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. 1.2.7.1-3). 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 'AΦOPMAI 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 1.2.6.25. 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.

92

to be particularly apposite. To state the obvious, Nous consists of

Forms, and the standard Platonic description of Forms includes

that they are auto io x. One would thus explain aurora as an

abstract noun formed like the common <al<6<qq and and

meaning `having the quality of being <xur6 r6\ `itselfness'. Will this

do as a characterization of oiov av8pia? Yes, because it would be a

heightened version of the Platonist view that courage consists in not

being affected by externals: for this we might compare the state-

ment in the Platonic Definitions that it is gEt; Ú1tO q6fiov

(412A3) as well as the description of courage as o'c7zdcOetcx in 1.2.6. A

word that included that meaning would be appropriately equivalent in meaning to To iq' al<06 ?ÉVe.LV xot0ap6v.

It is, of course, always useful in understanding a Plotinian text to

look for a Platonic text which Plotinus may have had in mind as a

basis for his own reflections, or misinterpretations. An obvious can-

didate here is Phaedo 78D 3-7. auio r6 lJov, auro r6 xaX6v, auro

ËxcxO''tov 0 EaTLV, e, To 1 ov, e, yfi 1t0'tE. (.rLETaaO?'1'?V v Xat v '1?VTCVOUV &d v

,

, < , , , <XUTMV J 6 eam, yovoit iq ov auio xa9 avio, xaTa Tauia

lxit xai oùôÉ1to'te. ollayfl <X\?o(o30?V olliyiav If

Plotinus had had this text in mind al<6<qq could well reflect the series of cxù'to To... there, which, moreover, is followed by liovoet6'eq ov al<O xa9' that with the remainder of the sentence, could

easily be represented by iq' aurou iiivelv xoc0ocp6v 12). Could it be that

Porphyry, reading Plotinus with the same Platonic text, or at least a

similar one, such as the nearby Phaedo 79D 1 -2 13), in mind, focused

on lhJa6<mq 'tcxù'tcX EXet and therefore wrote As a

counter-argument on the same lines one might refer to Phaedo 67A, which would perhaps suggest O'CUX6T71q as an equivalent of ?t6vetv

xa8ap6v, but since that passage is basically a discussion of purifica- tion it is less obviously relevant to Nous than 78D, in so far as that is

so clearly about Forms. Another possible explanation for

Porphyry's change is that he was removing an unconventional

expression in favour of something more straightforward.

Finally, we must ask how an original al<6<qq would have become

Most obviously by simple misreading. That could have

12) This might have been reinforced by a text like Rep. 572A 1-2 where, though the context is different, is coupled with

13) Or perhaps, less close at hand, Phil. 59C 2-4.

93

been abetted by an unphilosophical transcriber finding aurora

incomprehensible, whereas even if unprecedented, would

have a clear meaning 14). Thus, for what it is worth, auioir?S is the more difficult, the easier reading, a point that should be

used with some care since unthinking application of the lectio

dif, ficilior principle seems to have been responsible for the

appearance of avio?tr?S in the passage of Sextus Empiricus which is

considered below.

Having argued for its insertion in the text of Plotinus at I.2.7.5, we must now consider briefly the other occurrences, or supposed occurrences, of the word. Let it be said immediately that it will

result from this that the entry in LSJ is misleading, and, moreover, that on the evidence given there it would have no business to appear in the lexicon at all. LSJ reads: "identity, S.E.lLI. 10.261, v.l. in

Porph. Sent. 39". 'Identity' is surely not a suitable translation: the

Greek for that is the well-attested At S.E. Adv. Math.

X.261 the editors cannot be right to print which is

preceded by xocr', a clear case of haplography for xar'a

which in any case appears in the best MS and is, further, required

by the context, since the expression is opposed to xa9' At

Porphyry Sent. 39, p. 47.3L, auroT?Tt. appears in a Stobaeus MS.

LSJ give it as a varia lectio, but again which the editors do

print here, is strongly suggested, if not as in the Sextus passage

clearly required: it is preceded by io XKTK 'tcxù'tcX '6'xetv to

which it should be equivalent, though in this case it could be

claimed that the preceding words had caused an original avTOTr?T? to

be changed to Lastly, av?oi?ios appears in the MSS of

the w family at Plotinus III. 7.11.51, but there it is opposed to To

yiwtv Ev Tw so that the of the other MSS, which all

editors except Perna print, is almost certainly correct. If it were not, then the association with ?Le'vetv here and in 1.2.7 would have some

mutually corroborative value, and the reading proposed for 1.2.7.5 would not be a hapax. Whether or not this proposal is accepted, the

entry in LSJ should be changed; if it be not accepted, it is arguable that the word should simply disappear.

University of LIVERPOOL

14) For the common confusion of with cf. J. Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford 1955), 153.