Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Blumenthal Plotinus Ennead I.2.7.5_ a Different

Blumenthal Plotinus Ennead I.2.7.5_ a Different

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Mnemosine, 1984
Mnemosine, 1984

More info:

Published by: Acca Erma Settemonti on Jul 06, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





PLOTINUS ENNEAD I.2.7.5: A DIFFERENT BY H. J. BLUMENTHAL Enn. I.2.7.1-6 in Henry and Schwyzer's editio minor (O.C.T. 1964)2) Until Henry and Schwyzer restored the MSS reading to the text all editors, and translators, from Kirchhoff to Harder's second edition (1956) followed Porphyry's Sententiae 32, p. 29.6L, and read Cilento, ad loc., while acutely suggesting that Porphyry's <al<6rqq was to be attributed to him as author rather than editor (of the Enneads), nevertheless did not venture to depart from the tradition4). This editors' choice may be seen not simply as a failure to make the distinction made by Cilento, but also as an indication of unease with the transmitted text. Yet <al<6rqq has no authority other than its presence in Porphyry's summary, while 1) Reflection on the text of this passage was provoked by a paper on I. 2 given by J. M. Dillon to the Northern Association for Ancient Philosophy at Nottingham in April 1981. It will appear as part of Plotinus and Philo on levels of virtue, in Festschrift H. Dörrie, Jahrb. für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 10 (1983). I am grateful to Dr H.-R. Schwyzer for some very detailed comments on my proposal, but hasten to add that he thinks is to be retained, and to Professor W. J. Verdenius for suggesting some improvements. 2) In the addenda to the editio maior, vol. III (1973), 352, Henry and Schwyzer now accept Kirchhoff's deletion of in line 1. 3) Similarly Macrobius, In Somn. Scip. 1.8.10, II.39.8.W, but as Henry has shown, Macrobius follows Porphyry rather than Plotinus, cf. P. Henry, Un "hapax legomenon" de Plotin, in Milanges Bidez, Annuaire de l'Inst. de Philol. et d'Hist. Orientales 2 (1934), 477-8 (hereafter Henry). For Porphyry as editor of Plotinus cf. Porph., Vita Plot. 24. 4) Plotino, Enneadi. Prima versione integra e commentario critico, I (Bari 1947), 338, but cf. already Henry, 484-5 and Plotin et l'Occident, Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 15 (Louvain 1934), 161.
90 auXo',Mq I has the unanimous testimony of the MSS even though it occurs nowhere else. Sharing the editors' dissatisfaction with I should like to propose aurora, which could very easily have been changed to at an early stage in the transmission. Al<6<qq too would be a hapax legomenon, LSJ and editors of Sextus Empiricus notwith- standing (see below), and so has the disadvantage, as compared with of not even being well attested anywhere. Never- theless there do seem to be good reasons for its installation here. Let us begin by reconsidering This reading was supported with strong arguments by Henry, in a paper devoted exclusively to its), and these arguments have been endorsed as con- vincing by Schwyzer in his discussion of the Sententiae6). In spite of this weighty support doubts must remain. In particular Henry's arguments were directed primarily against the then generally accepted and many of them would apply with equal, or even greater, force to a defence of The objection to O'CuX6-Mq is that it seems inadequate in the context, that is as a description, or indication, of what the equivalent of courage would be in Nous, where the virtues as such do not exist (cf. That Nous is immaterial, and, unlike soul, unrelated to matter in any way, is too commonplace a characteristic of it to use for a special feature of the hypostasis which might be taken as an analogue of courage. Henry cites as a parallel VI. 2 .8.4 7), but there a 6' ga-ctv &v7?a has much more point, being given as a description of entities in whose case being and being thought coincide. Further, it could be argued that xa0apo"v in the second part of the description io al<06 yiviw xa9apov in our 1.2 text already includes the sense of immaterial. KaOocp6v is certainly used in this sense as a description of To voq<6v elsewhere (cf. IV.7.10.31-32). But too much weight should not be given to this argument, particularly since there is an intentional element of tautology in any case. 5) Henry, 475-85. 6) H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotinisches und unplotinisches in den 'A
OPMAI des Porphyrios, in Atti del convegno internaz. sul tema Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, Roma, 5-9.10.1970, Accademia Naz. dei Lincei, Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura 198 (Rome 1974), 226 and n. 13. 7) Henry, 479.
91 For Henry has shown that, whatever stands in the place of should be equivalent to the second part of the description. His case rests mainly on the demonstration that each of the quasi- virtues is identified by a single feature8): thus aocpia and which describe v6qJiq are equivalent. Tal<6rqq is excluded by this constraint, unless one pays no attention to While &vX6rqq might be a satisfactory equivalent to xa8ap6v, it is less satisfactory as one to iq' al<06 iiivelv. Henry cites as a further parallel VI.8.6.22-36 where TO 0"tuXov is equated with e'Xe6Oepov, and that is equivalent to TO iq' Henry, who takes the thought of this passage as an elaboration of I.2.7, thinks the equivalence of &vXov and iq' is a strong argument for &vX6rqq in our text9). That contention is, however, open to some doubt, most par- ticularly because in VI.8.6 iq' appears to have its standard technical sense of being within our power or control, whereas the al<06 in 1.2.7 does not. The reference of l3J<1 aac?€aiEpov in VI.8.6 line 26, which Henry takes as being to the discussion in 1.2 is rather internal to that in VI. 8. Recently OLV?OT1?S has been defended again by M. del Carmen Fernandez Llorens, who gives 1.8.4 and 5 as evidence in its favour'O). 1.8.5 does not seem helpful. 1.8.4, where 8etXLa in line 10 combined with the description of soul inclining to Nous, eXd xa8apa xai eX1tÉcr'tpCX1t'tCXL, in lines 25-26, merely reinforces the equivalence of xa9apoS and lack of but that is not of great significance: lack of 5X-q being a negation of 6etXL'a might be, but it is applied to soul, which is perhaps a reason for not applying it to Nous in I.2.7. In fact, in so far as all the paradeigmatic quasi-virtues of Nous are an upgraded version of virtues in the soul, is perhaps too close to the <X7t<x9eKx which is given as a description of a'v6pt'(X in the soul at After all, eX1tcX9e.LCX does consist precise- ly in the soul's turning away from matter and so that something else should be said about quasi-courage in Nous. So much for the case against Can one justify the substitu- tion of aurora as a more satisfactory reading? Its sense would seem 8) Henry, 478-9. 9) Henry, 480-2. 10) Plotino, Perficit ser. 2.9 (1978), 19 n. 63. 11) Cf. e.g. III.6.5, and H. J. Blumenthal, Plotinus' Psychology (The Hague 1971), 54-6.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->