volk. II. 72. 15). (Perception may be nature's device for warning us of the approach of danger.)

7) KaLL jup?7X og-r7rt 07(03 K(t 7rpLV EJ1A ov )/vE8LLt 7rto otv (E Ka\L cfOE paL, 7 KaL x rp9v 7rrkT-oLov yeve '06at, 4,vX$awrOat. d

& Ovo70,

KI-X. Miiller tried to mend the broken construction of 0r"s by inserting < vXa-

$4~t0a > after the first yev-0a &. This is clumsy as well as improbable: wrenching rrTE Ka 4 0e"pat from its natural connection with p~eov ycvic&a, it yields the con-

torted construction arz5s Okva$ulOa -rb roov ^o7rpiv pedgov ycvC'rOa&, o"Tr Kai vXad'ao-0a

4idOpaL (' uns vor einer verderblichen Wirkung in Acht nehmen ') ~ K\L vkXaaoG-& rpiv rtklayrov yevr&Oas. M. Br6hier prefers to conjecture irO7re for orws. But this is almost equally improbable, and the double rErc is not pretty. It would be much

easier and neater to insert < 1> at the end of the sentence, where, sandwiched between kvXSAdaoGOat and ed, it had an excellent chance of falling out.

IV. iv. 27 init. (Volk. II. 75. I3). (How the earth communicates generative power to plants.) el o v rois gvrols

&&Sw-mT rv yeVVYTtKl V,1 7q VTVV 'rjqV EVVV7TtK7)V, 7 eV amT-- E/AV 7V 7qVV 7JtK 7, T(rT7)S & fLVOS 77 ev rotL ivrotS. KOlL OOO" Tl KG? (t 7 ((p$ qtxO * ) KdL (K7oIl8M0ol, EL XEtL KaL 7)V Y1evvy7tK7)V V av'roS ra v'rTd. Much ingenuity has been wasted on this blameless passage, which edd. print as a single sentence. Kleist proposed to delete riv Y VVy)rLKV after St aL: Mifiller deleted }

ac,q\v r)v YeVVnr7LKqv: Volkmann deleted r?)v Y eVV-rqTKV, 1.: M. Brehier, to his credit, deletes nothing, but he reads arl'7TLKv for the second yeVV2ThrKLv. All that is needed is to point at 4vrols, as I have done above. Translate ' If then the earth

communicates to plants their generative power, either it bestows the actual principle of generation or else this remains in the earth and the generative life of plants is no more than a trace of it. And even in the latter case (oirws) the plants would already be comparable to the living flesh of animals; while if they actually (Kat) contain in themselves the principle of generation, the earth is still its ultimate source.' The alternatives are the same as those presented in the first sentence of chap. 22.

IV. iv. 31. 1. 43 Br. (Volk. II. 83. 15). (Even if the temperature of the stars under which a man is born may account

for his temperament, it hardly explains the whole of his conduct. Plotinus continues) XX"' EL Ka 7rav7a (sc. aVdyot -Tr r e a a--T7p), 7;-s 7yov r; Xlpovs 7. Ka fcX~rtovs, 7rXoviovs Kat ?~vIITclg, Kat ra~rpowv ci'vyaas -q au-ic v, 6rqaoxvp^v i- eypcra'R

Mitller deleted -q ai'rTv. Volkmann read "i ai, and is followed by M. Br6hier (that this renders meaningless the Te after 8ro'avpwv appears, very oddly, to have been overlooked by both of them). But the reading of the MSS. may be sound. That a man's own e;yvet may be mentioned side by side with his ancestors' is proved by Soph. Phil. 874 dXX' E~yEVrs yap 4xrts d% cNy%.Cv.v, 'you are a gentleman by nature and by birth.' So here

ra't'pov eycvelasd may refer to the fact of noble

breeding, a3~-v 'ycvcelas to its effect on the character of the nobly bred. The two

are distinct, but both are clearly independent of astral influences. IV. iv. 33. 1. 7 Br. (Volk. II. 86. 3). (Plotinus illustrates by the similitude of a dance the manner in which the parts

of the universe serve the purposes of the whole.) r& tv I$w rrpbh t'lv 'pxyo(rtv . . .t aV XeS A'yot . . .; XhA i-a )pLp 70 r7)v 0pX7)0Ly r7apeXOtEpVOV Ka' EKarTOV Xa 2f


52 E. R. DODDS

avdy.K. oK aVV Ta7o v EXVELat0 tVTr7 V O 7ToX^r (W/70T O TaVT .(VVE7rr~OVOV

Kai KaI=roIL VOVt Ka l

rtEo~oLEov pUeV ETpov, (whE&'vov N

aXXov, KrX. (i) Miiller's VXyetv for EXELV (1. 13 Br.) seems in a fair way to become the textus

receptus. Yet it is clearly wrong. After asking 'why need one describe X ?', it is not logical, even if it were to the point, to continue ' but one could not describe Y in the same manner.' It is not to the point, however. The point is that not only do the dancers consciously subject themselves to the rhythm of the dance, whose law is constant change, but each limb of each dancer makes its ever-changing contribution to the pattern, now lifted high, now contorted or concealed or lowered to the dust (11. 20-2), in obedience to the will of the whole (1. I8). Keep *XEtv, and translate 'But the limbs (not "the rble," as Brehier) of the dancer cannot maintain the same posture in every figure.'

(ii) In the next clause all edd. since Kirchhoff alter OVEwIro/LVOV Kat KaTLrrO~LEVOV into plurals, to agree with AeEXv. But if the pFAIX here are (as they seem to be) the

same as the Ipp'r of the main sentence, there is no need of a genitive absolute. It seems best to keep the singular participles, in agreement with ac'/Laro7, and regard -Tv /~LPwv as a gloss (a correct and needed gloss) on the following series of genitives, 7.~pov.

. . AXXov .. . 70rv /LE . . . To . IV. iv. 35. 1. 19 Br. (Volk. II. 89. 5). (The similitude of the dance explained in terms of the

/piya ov which is the

cosmos.) Ka 7 ra' V c-x, aaotov o oyov3US ,vaL t &qtacrTiELSOe C Kov at pvOoj Kal cOEX&L NOV KaTa XOyov, T7 aE \SLtOT71KTa Kat

E X 1TVaTL-ELVa"" XvAt aX at?

Kal KtEtva t TOv ov

Svva'/lAc, Xopts ; ?'7%

rproatpco'cos a'Xak T'&s Joi ov u'Pry,

'r2 Ib C\ S rpoaLploS

aT'o~v T Kat o avveov RpVVTXV 70Jp 0o o 70To ovTovE tTy7V (L. I LL( V /A p t 7faOLPoE(t7 EVOS C OV, at 8e 8VVCaLELe at aXXaU aio rrov 7rpb ahb 7roXXal. This passage presents several difficulties. (i) uc'Xrq &Xaa can hardly be right: for it can only mean ' other members' (not ' its various members,' as M. Brehier and Mr. MacKenna); and this would imply that the

oXqt/a'ra are in some sense

' members,' which is clearly not the case. Read AXry a X' X hk: ' the discrete elements of the pattern are limbs of the world-animal; but also . .

(ii) Trb T6 7poatpi'reoTE abroL 3$o can hardly mean ' the element of will is external to them' (Miiller and M. Brehier). Plotinus, like any other Greek, would have expressed this by '$o aI'VTV. It ought to mean ' their element of will is external (to the nature of the gCqov),' or ' extroverted '; and this is confirmed by what we are told later in the chapter, that the wills both of the universe as a whole and of the individual stars within it are directed upon something outside the universe, viz. av'r Trb dyaG6v. avroh must refer to r7

StEr0-TKo7 TKa i

"

a-X TL/EVa (1. 21 Br.), not to Iov /Ip'r (1. 23 Br.) which if the text is sound are involuntary 8vvd6qEL (but possibly we

should read Ta-S (S d)ov ~LpPr). (iii) If this interpretation is right, M. Br6hier is mistaken in altering

rpb a'rd in the last sentence to rrphb aXAo. The will of the world organism is directed upwards upon the Good; its other functions are

a'ro

^ rpbs aiTrd-they are involuntary reac- tions of one part of the organism upon another. That at '8 evv6aies . . . roXXa refers to the world organism, and not to organisms in general, is clear from the sentence following.

IV. iv. 40. 1. io Br. (Volk. II. 95. 5). (How magic works.) 6XK [Kirchhoff: dX~K, dXKj, oKXKi codd.] 4pXOtK &&

7oflTas CarX I/ [Kirchhoff: r.XVr codd.] y7yvrTat, rpooeTOTrJv EdraacaLs cfV'e &XhXa XXots ovvayeyoob Kat .yKe. ..VOV i xoia Epo7a. The latter part of this sentence has been misunderstood. koirts cannot refer to

persons, as M. Br(hier and (apparently) Miiller take it: for o-wvvayoy's does not mean


NOTES ON PLOTINUS 53

Snaturellement lie' but 'capable of drawing other things together.' Nor can we render, with Mr. MacKenna, 'implant in others a new temperament, one favouring union':

7rpo-rtOwva& is not &PlrotcZv. The 'Jn5O"ES are the ingredients of love-philtres.

Translate 'applying by contact to different persons different substances which have the power of drawing them together and have desire in their composition.' Plenty of specimens of this procedure are to be found in the magical papyri.

IV. iv. 42. 1. Ii Br. (Volk. II. 96. 28). (The parts of the physical universe influence each other involuntarily. Plotinus

continues) KaL 7rb v 8KV 6W o-arTw d rLS

7 I"p-P 8N&(T L Kca 7rap' a Tro KaL EXKKravTros T0 Xov E& &/ tp0a TL OaVTOV KEq.LEVOV T0i 3 aTO1) 1APE(tLTL T9 a) rq c(V0LKq&t,"3/ A 3 cLXUoTpLov roV UgTOVT3 OVY019.

The words I have obelized are decidedly obscure. Mfiller makes KE~'/LEV0V the object of ZXKK'-avTYO, and renders' weil ein anderes das, was seinen Theilen innewohnt, in einen Theil hineinzieht nach demselben natuirlichen Gesetz.' But KEo-Oat does not mean ' dwell in,' and ri5

air, (VcOLKK is not possible Greek for 'by the same natural

law.' M. Br6hier construes KE'IJEvov with Fzpo,: 'soit que l'on attire cette influence sur une partie qui est une de ses propres parties, donc de la meme nature'-a feeble sense even if it could be extracted from the Greek, which it clearly cannot. It is not apparent how Mr. MacKenna takes

KEEVOV, but he understands 7'r

arr, 4~vOtLK in

the same way as Muiller. I think we should read Trpd 0 7r yvo-tK, refer KELdEVOV to Tr

r-v, and translate ' In like manner also the Whole bestows its gifts upon its parts,

either spontaneously or when the gift is drawn by another's petition into some especial part; for the Whole is available in a natural manner to its own parts-which implies that the petitioner is no alien.' The meaning of KEl/Evov is fixed, as Mr. B. S. Page has pointed out to me, by a phrase which occurs a few lines further on (1. I8

Br.)-e- 'rt Ecafleev K 'KWV 7ra^Tt KEq?VWV, 'from sources available to all.'" The

corruption of -rpd'ry probably came about through the syllable Tpo- being misread as

TW (i.e. TY) ; in some minuscule hands the two are much alike. E. R. DODDS.

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

1 If this is not accepted, the alternative is to read i ey K C Iv vO, 'immanent in': cf. IV. iii.

13 1. 25 Br. &/KELTat y p cKdo-TQT T Kae6XOV.


Article Contentsp. [47]p. 48p. 49p. 50p. 51p. 52p. 53

Issue Table of ContentsClassical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 1934), pp. i-iv+1-62Volume Information [pp. i-iv]Front MatterInnumerable Worlds in Presocratic Philosophy [pp. 1-16]Notes on the Carmina of Apollinaris Sidonius [pp. 17-23]The Myth in Plutarch's De Facie (940F-945D) [pp. 24-30]Mons Virgilii and the Mantuan Terrain [pp. 31-34]The Occasion of Alcman's Partheneion [pp. 35-44]Ausoniana [pp. 45-46]Notes on the of Plotinus (Ennead IV. III-IV) [pp. 47-53]Notes on the De Beneficiis of Seneca [pp. 54-55]Summaries of Periodicals [pp. 56-62]Back Matter

Documents

Notes on the ΠΕΡΙ ΨΥΧΗΣ ΑΠΟΡΙΑΙ of Plotinus (Ennead IV. III-IV)